Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA23701; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:04:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706011304.JAA23701@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #143 TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Jun 97 09:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 143 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Backhoe Fade in L.A. (Tad Cook) Fraudulent International Calling Scheme: Refunds for Victims (Nigel Allen) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Randall H. Smith) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Barry Margolin) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Adam Frix) Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available (Brett Frankenberger) Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available (Ron Schnell) Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available (Tom Betz) Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available (Barry Margolin) Of Course, If You Buy the Non-AOL Users Mailing List ... (Henry Mensch) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Backhoe Fade in L.A. Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:17:36 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Telephone service cut to 2,000 Los Angeles, Beverly Hills customers LOS ANGELES (AP) -- About 2,000 Los Angeles and Beverly Hills lost telephone service Saturday when a backhoe snagged on cable at a construction site, a Pacific Bell spokesman said. Service was not expected to be restored to all customers until 6 p.m. Sunday, said Pac Bell spokesman David Dickstein. Meanwhile, the Beverly Hills and Los Angeles police departments beefed up patrols in the affected area, in case any of those who lost phone service needed to report an emergency, authorities said. Those needing assistance could also go to Fire Station 58 at 1556 S. Robertson Blvd., said Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Jim Wells The accident occurred at a west Los Angeles construction site at 7:15 a.m. Saturday, when an independent contractor caught a backhoe on a copper cable, and accidentally stretched the cable 20 or 30 feet, Dickstein said. The contractor was not working for Pac Bell and an investigation into the matter was under way, he said. "For many, the phone is a lifeline, and that's why we are really concerned" Dickstein said. Pac Bell hurried to replace 1,800 feet of cable, he said. The situation remained frustrating for many, if not nerve-wracking. "It's a problem," said resident Joan Leon. "We can't even call 911 if there's an emergency." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:54:59 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Fraudulent International Calling Scheme: Refunds for Victims Here is a press release from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. While I do not work for the U.S. government, I found the press release on the FTC web site and thought that it would be of interest to readers of this Digest. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9705/lubell2.htm FOR RELEASE: MAY 28, 1997 FTC GARNERS $111,000 REDRESS FOR VICTIMS OF FRAUDULENT INTERNATIONAL CALL SCHEME Defendants who allegedly ran a fraudulent scheme that lured consumers into making lengthy and expensive calls -- unknowingly -- to Guyana or the Caribbean, have agreed to pay a total of $111,000 in consumer redress to settle Federal Trade Commission charges against them. The FTC had alleged in December that Daniel B. Lubell, doing business as Mercantile Messaging and DB&L, Inc., solicited consumers to call what turned out to be international numbers to enter a free Hawaiian vacation sweepstakes and to obtain information about free or discount travel. According to the FTC, however, Lubell did not inform consumers that they would incur a significant charge -- up to $2.33 a minute, or more than $30 for listening to the entire message -- on their telephone bill, that even after calling they could enter the sweepstakes only by mail, or that they first had to buy an airline ticket to benefit from the information he was selling. The FTC alleged that the defendants' practices violated the FTC Act and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule. The settlement, in addition to requiring the redress payment, prohibits similar violations in the future. Lubell lives in Bettendorf, Iowa, where corporate defendant DB&L is located. Mercantile Messaging L.L.C. is based in Rock Island, Illinois, but also has used a Moline, Illinois, address. The Wisconsin Attorney General's office joined the FTC in its lawsuit against Lubell and his companies, and is a party to the settlement. The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule prohibits a variety of deceptive and abusive telemarketing sales practices. It requires telemarketers to disclose up front the fact that they're making a sales call and the nature of the products and services being offered. It also requires telemarketers to disclose cost and other information before they ask consumers for any money. This settlement makes clear that the Telemarketing Rule applies to audiotext services. Audio information and entertainment programs that consumers access by dialing telephone numbers other than those beginning with the "900" prefix are not covered by another Commission rule, the 900 Number Rule, because they were not covered by the underlying statute. The 900 Number Rule requires cost disclosures in advertisements for such numbers, requires cost and other important disclosures in a free introductory message for 900-number services, and gives consumers the right to dispute charges for calls without endangering their credit records. