Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA00663; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:41:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706030541.BAA00663@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #147 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jun 97 01:41:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 147 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (Monty Solomon) Re: Bandwidth is a Replacement For Switching. Shannon? (John Eichler) Re: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam (Alan Boritz) Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available (Rich Osman) Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available (William H. Bowen) Re: New 911 System Press Release (Tye McQueen) Re: New 911 System Press Release (Thomas P. Brisco) Re: Emergency Call Services (Chris Moffett) Re: Stopping the Splits (William H. Bowen) Re: Stopping the Splits (Robert McMillin) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Craig Macbride) I am Really Very Concerned (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:45:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:08:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre Subject: Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail [I like the part about sending samples of spam to your members of Congress. We've almost been numbed by the vileness of the stuff, but people who aren't online will surely be impressed by the idea of a daily bombardment of it.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:21:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "John C. Mozena" Subject: CAUCE News **EXTRA** CAUCE News **EXTRA** for Monday, June 2 From the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail: URGENT! WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES *NOW* With two "spam" bills competing in Congress, and at least one more possibly on the way, Members of Congress are starting to decide which bill to support and which to oppose. It is *CRITICAL* that every CAUCE supporter let their Senators and Representative know that UCE *is* a big deal to their constituents. We urgently need every CAUCE member to write their Senators and Representative, asking them to SUPPORT H.R. 1748, the bill from Rep. Christopher Smith, R-NJ, and NOT SUPPORT S. 771, the competing bill from Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-AK. This is *very* important. According to CAUCE head lobbyist Ray Everett-Church, Members of Congress are not yet convinced that UCE is something they should be spending their time on. In his lobbing, he is finding that some offices don't even know there's a problem with junk email! You have to tell them about it! OLD-FASHIONED PAPER MAIL IS VITAL! These need to be *actual* paper letters. For whatever reason, paper means a lot more on Capitol Hill than electrons. (Savetrees.com's efforts notwithstanding.) If you're not sure of who your representatives are, check the Congressional websites: House: Senate: The postal addresses for your members are: The Honorable The Honorable Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515 The letter doesn't have to be long ... two paragraphs is as effective as 10 pages. And you don't need to write different letters, the same one can be sent to each Member. (Just remember to change the mailing address!) POINTS TO EMPHASIZE * "Junk" email lets the advertisers make a profit while recipients pay the bill. This "Cost Shifting" was the problem with junk faxes, and is just as bad with junk email. If businesses are going to make profits, they should be required to pay the costs of doing business. * Thanks to the CDA, Members of Congress are wary of anything that smells like a "ban" or "censorship". Remind them that this is *not* an issue of censorship, rather it's about stopping deceptive and damaging business practice. * Tell them that you support a system that requires an "opt-in," where individuals don't receive advertising they don't want, and don't have to fight to get themselves dislodged from mailing lists. * Tell them that you oppose "filtering" or "Opt-Out" approaches because those approaches do not require the advertisers to bear their own costs. Filtering requirements cost ISPs and consumers more money, not less! If you save spam, enclose one or two copies of some of the more offensive or obviously fraudulent spams you've received. Let them get a taste of this stuff. (However, we don't want to get them angry with us so don't flood them with 50,000 copies! One or two will be fine.) THREE LETTERS SPELL "SUCCESS" We're making major progress! News reports have been very favorable and endorsements are rolling in from consumers and businesses all over the world! We have a good bill in Rep. Smith's legislation, one in which CAUCE representatives have had a lot of input. We need to get Congress interested in H.R.1748 and we need to do it *now*. Write those three letters and mail them today! *** ABOUT THIS MESSAGE: This message was written and broadcast by the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. It is copyrighted (c) 1997 by the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. We encourage redistribution of items from this message, as long as they are not spammed anywhere, are on-topic, and include our copyright notice. When in doubt, post the URL of our site instead, or put it in your signature. Press, broadcast, and Internet media may treat this material as they would a press release. For other commercial reproduction rights, contact John Mozena (moz@cauce.org). ************************************************************************* You have received this message because your address was given as part of the sign-up process at www.cauce.org or was signed up for the CAUCE-ANNOUNCE mailing list. If you do not want to receive any further messages from this list or were subscribed without your knowledge, please send mail to cauce-announce-request@cauce.org with a subject of "unsubscribe," or contact J.D. Falk (jdfalk@cauce.org) to be removed manually. We exist to eradicate unsolicited e-mail, and, unlike spammers, will honor "remove" requests. ************************************************************************* If you have other questions or comments about this message, contact John Mozena (moz@cauce.org). ------------------------------ From: John Eichler Subject: Re: Bandwidth is a Replacement For Switching. Shannon? Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:31:06 -0500 Pat, Dave Penkler said: > I do however have a little question concerning Mr. Gilder's source > for attributing "bandwidth is a replacement for switching" to Claude > Shannon. Appended are excerpts of three of Mr. Gilder's earlier > articles in which makes this attribution. I have scoured Shannon's "A > Mathematical Theory of Communication" in vain. It was a good point that Dave made. I regard Shannon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" as somewhat of a bible myself. And I believe Dave probably was correct. However, it is my opinion, I think Gilder probably used his 'poetic license' a little with regards to this one. His original reference was in his 'fibersphere' article if I remember correctly. I believe his point was that in using bandwidth you don't have to worry about switching because a high enough bandwidth permits a lot of information to be sent which can be tuned out at the destination according to what one desires. It's similar to attributing a car falling off a cliff as being what Newton stated. It is my personal feeling that Gilder's main contribution is in his outlook and analysis of the areas he has talked about. Even though Dave is most likely correct in his point, I still enjoy George's way of presenting his visions and versions of the world. We should all be happy to have him do this. And in regard to the point you made Pat, I would hope that George Gilder would look over what archives you have and update it with any missing articles. His work is very important to us all. Sincerely, John Eichler ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:07:36 -0400 In article , brianm@ricochet.net (Diablo Cat) wrote: > I tend to believe that based on the First Amendment, spam should be > legal... No, Brian, that's not even CLOSE to being true. You have NO rights where MY domain, email account, or other email systems, are concerned, beyond those *I* grant to you. Neither you, nor anyone with less honorable intentions, has the "right" to force me to pay for their commercial activities (spamming). Access to my mail systems, and mail system users, is a *privilege*, not a "right," and I can damage you financially beyond your wildest dreams if I catch you trying to enter after I've made it clear that your entrance is forbidden. In some states, like New Jersey, that can also mean criminal charges and jail time, depending upon the extent of the intrusion and the intent of the intruder. > Since bytes are now purchased, because some people have to pay for the > amount of email they get, or the connect time is charged, it will be > interesting to see how far this will go. "NOW PURCHASED?" I, and others with uucp domains, have been "purchasing" INBOUND, as well as outbound mail transport services for YEARS. We've also "now" purchased (for years) newsfeeds through which countless morons pump advertisements, and LOTS of useless garbage, with the same effect. UUCP customers, like me, have been paying for every minute of connect time for a LONG time. Unlimited personal PPP accounts are relatively new, and are radically different from their uucp counterparts (function and billing). It is VERY unusual to find mail domain services for other than a single user, that DON'T have a per minute price tag. The sooner email neophytes learn that there has been a lot more to the Internet than "chat rooms," and other AOL'isms, for many years, the sooner we'll find a less expensive (and codified) solution to spam harassment. ------------------------------ From: osman@NTCSAL01DA.ntc.nokia.com (Rich Osman) Organization: Nokia Telecommunications Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:35:03 +0300 Subject: Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available > 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. Which begs the next question, if there is an intervening digital connection like, oh, say , any modern switch this thing rolls over and falls back severely right? ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: New, Very Fast Modem Available Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:16:59 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote: > In article <05.30.97.988e32q4@telecom-digest.org> is written: >> Below is a press release sent to me recently regarding a new modem >> now available which is extremely fast. It should make it a lot >> easier to get massive amounts of spam out on the net faster than >> ever before! .... if you are not interested in reading a >> press release praising new modem technology, then stop reading >> here and delete this message. > Why the heck did you post this ad? Since when is multiplexing two > modems on two phone lines new technology? The Telebit Netblazer was > doing that in the 80's, and it wasn't new then either. Paul, Some paging terminals (such as the BBL System III) have network setups that allow multiplexing of up to 8 lines. They did that so that you could move a great amount of data with the 1200 BPS modems that where available when the System III was designed (early 1980s). It was VERY handy when you where doing both voice and digital paging, since you could move the larger amounts of data necessary to transmit the digitized voice without delaying the digital paging data. With the 8 modem setup, each modem actually became 1 bit of an 8-bit parallel transfer scheme. Not "state-of-the-art" by today's standards, but it worked rather well. There is an old phase that says "Everthing that is old becomes new again". Looks like this is a case for that old phrase. Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com ------------------------------ From: notye@nometronet.nocom (Tye McQueen) Subject: Re: New 911 System Press Release Date: 2 Jun 1997 14:59:22 -0500 Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/488-2590 - 817/571-0400)) Jim Jacobs writes: > Berks County, Pa. to become first region in nation to offer improved 9-1-1 > service from LifeSafety Solutions > The new service goes a step further than the Enhanced 9-1-1 currently > in use by Berks County and many municipalities across the nation, > which only provides emergency call centers with the phone number and > address of a 9-1-1 caller. With 911Plus, when a subscriber calls 9-1-1 > for help, a simultaneous transmission of their personal information is > routed from the 911Plus database and delivered via computer screen to > the 9-1-1 call taker at the time the emergency call is answered. This has been available for over a decade. I used to work for one of many companies that would transform the phone number provided by E911 into any type of information the emergency service providers cared to track and made that information available immediately upon receipt of a call. We even provided information about your neighbors. > LifeSafety Solutions will provide the necessary 911Plus hardware and > software at no cost to the Berks County public safety 9-1-1 > center. The optional subscription service will cost households eight > dollars per month (billed on their local telephone bill) or a > discounted $84 per year for those consumers preferring to prepay for a > year's service. The system is expected to be placed into public > service on August 1. Here is the part that _is_ new -- a new marketing idea. It will be interesting to see if they are profitable and what level of customer service they are able to maintain. No mention of how they plan to audit their database to ensure that it stays accurate. How does one test whether their service is working? Not a service I personally would pay that much for. It sounds like there is close cooperation with the emergency service providers, which is important. I wish them luck and hope their dream of improved emergency service is realized. It certainly has potential. Tye McQueen Nothing is obvious unless you are overlooking something http://www.metronet.com/~tye/ (scripts, links, nothing fancy) Remove "no"s from address to reply (sorry for the inconvenience). ------------------------------ From: Thomas P. Brisco Subject: Re: New 911 System Press Release Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 09:53:03 -0400 Organization: ICon CMT Jim Jacobs wrote: > Berks County, Pa. to become first region in nation to offer improved 9-1-1 > service from LifeSafety Solutions > WYNNEWOOD, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 29, 1997--Berks County, Pa. is > about to become the first area in the country to adopt a new > generation of 9-1-1 call center technology designed to improve > emergency response procedures and help save lives. > 911Plus is a new breakthrough technology introduced in January 1997 by > LifeSafety(TM) Solutions, Inc. of Wynnewood. The nationwide service > provides police, fire and emergency medical services with critical > personal information about subscribers such as medical history and > preexisting conditions as well as the location of children, the > elderly or the infirm within a household. In addition, a designated > third party (such as a relative, care giver or neighbor) who has been > identified as an emergency contact by the subscriber, is notified by > the LifeSafety Solutions Communications Center that a 9-1-1 call was > initiated. * name * address * medical history * preexisting conditions * location of children * elderly or infirm within the household Is no-one else a little worried about the handling of this data? Would this possibly include information about the person's history of (perhaps) mental disabilities (the press release seems to be only oriented towards medical information)? The risks are fairly obvious -- a "good thing" ostensibly, however can the people who are handling the data be trusted with confidentiality? Who has access to the data? Information like this might be a real boon to people looking to rip-off the elderly or infirm, harm children, or looking for females living alone. Thomas P. ``Tp'' Brisco brisco@core.iconnet.net Engineering Group 201.319.5260 (Voice) ICon CMT Corp 201.601.2018 (Fax) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone remember when 911 was first being implemented throughout the USA and the privacy concerns which were raised at that time? Quite a number of privacy advocates complained that their freedom to call the police 'without getting personally involved' would be diminished. In the days before ESS and 911, tracing of telephone calls was difficult at best and impossible at worst. There were -- and I guess still are -- quite a few people who like calling the police to bad-mouth their neighbors without having to be personally accountable for what they say. In those days also, there were a large number of prank calls to police and fire departments; it seems a lot of people like seeing the excitement of having lots of police cars pull up or fire engines racing everywhere to no avail. We were told in no uncertain terms that the implementation of 911 would lead to massive abuses by the police; that putting in a call to the police to report something you had seen would cause the police to come to your door to question you instead and 'harass' you about your complaint. The same people were especially upset to find out that *67 did not block their identity on calls to 911. Then came more enhanced forms of 911 where the subscriber's name and address were available as well. In the early versions, only the phone number was displayed. That lead to still more complaints from privacy advo- cates. I am not a big fan of the police in most instances. I do see a lot of abuse of authority by them, and at times outright lies to get what they want, but I cannot see any major problem with them having some background information on people who call to seek their assistance. You can always talk to the police using their seven-digit administra- tive number if desired; ditto the fire department. The law here in Illinois for example mandates that police/fire must maintain a seven digit number in addition to any 911 services offered. If you do not want the police to have the information, then avoid using their services as much as possible, or avoid 911. I personally would call the police only in an