Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA09515; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:58:45 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710070158.VAA09515@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #275 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Oct 97 21:58:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 275 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What's up With Dixon, California? (Linc Madison) 101-XXXX for Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: The Even Hand of the Law (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Combining Analog Lines (Christopher W. Boone) Re: Combining Analog Lines (admin@honoluluairport.com) Re: Voice Mail Spam (Jim Youll) Re: Voice Mail Spam (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Bits Error After Lightning (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Worldcom - MCI Merger? (Jason Clifford) 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: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: What's up With Dixon, California? Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 04:40:25 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! The community of Dixon, California, on Interstate 80 between San Francisco and Sacramento, has just been realigned from area code 916 into area code 707. The city and county leaders requested this realignment rather than be split into area code 530. However, there are two questions I've been having trouble answering: (1) Is there permissive dialing for the change? The early information seemed to indicate a splash cut. (2) Will Dixon also move from the Sacramento LATA (the southern half of the current 916) into the San Francisco LATA (all of 415, 650, 510, and 707, plus northern 408)? Such a move would be more consistent with the existing LATA boundaries, but I've seen no announcement addressing the question. This realignment means that, for the first time in decades, all the rate centers in Solano County are in the same area code. However, if the LATA line didn't shift, it means that it is now possible to dial inter-LATA toll calls within area code 707, just by dialing 7 digits. In an attempt to answer these questions, I tried a small experiment. I dialed 0-707-678-xxxx and 0-707-693-xxxx, and also tried the same calls using area code 916. My preassigned carrier for intra-LATA calls is Pacific Bell; for inter-LATA calls, Sprint. Thus, I should get a PacBell bong if I'm calling within the S.F. LATA, but a Sprint bong if I'm calling to the Sac'to LATA. Also, the call should immediately route to intercept if the prefix is invalid, at least if it's in my own LATA. All of the calls went through to a Sprint bong, using either 707 or 916. None went to intercept, and none went to a PacBell bong. I tried the number of a business (so as not to wake anyone at 4:30 a.m.!) on 1+ and it rang through on both 707 and 916, so it appears that there *is* permissive dialing, at least "de facto." Of course, the other question regarding permissive dialing is for calls originating in Dixon. I would guess that those calls were splash-cut, that as of October 4th, all calls from Dixon dialed with just 7 digits are assumed to be in area code 707. (All points in 707 outside Dixon are toll calls, but it is not necessary to dial 1+NPA for HNPA tolls in California. There are prefix conflicts between 707 and 916, so it is not possible to have permissive dialing out of Dixon.) Maybe if I have a free afternoon some time soon, I'll take a little "field trip" and find out ... ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:04:16 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 101-XXXX For Traditional Intra-LATA LEC Toll In "What Least Expensive No-Surcharge Company/Plan?", Jack Decker wrote: > In Michigan, we have competition for intraLATA toll, and my line is > NOT presubscribed to the local phone company (which in my case > happens to be GTE) for intraLATA toll. Since virtually every toll > call I have made from my home line in recent months has been within > my home LATA, I *would* just use GTE for those calls, BUT it seems > that there is no way to access them using a 10(1X)XXX code -- > at least not any way that any of their reps seem to know about. > If you call various GTE numbers and ask around enough, they will > give you the code for whoever is handling GTE's interLATA toll (I > forget which carrier is doing that, but basically GTE has an > arrangement with one of the major carriers [not one of the "big 3", > though] to handle their interLATA toll). But that is not the same > access that one would get for intraLATA toll (for example, dialing > the code they give plus "0" gets you the IXC's operator, not a GTE > operator). > If any GTE switch technicians happen to read this and know the > *correct* code to use to place an intraLATA toll call using GTE's > facilities (and NOT those of the IXC they contract with for > interLATA toll), I'd appreciate it if you'd send me the code via > e-mail. GTE doesn't have any LATAs of their own in the state of Michigan. All LATAs in Michigan are considered to be Ameritech (formerly Michigan Bell). 