Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA11159; Sat, 31 May 1997 09:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 09:10:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705311310.JAA11159@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #142 TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 May 97 09:09:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 142 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: ISP Diversification Plans (Barry Margolius) Re: ISP Diversification Plans (Anthony Argyriou) Re: ISP Diversification Plans (Rick Strobel) Re: 60,000 "No-AOL" Addresses ... $59.95 (Peter Morgan) Re: AT&T/SBC Merger (Julian Macassey) Re: AT&T/SBC Merger (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Local Telephone Monopolies (Dave Wade) Re: Local Telephone Monopolies (David Esan) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Lord Somnolent) Spamming: Why do They do it? (Chuk Gleason) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry Margolius) Subject: Re: ISP Diversification Plans Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:16:49 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Yeah it's shoe-horning, but it's necessary shoe-horning. For example, my mother's two doctors both have fax machines, and neither has email. I read an interesting article on the Internet about drug interactions with a drug that she is taking. So I just faxed it to them both, and my internet fax provider was a great help. My only other choice was to print, photocopy, and mail it to them. Will they ever have email? I hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it. So, from my perspecitve, it's not wasted shoe-horning. Unless you're prepared to demand that everybody has email (and reads it), we still need older, alternative methods of delivery. barry > Now I realize there are cases where faxes are necessary -- signed documents > or those with hand-written annotations. But in today's world, the majority > of senders and receivers of faxes have e-mail accounts and mail gateways to > the Internet. Barry F Margolius, New York City (speaking for himself, not his employer) bfm@pobox.com For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: ISP Diversification Plans Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 03:39:26 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On 29 May 1997 14:07:10 GMT, Jon Gauthier wrote: > I still am amazed by the fax craze. 95% of all documents faxed today > originated in electronic form. Yet people still fire up Microsoft > Word, print another copy, and fax it to it's destination, when they > could just select File/Mail and e-mail the durn thing. Almost as > absurd is to "print" to a fax server/modem. > Now I realize there are cases where faxes are necessary -- signed documents > or those with hand-written annotations. But in today's world, the majority > of senders and receivers of faxes have e-mail accounts and mail gateways to > the Internet. This is _not_ true in businesses outside the computer industry. I work in the geotechnical consulting industry -- most companies have only recently acquired e-mail addresses, and many do not have individual addresses for individual employees. Corporations have set up procedures to cope with faxes -- there is usually a person who is responsible for receiving, collating, and distributing faxes in the office, and companies which are too small to give this duty to a secretary/receptionist usually have all their employees within earshot of the fax machine. To acheive equivalent ease for e-mail, the company would have to remain logged on during business hours (48 to 56 hours in many companies), which isn't cheap; and would have to assign someone the job of retrieving e-mail, transferring important files to other employees' computers (many companies don't network their computers, so this means walking over a disk). This costs money which many companies cannot afford. To make matters worse, not every company in my business has yet given in to the MSOffice hegemony. One firm I work with e-mailed me a couple of documents in Lotus and WordPerfect formats. All of these had important formatting embedded which does _not_ translate easily. It gets worse when dealing with graphic files, since Autocad is not yet the universal standard among engineers. E-mail is also still not entirely reliable. Most e-mail arrives within five minutes of it's being sent, but sometimes someone's mail-spool holds stuff for hours (especially AOL). If a fax didn't go through, you _know_ it didn't go through. > Now people want to send faxes over the Internet! Almost as bad as the Despite my ranting, faxing via internet _is_ moronic! You lose the advantages of faxing without obtaining the advantages of e-mail. Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Re: ISP Diversification Plans Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 10:43:58 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. In article , Jon Gauthier wrote: > I still am amazed by the fax craze. 