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized the Commission to broaden the rule to cover additional audiotext services that are susceptible to the unfair and deceptive practices it prohibits. The FTC initiated a rule amendment proceeding in March that could result in such an expansion. "International audiotext schemes have grown dramatically in the recent past as scam artists try to evade the 900 Number Rule's cost-disclosure and free preamble message requirements," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "But the defendants didn't get away with it in this case, which was the first federal action targeting a deceptive international audiotext service. The settlement we have negotiated requires Lubell and Mercantile Messaging to turn over a substantial amount of their assets and to abide by broad restrictions on future business practices. Whether we will extend the 900 Number Rule to cover international audiotext services is under review, but in the meantime, this case shows that the FTC stands ready to enforce other laws prohibiting deception in the audiotext industry." Prior to the advent of international audiotext services, consumers accessed interstate audiotext services by dialing a 900 number and intrastate audiotext services by dialing a 976 number. While international audiotext services are not inherently deceptive, according to the FTC staff, they grew as fraudulent sellers searched for ways to offer audiotext services without having to abide by the 900 Number Rule's disclosure requirements. To get paid for the information or entertainment they sell to consumers, these services depend on revenue sharing arrangements with overseas telephone companies, whereby the audiotext sellers collect, through a third party which negotiates such deals, a portion of the long distance rates that show up on consumers' telephone bills. In the Lubell case, the FTC alleged, the defendants received 37 cents a minute for a 15-minute, repetitive, recorded message that explained how to get bumped from oversold flights in order to obtain free airline tickets. The message also gave consumers an address to which they had to write in order to get an entry form for the sweepstakes, and told them that Lubell and his firms do not charge for the information they provide, the FTC alleged. "The longer the call, the greater the fee, and the larger the cut received by the inter national audiotext seller, so the incentive is to keep consumers on the line as long as possible," Bernstein said. "Our advice to consumers is to be aware that, when they dial a telephone number beginning with 011 or with one of the many new Caribbean area codes, such as 809, 758 or 664, they are placing an international call and will be billed at international rates." A free FTC consumer brochure titled "International Telephone Number Scams" offers additional advice. It is free at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/tmarkg/intlphon.htm on the FTC's web site. Upon filing of the FTC complaint, the federal district court granted the FTC's request for a temporary restraining order halting the scheme and freezing the defendants' assets. The settlement -- a stipulated final order -- ends the litigation. The stipulated final order: prohibits the defendants from using any false or misleading representations to solicit the purchase of audiotext services, including false claims that consumers may enter a sweepstakes by dialing an audiotext number, and requires them to clearly and conspicuously disclose that a call is not necessary to enter the sweepstakes; prohibits the defendants from claiming that they will provide information about how to fly at no expense on commercial airlines unless they clearly and conspicuously disclose any costs consumers will incur to take advantage of the information; prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting that they do not charge or do not receive consideration for information they provide through their telephone numbers; prohibits the defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, specifically requiring them to disclose the maximum charge a caller would face and all information the caller would need to determine the exact cost before the call is placed; requires the defendants to disclose the total cost of the call in a preamble message no longer than 15 seconds, and in reasonably understandable language, at the beginning of each audiotext call; and requires the defendants to turn over $111,000 within 10 days. If refunds to consumers are impractical, the funds will be turned over to the U.S. and Wisconsin Treasuries. The Commission vote to accept the settlement for filing in court was 5-0, with Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga dissenting from paragraph VIII of the order. The settlement documents were filed and entered May 27 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport Division. NOTE: This stipulated permanent injunction is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Such settlements have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the settlement, other documents associated with this case, and the International Telephone Number Scams brochure are available from the FTC's web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. MEDIA CONTACT: Bonnie Jansen or Claudia Bourne Farrell Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2161 or 202-326-2181 STAFF CONTACT: Bureau of Consumer Protection Eileen Harrington, 202-326-3127 Patricia Howard, 202-326-2321 (FTC File No. X970013) (Civil Action No. 3-96-CV-80200) forwarded to comp.dcom.telecom by Nigel Allen, 8 Silver Ave., Toronto ON M6R 1X8, Canada (416) 535-8916 ndallen@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/telecom.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 09:03:19 -0500 From: Randall H. Smith 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. No, no, no. PCS will _not_ need "100,000 cellular towers;" it _might_ need more _antennas_ but this does NOT correlate to more _towers_. Since PCS is really being rolled out as a deluxe cellular service today, even the number of towers needed is less than 800 MHz, analog cellular, since digital is more robust ... PCS in general also uses less RF power - some systems (notably CDMA) use _far_ less RF power, on the range of tens of milliwatts and even down into the microwatt range. At some point, the PCS providers will begin to use micro, pico and nano cells; these will cover only very small areas (also using _very_ small amounts of RF); the chances of you spotting one of these will be very small indeed. Randall H. Smith Motorola, Inc. smithrh@cig.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Group Product Information Group Digital Systems Division x2-7707 Arlington Heights, IL USA ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Date: 31 May 1997 12:05:54 -0400 Organization: BBN Planet, Cambridge, MA In article , The Old Bear wrote: > More than 300 communities already have revolted, imposing moratoria > on cell tower construction, and the movement is growing. My town newspaper has had several articles recently on the negotiations taking place with PCS companies. If my interpretation is correct, the law doesn't allow communities to prevent tower construction. However, it does allow them to specify where the towers may be constructed, and negotiate payment for the use of town property. Although there's some NIMBY feeling, allowing towers to be installed on places like fire stations is apparently seen as a money-making proposition. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com BBN Corporation, Cambridge, MA Support the anti-spam movement; see ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 08:21:54 -0400 From: Adam Frix <70721.504@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? oldbear@arctos.com writes: > WHERE DO YOU PUT 100,000 CELL PHONE TOWERS? > 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. Here in central Ohio, where Aerial Communications has started up, there was a story in the paper not too long ago about PCS providers entering into agreements with the local power company, American Electric Power, for putting PCS antennae and equipment onto existing electric transmission towers. --Adam-- ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 19:47:22 GMT In article , Steve Bunning wrote: > You wrote: > A very intesting claim. Most "analog phone lines" are converted at some > point to a 64 kbps digital stream (or an even lower rate with robbed bit > signalling). It would be a true technical miracle to get 67 kbps of data > through a 64 kbps data pipe. > The only way this modem could possibly work would be on a true end-to-end > analog connection or through some form of data compression. If the modem > requires an end-to-end analog connection, then I doubt you will every see > 67 kbps in normal dial-up use. If it uses compression, then the > performance is not remarkable. > It's not April 1 is it? As others have pointed out, it works by using two dial connections and running each at 33.6KBps. And as other have also pointed out, a much better way to do this is with multilink PPP. However, most modem manufacturers today understate their effective speeds (when running in async mode) anyway. The new "56KBps modem" technonogy, when it actually runs at 56KBps on the wire, can handle close to 70KBps "effective" async throughput *without compression*. This is because "modern" modulation protocols are synchronous on the analog side, so the start and stop bits don't need to be sent across the wire. So if you stream 70000 bits per second out the serial port, that's: 70000 / (8 data bits + 1 stop bit + 1 start bit) = 7000 bytes per second On the wire, that corresponds to 7000*8=56000 bits per second. Of course, there is a bit of overhead ... so you might really only be able to go 67000 ( :) ) async bits per second without compression. So it wouldn't be too terribly inaccurate to call a 56K modem a 70K modem. (Of course, the above reasoning only applies to async data. But that's what the majority of dial modems are used for anyway.) - Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available Date: 31 May 1997 20:29:58 GMT Organization: MIT In article James Carlson writes: > I had technical discussions with the marketing genius who came up with > this dual-modem-in-a-box idea several weeks ago. He seemed unaware > that people can already get this performance -- and can get it for > free, and can get it without investing in his proprietary technology. > The solution is something called "Multi-link PPP" or MP, and is > publicly documented in RFC 1990. This protocol is built into I'm curious ... do any of these protocols work for more than two lines? I am one of the people who is "grandfathered" into the unmetered local ISDN here in BellSouth territory. Unfortunately, I will be moving my office ten miles away in about two months, and will lose this stats, thus bringing my telco charges from $50 to over $700. I would much prefer to buy eight modems (four for me and four for my ISP) and eight phone lines with unmetered usage. While we are on the subject ... anyone know of any way to get out of losing my unmetered status? It seems so unfair that just because I am moving they can charge me so much more. #Ron ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available Date: 31 May 1997 11:50:03 -0400 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Steve Bunning in : >> ROCKLEDGE, FLORIDA...May 27, 1997...Transend Corporation advanced >> modem speeds to new heights, without the need for digital connections >> at either end, with their announcement today of the Transend >> Sixty-Seven, delivering speeds of 67 kbps both upstream and >> downstream, over existing analog phone lines. > A very intesting claim. Most "analog phone lines" are converted at some > point to a 64 kbps digital stream (or an even lower rate with robbed bit > signalling). It would be a true technical miracle to get 67 kbps of data > through a 64 kbps data pipe. You must have missed it -- this modem employs TWO phone lines, hence TWO such pipes. Tom Betz, Generalist ant to send me email? First, read this page: ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available Date: 31 May 1997 11:52:23 -0400 Organization: BBN Planet, Cambridge, MA In article , Andrew Crawford wrote: > Isn't this "technology" already available? It's sometimes called "Using > Two Modems" :) Furthermore, it seems like it would be difficult to use with most modem pools. In general, you dial into a hunt group, and get a modem at random. How would this new modem ensure that the two calling lines get connected to the two lines that are connected to the same modem at the destination? I suppose the answering modem could be an integrated set of modems, with some way of recognizing the identity of calling modems and figuring out which pairs go together dynamically. This was solved by Netblazers by doing the multiplexing at the IP routing layer, rather than at the link layer. But if this new modem is designed to be used with ordinary PC SLIP/PPP drivers, it can't operate this way. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com BBN Corporation, Cambridge, MA Support the anti-spam movement; see ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:01:28 PDT From: henry mensch Reply-To: henry mensch Subject: Of Course, If You Buy the Non-AOL Users Mailing List ... ... and you make it available freely on the web ... then having $60 won't be the gating factor to send anyone on that list junk mail anymore. In turn, this could open the floodgates to those folks listed on that list. # henry mensch / po box 14592; sf, ca 94114-0592 / # http://www.q.com/henry/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #143 ******************************