'Traditional' Independent telcos which provide service within a BOC LATA have toll-homings to the BOC tandem switch in that LATA for intra-LATA toll calls. Some independents do have their own toll or tandem switch, if that independent has a large number of exchanges within a small region in the same LATA, but not all of the traffic between the exchanges is local. Ameritech does have some 101-XXXX codes, which _might_ happen to be dialable for intra-LATA calls from those GTE central offices. The following 101-XXXX+ codes are assigned to Ameritech, according to the FCC's latest list of US/NANP numbering/dialing information: 101-5475+, 101-5606+, 101-6123+; and for Ameritech's "Long-Distance" (future inTER-LATA toll? Ameritech's Cellular inTER-LATA toll?) there is 101-0113+ (10-113+ in the older/shorter, soon to be obsolete format). _IF_ GTE has _properly_ loaded (one of) Ameritech's fg.D "CIC-codes" (101-XXXX+) into your local GTE central-office switch translations, then you 'should' have your intra-LATA toll calls properly routed via Ameritech's toll/tandem switch for intra-LATA toll calls, and you 'should' be properly billed at Ameritech/GTE (Michigan) tariffed rates. BTW, note that I qualify 'if', 'properly' and 'should'. What 'should' happen doesn't always work that way. Last month, two new NPA codes took effect in permissive dialing (new NPA 228 for the Mississippi Gulfcoast area, splitting from NPA 601; new NPA 931 for central Tennessee except Nashville metro, splitting from NPA 615). For a few days into permissive dialing, if I dialed 1-228-nxx-xxxx for a valid Mississippi Gulfcoast number, or 1-931-nxx-xxxx for a valid number in central Tennessee (except Nashville metro), my own BellSouth local exchange would properly take the complete ten-digits. But when they sent the call to the AT&T toll switch in New Orleans (the calls were inTER-LATA, and AT&T is my primary inTER-LATA carrier), I received a recording from AT&T: "You call did not go through. Please try your call again. 060-T". Usually, if the AT&T toll switch doesn't have the new area code's digits in _their_ switch translations, the recording would state: "Your call cannot be completed as dialed ... 060-T". The 'rejection' recording came from AT&T, and _not_ BellSouth. And my local BellSouth central office _properly_ let me dial all ten-digits! But when I called AT&T's repair department, they kept telling me that I was experiencing a BellSouth problem. The AT&T tech/rep (who was in Atlanta) even 3-way'd me to a remote test line for him to dial-thru the AT&T New Orleans toll switch. _HIS_ calls to NPA 228 and NPA 931 went through! He then told me to try placing the calls with 10-288+ or 101-0288+. Since AT&T is my primary inTER-LATA carrier, this would be a redundant way to dial the call, but _not_ prohibited by my local switch, thus I thought I would get the _same_ "Your call did not go through ... 060-T" recording, when the call reached the AT&T toll switch in downtown New Orleans. However, my call properly routed!?!? So it might just have been a BellSouth problem after all! Maybe my local central office _allowed_ me to dial NPAs 228 and 931 in a full ten-digit format, but when I didn't indicate the call with 10[10]288+, BellSouth was sending the wrong number of digits or some other garbled information to AT&T's switch, yet when I did use 10[10]288+ before 1+ calls to 228 and 931, BellSouth simply sent the dialed digits 228-nxx-xxxx and 931-nxx-xxxx to AT&T with no problems. Please let us know whatever happens when you try to dial your inTRA-LATA toll calls using Ameritech's 101-XXXX+ codes. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 00:24:03 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: The Even Hand of the Law baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) writes: > The Old Bear wrote: >> From what I can tell from this wire-service story, it looks like >> the court made the correct legal decision -- my personal feelings >> notwithstanding. > Her personal feelings notwithstanding, as well! As your article > points out, the judge herself denounced Cyberpromo's business > practices ... > There's been a lot of loose talk about "spamming" or otherwise > harassing this judge. Leave her alone, or congratulate and thank her. > She did the right thing, and then some. This decision is a major > victory for the anti-spammers ... >> I place more blame on AGIS and its counsel for not having prepared and >> negotiated a document with better protection of AGIS under these >> circumstances. > Supposedly, AGIS requires that its spammers adhere to the IEMMC > guidelines. It is trivially demonstrable that Spamford is not living > up to the letter of these guidelines in any way whatsoever, nor has he > made the slightest bit of effort to ensure that his customers do so. > Ergo, Cyberpromo is in breach, QED. Unfortunately, one party being in default of one provision of a contract does not automatically nullify the contract. Most contacts contain various remedies which relate to different kind of defaults by the parties. While I am not a lawyer, I have spent many years dealing with complex commercial real estate leases and contracts. Interestingly, the hard-learned lessons of "real space" are quite applicable to cyberspace. And I am constantly amazed to see how few attorneys have thought through the complex issues involved. Generally speaking, our legal system abhors forfeitures. When someone defaults on the terms of a contract, there usually is a mechanism specified for the aggrieved party to put the other party on notice and to have an opportunity to cure the default. Naturally, there may be penalties involved, and sometimes there are additional provisions to prevent repetitive bad faith default-cure, default-cure cycles. Under some circumstances, a default may be so egregious as to cause further damage if allowed to continue. The AGIS problems of "ping attacks" would probably be considered such -- if one could demonstrate that Cyberpromo's wanton actions predictably caused these attacks. Although I am adamantly anti-spam, one thing about all of this which concerns me is that these 'denial of service' attacks can be mounted by anyone, for any reason. And just as they can harm unrelated third-parties who may be customers of a company like AGIS, they can also inflict harm on unrelated third-parties of any network provider who has the misfortune of having a customer who comes under attack for