Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA23486; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709270622.CAA23486@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #262 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Sep 97 02:22:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Bill McMilleon) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John Lydic) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (David Abrams) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Dave Stott) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Nils Andersson) Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (Fred R. Goldstein) Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Stephen B. Kutzer) Can You Say Partitioning? (Judith Oppenheimer) Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Eric Florack) Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome (Judith Oppenheimer) 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: * telecom-request@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 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: Bill McMilleon Reply-To: billmc@mtco.com Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:33:26 -0500 On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:27:05 -0400 Marc Baime wrote: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to > get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable > modem. Can both machines run at the same time? Do I need a > multiplexer? A hub? Where does the cable need to be split? Before > coming into the cable modem? Coming out of the cable modem? > I have a NEC2000 ethernet card I used to use for a two PC Novell lan > that I had set up in my home ... can I use this card? Are there any > books on this subject? Any literature on the web? All replies > appreciated. Please respond to mbaime1@tampabay.rr.com with any > information on this subject. Probably be nice if you responded to the > group also as I'm sure many inquiring minds would like to know. Should be no problem to do this... Use use WinGate (http://www.wingate.net/) as a proxy server - works on Win95 or NT. There's lots of documentation at their website about how it works. Sounds like you can use the ne2000 compatible cards for your "at home ethernet" too. I use an eight port netgear 10 base T hub and have unshielded twisted pair cable connecting multiple machines at home. The nice thing about WinGate is that its "free" if you only need one active proxy connection at a time. Bill McMilleon LAN Administrator/Applications Developer 360 Communications ------------------------------ From: John Lydic Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:43:45 -0400 Organization: Cuttler-Hammer Automation Reply-To: lydicjw@idt.ch.etn.com.etn.com John R. Levine wrote: >> If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to >> get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that > plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. > If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box > running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a > regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like > it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. IP proxy or spoofing is freely available for Linux, (it came with the RedHat distribution) and is relatively easy to setup. I'm in the process of doing that now. The only thing that can't be automatically routed behind the proxy is UDP (RealAudio, etc) which as I understand it may be assigned to a specific local IP address. John lydicjw@idt.ch.etn.com ------------------------------ From: David Abrams Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:57:21 -0400 Organization: Galactic Industries Corp Search for a shareware product named "WINGATE" I have not used it but my understanding is it is a win95 internet gateway which allows an internal network to share a single external IP address. A proxy server will do the same thing. We use the MS proxy server and have illegal internal IP addresses. Only the proxy server external net card has a valid IP address. David Abrams Galactic Industries Corp dea@galactic.com www.galactic.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:53:34 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In TELECOM Digest #256, J.F. Mezei wrote: > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right? > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers? It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the network load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single number, every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For instance, think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is on top of the normal call volume traffic. Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the service they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's offer is compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same technicians with the same level of training and the same level of desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's offer may be better, but only marginally so. So is the investment in LNP worth the price to provide virtually the same level of service at virtually the same cost? Not in my opinion. And yes, I do have a business that relies on my phone number being accessable and somewhat constant, but I don't make service decisions based on the cost of stationery. If I have to change my number, it's just one more reason to communicate with my clients and remind them that their business is valuable to me. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 26 Sep 1997 15:21:45 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca says ... > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right ? The originating local exchange looks up the 800 number to determine which IXC owns it. That IXC then presumably does its own lookup to figure out how to handle it, which might map to a standard phone number or to a designated internal address on its own network. All quite fast. > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, > and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever > that phone might be ? > This would remove the need to constantly split area codes since there > wouldn't be "area codes" anymore, just 10 digit telehone numbers. > Need a new line, just grab the next available number. With more and > more cities being split into different area codes, dialing 10 digits > for ALL numbers might become more natural than having to decide > whether one has to dial 7 or 10 digits. That's essentially what the FCC's mandated Local Number Portability will do. As of a phase-in beginning in 1998, once anybody asks to port a number, that prefix must change from today's handoff-to-CO into a database lookup. In other words, all calls to that NPA-NXX prefix must be checked against an LNP database by the "n-1" switch. The LNP database supplies a "location routing number" (LRN), which identifies the specific switch that the number now lives on; that switch then receives the dialed number. The FCC rejected an alternative wherein the terminating switch would say "this number has been ported elsewhere, go look it up". Under that scheme, only ported calls would have caused database lookups, making calls to non-ported numbers faster. The selected scheme slows everyone down, making it "fairer". (I realize that Digest readers could editorialize on endlessly here, and I choose not to belabor the point.) There's stuff about this on the FCC web site. > Also, when one person moves, one could keep the same telephone number > and the telco would simply change the routing tables. If one changes > supplier of dial tone, same would happen. Keep your number, change > routing table. Yes, but remember billing is based on the dialed number, so if you move to a different area, and keep your number, the cost of porting it becomes your responsibility. This opens a can of worms, so it's well into the future. Technically easy, of course. > This would be quite similar to the internet domain name system. But there is no explicit distance-based charging on the Internet. PAT> Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens PAT> occassionally now with 800. A risk, of course. But there will not be one big fat national LNP database; rather, each ported prefix code will have its own ported numbers, and the telcos can figure out on a local or LATA basis how to sort them out. So a failure in, say, the Chicago database won't block New York. It wouldn't surprise me if, when the database failed, calls defaulted to the ILEC owner of the prefix (pre-portability) so un-ported numbers might still work. I think this will end up with third parties in charge. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:13:01 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In article , J.F. Mezei writes: > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right? > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, > and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever > that phone might be? There is another issue, albeit of diminshing importance. COST. Both the caller and the PBX or equivalent behind which the caller is sitting might want to know if this is a call across the street (1c/min or so) or to Barbados ( about 50c/min, IIRC). The same is true for e.g. the payphone systems. The proposed plan necessitates a standardized way to carry back this info both in voice coded and machine-readable form, BEFORE the call is finalized. This is not to say that it cannot be done, just that this is a bigger job than the original poster may have realized. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option Date: 26 Sep 1997 15:08:38 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , brian@his.com says ... > And the other thing that was not true is the "Privacy" option > on the Qualcomm phone. Basically, it is the encryption in the IS-95 > CDMA standard. She said that I wouldn't like it because it added > about a half second of delay into the audio due to the processing; > however, it would be available "shortly." Well, I have never been > able to get BANM to define "shortly." Last week however, I finally > got a somewhat-knowledgeable customer service agent. She said the > only thing on their service menu remotely like encryption is > 'Transcrypt' and it was on the analog phones, not the digital phones. > So then I send my fourth e-mail to BANM in eight months, hoping to get > a higher-level response. This time, they call me back for the first > time. A lady in Networks says they have no plans to activate the > option. Why? "Dunno." I've never heard of an IS-95 call being particulary tappable at the air interface ... what additional privacy is needed? From my reading of the IS-95 summary at www.cdg.org, it appears that in the "reverse" direction (mobile to base), the phone chooses a spreading code based on among other things its ESN, which of course is never sent in the clear. If you don't have the spreading code, it's probably impossible or nearly-so to decode it. In the forward direction, I'm not so sure about the security, since it's not evident that there are unique codes for each "channel", just separate phases of a common code. But I may be missing something. Anybody know? If this is weak, then wireline-end echo might be enough to make the reverse channel audio audible. The keypad (not ESN) encryption method (CMEA) has been demonstrated to be extremely weak, as it was one of those "NSA secret" developments that left out the crypto community and turned out to be "hahaha" weak encryption. But that doesn't encode the voice or the ESN, and in practice may not be crackable off the air since the cyphertext blocks are so short. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:10:54 -0400 From: Stephen B. Kutzer Subject: Two ISDN Devices on One Line A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 locations. To date, I've only connected to one of these at a time. That will be changing in the near future when I will be connecting 2 PCs. Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? I guess I'm a little confused on the "bonding" that takes place which ends up, from my naive perspective, giving me dial tone on my two SPID numbers. FWIW, I plan on connecting both PCs with external Motorola Bitsurfer "modems". I understand that I can only have a dual-channel connection from one PC at a time. But I'm wondering if (a) I can run one PC across one SPID and the other on the second SPID, and (b) if I can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog ports of each of these modems (in other words, will both locations provide dial-tone to both lines)? Many thanks, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:42:52 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Can You Say Partitioning? Partitioning - that's FCC-speak for separate domains for different toll-free SACs. The industry originally denied the feasibility of partitioning with 888 because it needed to drain more and more numbers for pager and other data services prior to the provisioning of 888. Now that provisioning can be speeded up, there's no more excuse. The current system is bad for business, bad for customers, bad for consumers - and terrible for resource management. Let's fix this - quick - before it's too broke to fix. Judith Oppenheimer ------------------------------ "888" shortage hits toll-free phone industry By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuter) - The toll-free telephone business is in a crunch -- a numbers crunch, that is. Industry officials warn that demand for ``888'' and ``800'' toll-free numbers is so strong they need to conserve the pool of unused numbers. They want to avoid using up toll-free ``resources'' before a new ``877'' code is deployed next April. ``There seems to be sort of a run on toll-free numbers,'' said Sally Mott Freeman, spokeswoman for the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the industry group that monitors the allocation of toll-free numbers. ATIS has asked the Federal Communications Commission for a hand to implement a ``conservation plan'' in the face of booming popularity for toll-free digits among companies and consumers, who clearly like the convenience and price of the product. The use of the numbers in pagers, faxes and other gadgets also has contributed to the squeeze, industry officials said. The toll-free codes let callers dial, free of charge, the party assigned the number. Users, like mail-order companies, airlines and parents of college students, pay a phone company or other toll-free provider a flat fee for use of the number. Availability of 800 numbers essentially dried up in early 1996 after nearly 20 years. The 888 code was introduced in March 1996 and was expected to last through spring 1998. ``We'll be lucky if it lasts two years,'' said Freeman. There are roughly 8 million numbers available with each toll-free prefix. As of Sept. 20, there were 12.1 million 800 and 888 numbers in use and 2.6 million available, according to Morristown, N.J.-based Bellcore, whose subsidiary operates the database that distributes the numbers. The proposed conservation plan would limit the number of 800/888 numbers that phone companies and other toll-free providers can reserve for use by businesses and consumers. Currently, the roughly 210 companies that assign toll-free numbers face a ceiling of 2,000 a week, or 7.5 percent of all numbers they have available for use -- whichever is larger. Industry officials are proposing the FCC to sharply lower the cap applicable to each company. The cap would vary from company to company, depending on the number of toll-free numbers each company has deployed for actual use. ATIS told the FCC earlier this month that 401,051 new toll-free numbers were assigned in August, up from a monthly average of 344,113 for much of the year. Further increases, the group warned, would ``exhaust'' the available pool before next April's 877 launch. At this point, however, officials don't anticipate the kind of crunch that happened in 1995 with 800 numbers. The FCC at that time crafted a plan to slow the depletion and smooth the deployment of the 888 code. Among other things, the introduction of the 888 code was moved ahead by a month. FCC officials are monitoring the latest situation. The convenience of toll-free numbers helps explain their popularity, especially among mail-order businesses and other companies keen on having customers call them. Industry officials also cite these factors as likely, or possible, contributors to the depletion: Greater use of electronic pagers, fax machines and voice mail based on toll-free digits. More use of ``personal'' toll-free numbers by consumers, such as parents who have a student at college and want to give that person a cheap way to call home. The approach of the holiday season, which prompts catalog companies to request more toll-free numbers. Next year's launch of 877, which has spurred companies to try and reserve remaining 888 numbers before they dry up. ``Once it was technically possible for many new categories of customers to use them, the market found a way to use them,'' Ken Branson, a Bellcore spokesman, said of toll-free numbers. -------------------- 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem > Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, > but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any > guesstimates? PAT] That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take his place?" Consider: Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a smile. But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take his place? Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the idea that it's not a good PR move. /E [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly, Spamford was going to court to get an order requiring AGIS to reconnect him. Does anyone know the outcome of that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:55:46 -0400 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Pending Rulings, Advocates Urge FCC to Protect Interests Of Toll-Free Vanity Numbers; AT&T Lends Support NEW YORK, Sept. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Pending rulings by The FCC that will affect how toll-free numbers are assigned and managed, ICB Toll Free, experts in toll-free application and management, urge The Commission to institute regulations that will, specifically, protect the interests of toll-free vanity number users, such as 1-800-FLOWERS, as well as resolve broader issues of toll-free number depletion. While it took 27 years for demand to deplete roughly eight million 800 numbers, experts estimate that the inventory of toll-free service area code (SAC) "888," established in 1996, will be exhausted in less than three years. An April 1997 Report and Order by the FCC cited concerns that RespOrgs, groups comprising predominantly carriers that are responsible for toll-free number assignments, are influencing depletion by "warehousing," toll-free numbers; that users are "hoarding" numbers they have taken, but have no plans to use, and that both groups are "brokering" numbers on the open-market. All three practices are against FCC regulations that demand numbers be allocated on a first-come-first-serve basis, and are rooted in carriers' and end users' desire to protect their investment in toll-free vanity numbers. Industry insiders explain that carriers who market vanity numbers, as well as commercial end-users, who invest money to build equity in their vanity numbers through advertising and marketing campaigns, believe they should be able to protect their interests in specific numbers. Judith Oppenheimer, ICB President, an expert and consultant on the use of toll-free numbers, and a user-group advocate, explains the problem: "Confusion, costly misdials and loss of business can and do occur," Ms. Oppenheimer says, "if for example, 1-888-FLOWERS is assigned to anyone other than the operator of 1-800-FLOWERS. Such end users want the right, therefore, to either replicate their 1-800 number when a new SAC is launched, or to be given right of first refusal." However, "replication" and "first refusal" are, Ms. Oppenheimer admits, only short-term solutions: "The real reason that toll-free numbers are flying out of inventory so quickly," she says, "is largely due to the proliferation of data and personal communications devices, such as pagers, that are devouring SACs almost as quickly as they are created. In a market crowded by personal and commercial toll-free numbers, we believe all numbers should not be treated equally. Possible solutions to the problem are evolving along two lines: First, a system, such as the one that presently exists for creating domains -- website and Email addresses -- on the internet, presents an excellent model for future toll-free number allocation. Notwithstanding its own inherent problems, the benefits of the domain system are that it is open, allowing users, if they wish, to register for and secure the particular address they choose, versus the current toll-free number system that subjects users to carrier-controlled assignment. A second solution involves partitioning, which the FCC is investigating, and which would dedicate the 800 SAC to traditional sales, customer service and marketing applications, and provide other non-branded toll-free SACs such as 888 and 877 for paging, voicemail, and other one-to-one applications that require the utility, but not the brand, of toll-free. This would permit carriers and users to treat 800 numbers, not just as an access code, but as a brand that is readily recognized by consumers, and can be openly promoted." Ms. Oppenheimer points out that, for once, ICB and AT&T are on the same side of the issue. AT&T, in fact, supports a recommendation to continue to resolve toll-free numbering issues, by helping to put an existing toll-free number customer of record in touch with a "number seeker." John Cushman, Director of Toll-Free Services for AT&T also supports ICB's view that specific toll-free numbers have intrinsic value. While he stopped short of supporting a proposal to legalize the private commercial exchange of numbers, Cushman did indicate a desire to pursue this area. "I believe the arguments that ICB makes, relative to toll-free number value, are supported by the history of the toll-free industry, current RespOrg to RespOrg practices, and our customers' positions on vanity number protection," he says, adding, "We are putting our heads in the sand if we believe that number brokering is not taking place in the marketplace today." An advocate for user interests, both carrier and corporate, and visible presence on the toll-free scene, ICB has been advising business owners, corporate marketers and the telecom industries since 1993. ICB publishes ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, the online journal of toll-free marketing, regulatory and political issues. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS web address is http://www.icbtollfree.com. SOURCE ICB Inc. CONTACT: Judith Oppenheimer of ICB Toll Free Consultancy, 212-684-7210, joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com --------------------- 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #262 ******************************