absolute life-or-death dire emergency, and for no other reason at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris Moffett Subject: Re: Emergency Call Services Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:22:00 -0400 Raymond K.S. Yeung wrote: > Does anyone know what a PBX would do when there's no resources > (e.g. outgoing trunks) to support an emergency call (i.e. 911) from a > local PBX subscriber? > Would the PBX block the emergency call? Or would it bump out another > "non-emergency" call to get the needed resources? Any publicized > standards that specify this scenario? I am not aware of a software feature that will do this automatically but, in our Meridian PBX we have a single trunk that is not accessible unless you dial 911. This guarantees that there will always be an outgoing line available (we use smart trunks and in the event of a power fail the analog trunk has a better chance of working that the digital circuits) and it gives the 911 center a place to call back. Any calls to that number will ring direct to the security desk in the building. If anyone does know of a software feature that will accomplish the same thing (on a Nortel Meridian PBX) I would like to know. Chris Moffett MFS/Worldcom ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: Stopping the Splits Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:08:51 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com ellis@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote: > In article , Jim Gottlieb > wrote: >> In article , >>> someone has to stop this proliferation of area codes ... or the term >>> will simply lose its meaning. >> If they had just listened to me :-) years ago when I proposed 8-digit >> dialing, then we wouldn't be in this mess today. > I can't help wondering just how many phone numbers are eaten by the > practice of assigning a number to each incoming line even if they are > in a hunt group. If an ISP puts 1000 lines in a POP, they get 1000 > phone numbers. All they really wanted was one phone number. I don't > get it. Rick, I don't know about other LECs, but about two years ago, partically in an effort to "save" numbers, Pac Bell has changed the way they allocate numbers to DID trunks. Prior to this change, each trunk was assigned a number as part of the trunk ID: for example, in one of the trunk groups at work, the first one is labeled 47DINV4159682000, the second one 47DINV4159862001. Now, each trunk group is assigned one number, with a DID line number (starting with 0 (zero) appended to it. As an example, one of the new trunks from Mountain View is labeled 4159695000DID0, the second line 4159695000DID1 and so forth. Also, they are converting existing trunk groups to the new numbering scheme as time permits, and are doing it "enmass" when COs are converted to 5ESS switches. This may not save all that many numbers, hey but each little bit helps. Now the fun part: all these trunk IDs in the Mountain View area will change 8/1 when the 650 area code split comes into effect :)) Oh fun: and I'm the one who handles trunk records (so you KNOW I'll be having fun then!!). Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:44:34 -0700 From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Stopping the Splits On 29 May 1997 03:27:54 PDT, ellis@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) said: > I can't help wondering just how many phone numbers are eaten by the > practice of assigning a number to each incoming line even if they are > in a hunt group. If an ISP puts 1000 lines in a POP, they get 1000 > phone numbers. All they really wanted was one phone number. I don't > get it. I think this practice was justifiable back when analog trunks were the norm. If you had a problem with one line in a trunk, it made sense to keep the capability to dial in on a particular line. Now we have digital entrance facilities, and it seems that there's really no need anymore. Perhaps someone in the biz can explain why 'tis so. I have heard that lines on some outbound-only trunks can be provisioned with otherwise unassignable numbers like 001-xxxx and so on in order to conserve number space. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com Ever feel like you're being watched? You will. ------------------------------ From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Date: 2 Jun 1997 17:03:25 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. The Old Bear writes: > 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 There are several solutions to this. In Queensland, we have some towers being built to look like palm trees. From a distance, it's hard to tell the real palms from the GSM antennae. Apparently the same company who makes those ones has previously built similar disguised towers in Canada. (Except that theirs are not palm trees!) This costs the phone company more, and degrades coverage area of the device slightly, but it means they don't get complaints from residents. Also, there are many tall structures already in which they can be hidden. Now, when the organisations that have those structures would like some extra income, the two parties can often come to a mutually beneficial agreement. A number of churches with tall, large crosses outside are having them replaced by GSM antennae contructed in the same shape as the original crosses. Craig Macbride URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: I am Really Very Concerned Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 01:20:00 EDT I mentioned earlier Monday evening that my situation here may be deteriorating regards my health. Maybe it is only an anxiety attack I am having, or it may be more severe, or the 'real thing' once again. At this point I really do not know what tomorrow will bring when the doctor sees me, or indeed if I will even accept his advice if it is not to my liking. I'll try to stay in touch and let all of you know where things are going. If you have not heard from me after a couple days, then things probably took a turn for the worst. Or perhaps, a turn for the best. I hope this is just a false alarm, I really do. Kind regards, PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #147 ******************************