whatever reason. Let me draw a comparison to the recent situation in Atlanta where the FBI leaked information about its investigation of Richard Jewel, the security guard who discovered the bomb in Olympic Park. For several weeks, television and news crews kept Mr. Jewel's apartment complex under 24-hour siege with video trucks and bright lights. Certainly, this could not have been pleasant for other tenants who just happened to be living in the complex. Possibly, some of those tenants decided to move out or to withhold rent because their units had become all but unlivable. (I do not know if any tenants really did so.) Certainly, the landlord would be seriously damaged under such a scenario and might even be forced to default on his mortgage if his cash flow were sufficiently impaired. Should this give him a right to evict Mr. Jewel as a cause of the disturbance? I do not wish to portray AGIS as naive and innocent, but I am concerned that righteous vigilantism is only a short step from anyone with a computer 'bringing down' any network provider who sells services to someone with whom they take exception. It is for this reason that I strongly believe that we need a rule of law dealing with such things as forged addresses, failure to remove people from lists as requested, sale and resale of lists without the consent of those on the lists, using improperly harvested addresses, etc. With such laws in place, it becomes much simpler for a provider like AGIS to structure its contracts so that they can be quickly terminated in the event of a customer engaging in 'unlawful activities.' Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:56:06 -0500 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Reply-To: cboone@NOSPAMearthlink.net There was a story in {Internet Week} magazine a week or so ago on such modems that use TWO analog lines to get 67K or 112K if supported by your ISP. I think I threw the article out but you might get info from the magazine. Your idea evidently has been on their minds (at the modem makers) for some time already. The modems aren't cheap ($400 or so). Chris ------------------------------ From: admin@honoluluairport.com Subject: Re: Combining Analog Lines Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 08:48:09 GMT On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:35:18 -0700, Cameron Smith wrote: > I live in a rural area where digital service is all but unavailable. > We have, here on-island, an ISP who brings in a T-1 signal. In order > to get that T-1 (or any fraction thereof) to my home, I would have to > pay the telco a $1400 setup fee and over $1200 per month! Plus, of > course, the connection fee to the ISP. > The ISP, however, is willing to let me co-locate a machine on his > premises. What I can do is set up a standard analog line from that > machine to my home with a couple of 56K modems. So far so good. > What I *want* to do, however, is set up *two* analog lines with 56k > modems and combine or concentrate them somehow. Cameron, I read on the net once about inverse multiplexing analog lines as you describe. I can't find the URL though! Sorry. Try doing a Yahoo search on inverse multiplexing. Maybe you could also try the sat. dishes that conx to the net? Regards, David ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Spam Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:10:22 -0400 Organization: Agent Zero Communications J.D. Baldwin wrote: > Last night, this was exceeded by Ameritech, which my fellow > midwesterners know is The Most Evil Corporation In The History Of The > World. My phone service with Ameritech includes phone company hosted > voice mail (so I can get messages during busy signals on what is > primarily a data line). Last night, when checking my messages, there > was a two-minute "bulletin" from Ameritech. I punched in the code to > listen to it (I don't think there was a way around it) and was treated > to an ad for some sort of "sweepstakes" Ameritech wanted me to enter > by calling some 800-#. > WHAT THE HELL?!? > I plan to call Ameritech to complain, loudly, about this practice, but > I thought I'd mention it here to see whether: > a) Anyone else has experienced this; Oh yes, and I tend to pickup VM with a cellular phone, so I pay by the minute if they pollute my inbox. And yes, I got this junk even though I was promised a year ago that they would "remove" my box from the broadcast list. > b) There is any way to stop this (that I should know about > before calling)? Yes, but you already know what it is: "... call Ameritech to complain, loudly, about this practice". That's what I do. If your state has a public utilities commission that's worth anything, take your complaint there next. In Ohio they know of Ameritech's tricks ("free" services like 3-way calling, silently added to the line, that cost money when you use them, even by accident) If it takes an escalation call to the Chicago headquarters to get this done -- do it. But, that's what those Chicago people are there for -- don't be shy about calling. BTW there IS an 800-number for the Chicago office, though the front lines staff and their direct supervisors don't like to give it out. My God -- you PAY for the voicemail and they treat it like they own it! I'm so glad Ameritech has competition here (NW Ohio) and can't wait until the competitors start taking mainstream customers. BTW, I've had the 3-way calling "feature" removed from the line; our PUC has had tons of complaints about it (to the extent that Ameritech had to send extra notices to everyone about it.) ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Spam Date: 6 Oct 1997 09:02:03 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , J.D. Baldwin wrote: > We all get e-mail spam. I'm hardly alone there. > I am, however, the only one I know who's received PAGER spam. A few > months back, my text pager came alive with several ads purportedly for > MEN'S HEALTH magazine. I called the 800-# to raise hell, and got an > ad for some sort of sex chat instead. Grrrrrrr. I've gotten pager spam, of the numeric variety. It's not uncommon; you get a message to call a number you don't recognize and WHAM! it's some high-priced Carribean island. Amply covered here in c.d.t. Alpha pager spam? Wow, that's new. > Last night, this was exceeded by Ameritech, which my fellow > midwesterners know is The Most Evil Corporation In The History Of The > World. My phone service with Ameritech includes phone company hosted > voice mail (so I can get messages during busy signals on what is > primarily a data line). Last night, when checking my messages, there > was a two-minute "bulletin" from Ameritech. I punched in the code to > listen to it (I don't think there was a way around it) and was treated > to an ad for some sort of "sweepstakes" Ameritech wanted me to enter > by calling some 800-#. I have Ameritech voice mail on an Ohio line that is primarily used for voice calls. I've received many service announcements on this line from Ameritech, but they have all been legitimate messages to inform me of things like upcoming outages. Mark W. Schumann | catfood@apk.net Why should I change or hide my return address to deter spammers? I just loop the garbage right back at 'em. ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Bits Error After Lightning Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 03:36:07 GMT In article , Felix Leung wrote: > Hi, I got the answer for the following question, but I am not sure how > should I handle the 0.2 bits error, should I just leave the answer as > 25.2 or I should use 26bits? > If the speed of transmission on a line is 7200bps and that line is hit > by lighting that causes an impluse distortion of 3.5 milliseconds, > what is the max. number of bits that could be in error? > The term bit rate representing the number of bits per second. 7200 > bits per sec. * .0035 sec. = 25.2 bits could be in error. Let me guess: A homework problem in some sort of data communications class. Sigh. In terms of getting the "right answer", 25.2 probably isn't it. You can't really corrupt a fractional bit - it's either corrupted or not. So they probably want you to round up to 26. Or maybe they're looking for 27 -- at 7200 bps, a bit lasts .139 milliseconds. So 25 bits (25*.139=3.47) will be completely distorted. That leaves .03 ms, and half of that can take out the last 15 microseconds of the "first" bit and the first 15 microseconds of the "last" bit, giving a total of 27 possibly distorted bits. Of course, in an ideal system, the receiver should be able to correctly detect a bit as long as it's over half right, so maybe 25 is the right answer -- even if all the extra .2 ends up hitting the same bit, there's still .8 of that bit to get it right. But no real world communications system works this way, anyway. Are we talking about a modem line here? 7200 bps modems use more than one bit-per-baud, and a noise hit can screw up an entire baud, so you really need to know the baud rate, figure out how many bauds are corrupted, and then multiply by bits-per-baud. Plus, with anything above a very basic modulation (i.e. just about anything faster tahn 600bps or so), the bauds aren't independant. If one is screwed up, it makes decoding the next one correctly impossible also. Some modulations, including, I think, v.32 (which would be the a common 7200bps modulation), use scramblers, which also compound a single-bit error into more bits-in-error. (But you could csondier the scrambler to be a higher layer, and make the problem concentrate just on the phyiscal line, in which case the scrambler effects would be irrelevant. Sorry I can't help you with a specific answer ... if my assumption that you are getting this in return for money you paid to an educational institution is correct, than I have lots of suggestions for them :). Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ From: Jason Clifford Subject: Re: Worldcom - MCI Merger? Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:45:04 +0100 Organization: Genesis Internet Services Limited Doug Dalton wrote: > Other side on this merger is that BT has been running a smear campaign > against MCI, BT contends that MCI is a struggling company that made > itself look better than it was actually performing and was providing > misinformation during merger discussions. I don't know how much of > this is propaganda, I don't think BT is trying to get out of the > merger, but they sure make it seem that way, the UUNet offer must be > stressing BT's protests. Bearing in mind how much BT will loose if the MCI merger fails I think this is unlikely. Recently BT have been remarketing themselves to their business customers as Concert (BT/MCI) and stating that through the merger and firming up of Concert BT will be able to offer truely world-class comms. The loss of face resulting from the merger failure after BT assured everyone that it was a done deal and made all the usual promises will be damaging in terms of future business. I am currently looking to implement a $300,000/year European network for one of my clients and Concert (BT/MCI) was, until the Worldcom announcement, the most likely to get the business. Now I am looking into the matter again. Jason Clifford Genesis Internet Services Limited As a service I provide analysis of viruses and poor grammar to senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail at a rate of $500.00 per hour. Delivery of said correspondence constitutes a request for the aforementioned services at said price. Supply billing address. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #275 ******************************