95% of all documents faxed today > originated in electronic form. I am amazed that you are amazed. First, it probably would be more accurate for you to state that "in my corner of the world ... 95% of all documents faxed today originate in electronic form ...". > Yet people still fire up Microsoft > Word, print another copy, and fax it to it's destination, when they > could just select File/Mail and e-mail the durn thing. Almost as > absurd is to "print" to a fax server/modem. Let's see, how would this play out for an office worker in a small business: Since I don't have an email program that's integrated with Word I'll need to copy the text into an email message window. Oops -- there goes all the formatting and it's associated meanings, email is plain text only. Hey, maybe the receiver has Netscape mail, I can send an HTML formatted message. Either way, it will only take me 20 minutes to reformat the text for either format. Now, my email is ready to go. OK, now I need to go get on Mike's machine because he's the one with the modem and the dial up Internet account. This will only take about 10 minutes. Cool, I logged right on to the net, no busy signals today! After doing all this the user still doesn't know if the message arrived. I've seen Internet email take 4 - 5 hours to arrive, sometimes it's instantaneous, sometimes it never arrives. Sending a fax and receiving a confirmation would have taken all of ten minutes -- max. They predicted that TV would wipe out radio and newspapers, that video stores would kill movie theatres, email would replace fax. Rick Strobel | | InfoTime Fax Communications | Fax-on-Demand | 502-426-4279 | & | 502-426-3721 fax | Fax Broadcast | rstrobel@infotime.com | Services | http://www.infotime.com | | ------------------------------ From: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: 60,000 "No-AOL" Addresses ... $59.95 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 10:42:01 +0100 In message Jay R. Ashworth quoted: >> To order the 600k "AOL-Free" E-Mail List with your Visa or >> MasterCard: >> 1. Order online NOW, at http://www.windansea1.com/noaol.htm >> 2. Telephone Orders call 619-558-0756 If five others are willing to put up $10, I'll buy this and put it up on a web site (which is pretty empty at the moment - and in the UK), and make the list available for download so as to allow all and sundry to check whether they are on the list ... (Or, since there may be a copyright issue if I did that) will answer any enquiries about whether your email addresses are on the list, to allow you (via me, to complain back to them, that you wish your details to be excluded from ANY FURTHER lists they have, and I'll use our Data Protection Act to ask them whether they have passed on those details, and if so, to whom! so you can also request they remove your details and check who else they have sold the details to.) I'd offer to buy it myself, in full, but have just had a change in circumstances that leaves me 60% down in income for the moment, but it means I now have some 20 days a month where I can work for myself and develop web sites etc :-) I must stress that I have no wish to use the information for sending messages to anyone! The web site I'll be working on first will be including details of not-for-profit UK organisations (charity shops etc, and not in itself of much interest to those outside the UK, nor profit making) - it is for something useful for me to do. http://www.uk-places.org/ which currently has an unrelated index page listing a few telecom-related sites (such as Pat's) will be the web site, and you can do a "whois" check on it quite easily. Peter Morgan - NAGROM Networks / PO Box 580 / Wrexham / UK LL11 1XH Mail me regarding this at: spam@uk-places.org http://homepages.enterprise.net/nagrom/index.html http://www.ultranet.com/~pgm/sf-cafe.html ------------------------------ From: julian@netcom.com (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: AT&T/SBC Merger Organization: Hand Made Bread Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:59:55 GMT Allow me to add my perspective on the SBC/AT&T merger. Before SBC actually consummated the deal between Pacific Bell and SBC, the two companies were in negotiations re te getting into the Long Distance business. The Pacific Bell System perspective was to resell a full LD carrier (Sprint) and own maybe one Northern Telecom 250 for handling Credit card calls, "Private networks" etc. The SBC perspective was they were going to build a LD network (and Frame Relay networki and LD T1) from the ground up. They wanted to own the network. Seeing as they wanted to roll this out by Sept 97, anyone can see they obviously were dreaming. But, someone in mahogany row had the "vision" of being a major player in the LD business. I assume someone explained that switches and cables do not come from the Supermarket and it could take years to build a LD company from the ground up. So? If you can't build one by Sept 97 and still want to fill in the little box in teh Spreadsheet, why not buy one? MCI has just been bought by BT, Sprint keep saying they are not for sale. That just leaves AT&T. Bob Allen has made enough wrong, stupid decisions, that being bought SBC would just be another one. You know that Allen will earn millions from this. Julian Macassey, 415.647.2217 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 12:26:39 -0700 From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: AT&T/SBC Merger PAT: I have been using the URL approach to comp.dcom.telecom (sorted the way you like it, by date). It appears that the digest is updated in batches and unread postings usually appear green and only turn to red after I attempt to download an article. OTOH, I am certain that some new postings first appear in red and at times I cannot find the original blah,blah,blah posting for a Re:blah,blah,blah. How did the posting for Subject: AT&T/SBC Merger get started? I see a posting for Subject: AT&T, Pac Tel, SW Bell to Merge? Actually, I am interested in how a posting for this subject became involved with the resignation of the FCC's head. Did Reed Hundt resign because of the possibility of an AT&T merger with SBC or is this just some rumor started in another newsgroup? Is this newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom some kind of subset of comp.dcom.telecom.tech? Do you pick postings from other newsgroups and repost them here (if so, which other newsgroups)? Thanks, Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Mike Gawdun previously wrote Re: AT&T/SBC Merger in the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom: Thank you Lars for articulating the feelings of thousands of Reed Hundt supporters. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do NOT use, nor is this newsgroup a subset of comp.dcom.telecom.tech ... the two newsgroups are not related. Occassionally there will be a cross posting. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 11:15:32 -0600 From: djw@physics.lanl.gov (Dave Wade) Subject: Re: Local Telephone Monopolies > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Frontier will turn on your existing > cellular phone without a contract. They will bill month by month and > charge it to your credit card. PAT] http://www.frontiercorp.com/products/wireless/cellular/plans.html Pat, I called Frontier Communications in Illinois; and then the "800 number" on the web-page listed above, (i.e. 1-800-270-1731 ) and the first was nonplused, (but wanting/willing to help,) and the second was quite adamant that "you wouldn't want to sign up with us, we only do Rochester, New York. So, did I get the wrong "Frontier"? There is a pay phone provided by some COCOT with "Cherokee" in its name, and they might be usable around here. But the only number I can find for = them is the number the phone dials to deposit its money. Nobody human ever answers that phone. They are not listed in local phone books. I lied. There is a listing. I'll call them now. They clearly are small. When I called she accepted the collect call, but took my number to call me back. They must be tiny. And she hasn't yet called back. 10:50am Well, it's been twenty minutes, or so ... So it looks like they aren't interested in local lines; just pay-phones. And installing a pay-phone in my family room, or in my car, doesn't seem to be reasonable. So, how about a little more "contact information" on "Frontier"? Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 800-594-5900 is 'Call Home America' which is a division of Frontier. Use that number to reach them. I will get $25 in credit for each referred customer so give them my number for referral purposes, 847-329-0571. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: Re: Local Telephone Monopolies Date: 30 May 1997 18:54:12 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services djw@physics.lanl.gov (Dave Wade) wrote: > How much longer will it be before the local telephone monopoly here in > the mountains of New Mexico is broken up? I'd really like to have a > phone; but I refuse to buy one from U.S.West. > I'd even settle for a Cellular Phone in my car. I bought a Range Rover > from a fellow out in Los Angeles, and the Range Rover had a phone in > it. He left the phone in the car, but I can't seem to get it hooked > up. None of the local Cellular resellers or even the local company > which controls the Cellular equipment that the resellers are reselling > will talk to me. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Frontier will turn on your existing > cellular phone without a contract. They will bill month by month and > charge it to your credit card. PAT] Maybe in Chicago. But here in Rochester (the corporate home of Frontier) that is not the case. In fact, when my contract with CellOne was up I contacted Frontier to see if they had a better rate. The salesdrone looked at me, quoted me a higher monthly price, and higher per minute charge, and told me that they did not offer free nights and weekends. Oh yes, and their local calling area is much smaller. I asked him why I should switch, and he replied to get the Frontier quality! Needless to say, I am on a month to month basis still with Cell One. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my other message. Go to the division of Frontier known as 'Call Home America' 800-594-5900. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:00:13 -0400 From: Lord Somnolent Organization: KoB Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? The Old Bear wrote: > Unlike analog cellular service, which is supported by fewer than > 15,000 towers nationwide, the next-generation digital cellular -- > known as PCS -- will require more than 100,000 cellular towers to > provide reliable service. More than 300 communities already have > revolted, imposing moratoria on cell tower construction, and the > movement is growing. > Fueling the problem are fears that property values will be adversely > affected by the giant structures and suspicions that cellular > transmissions can cause increased instances of leukemia and other > health problems. IIRC, the USPS has resolved to allow transmission towers on their properties, although they are subject to local building codes of course. Still, it hasn't been proven tht cellular transmissions cause any harm (hasn't been disproven either). If they do cause harm, remember that the effects decrease with the square of the distance, so if point B is twice as far from a tower as point A, electromagnetic effects are four times less at point B than A. Worcester has had reservations about installing new cellphone towers, even in the less developed areas. Many residents think they should be in Leicester, or Paxton. I vote for Paxton, because of its high hill, and because property values are already low thanks to Title V. Although when you live on said hill, you can get interference. WAAF transmits about a quarter mile away from my house, and you can hear it in the background on the phone, TV, radio (when on different station, although you may be only able to pick up WAAF), and it did cause problems with a Commodore VIC-20 I had. Effects vary depending on where in this house you are. Its a good think I like WAAF. ------------------------------ Subject: Spammming: Why do They do It? From: chuk.gleason@digvel.rtp.nc.us (Chuk Gleason) Date: Fri, 30 May 97 10:03:00 -0400 Organization: Digital Velocity BBS RTP, NC 919-992-3059 Reply-To: chuk.gleason@digvel.rtp.nc.us (CHUK GLEASON) Patrick - I'll try to spare you quoting, if you'll bear with me as I ask some questions: Why do people like Spamford do what they do? What's in it for them? It seems like, in fact has been described in the same terms as 'Get rich quick' schemes you see in the classifieds of cheap magazines. The only person getting rich is the guy who starts the chain ... And of course, it takes your resources to respond, either positively or negatively, or to put URL's etc. into your filters. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An excellent idea! Let's get the > various autoresponders started going after each other. Take any > two spammers and create a set of mail headers showing each of > them as the 'From:' and 'Reply-To:' on the other set of headers. Hee - Hee - Hee!! I love it!! As you've implied, a taste of their own medicine. >> Senator Murkowski of Alaska just today introduced a bill (S771) into the >> US Senate to control spam. >> in routing info (no spoofed addresses, etc) and also mandates that the >> first word in the Subject line be the word "advertisement" so promail >> filtering would be MUCH easier. It also mandates that the name, address and >> phone number of the actual sender be in the spam message itself. > Murkowski's bill does nothing about the theft of services that spam > represents to service providers. Spammers would still free to abuse > the bandwidth, CPU time, and disk space of ISP's. A procmail-type > filter can throw the message away once it arrives, but by then it's > too late. Like so many congress-critters and others when confronted with new technology they can't understand, they try the 'old' methods of dealing with it and attempting to regulate it. > This message was a 100% scam. The guy was trolling for credit card > numbers and, for people dumb enough to send him checks, cash. Seems rather like the dudes who dumpster-dive for credit card numbers in people's trash. It works, but Gawd, what a way to live. No sense of shame. Well, I guess these people have no or little conscience. But again, why do they do it? It's beginning to seem to me that Spamford, et al., probably spend as much time in a day trying to scam other people as you and I spend working at a decent job. Maybe I'm just asking 'Why is there air?' 'Why do bank robbers rob banks instead of working for a living?' 'Why do we make war?' I realize now this question is for the psychologists and psychiatrists, but this list certainly should be concerned with the issue 'why' because, again, an 'active' response is necessary. And many an innocent business has been burned by the likes of Spamford, thinking they were getting a great customer list or whatever for very little. Ah, the power of a knowledgeable crook over an honest innocent. But, I just had to ask. It might give a new clue in how to fight Spam. Chuk Gleason chuk.gleason@digvel.rtp.nc.us ... Too many people confuse free speech with loose talk. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #142 ******************************