Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA05569; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:36:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:36:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711022236.RAA05569@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #300 TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Nov 97 17:36:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 300 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News (Ed Ellers) Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News (M. Sullivan) Bellsouth Erroneously Billing Me - Help (Ron Schnell) Re: Tower Site Leases (Alan Boritz) Re: Tower Site Leases (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Tower Site Leases (Marty Bose) Seattle Area Split (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: FBI Chief Calls For Computer Crime Crackdown (Tom Watson) Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? (Chris Telesca) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Dave Hughes) Re: Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points (Ed Ellers) 'Spam' Slayer Article in Philadelphia Inquirer (Fred Schimmel) 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: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:43:42 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Monty Solomon wrote, quoting from a Netly News story: > If you hated the idea of a V chip in your television, wait until you > hear that the government wants to install one in your computer. TIME > has learned that the FCC has proposed that new PCs be outfitted with a > V chip to filter out video violence and sex. Still unclear is what Net > broadcasts could be affected. The idea alarms free-speech advocates, > who wonder why Americans need a Net-nanny." This sounds like a *very* confused report. What the FCC is proposing is that the V-chip capability be required as part of PC TV tuners as well as 13" or larger TV sets. Right now PC TV tuners (cards or otherwise) are not required to have closed captioning unless they are bundled with a 13" or larger display, as per the FCC's captioning rules; the Commission apparently doesn't want this "loophole" to also apply to the V-chip. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: FCC Proposes V-Chip For Computers, From Time/Netly News Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 01:24:25 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan This story is plain wrong. The FCC has sought comment on whether computers with TV cards designed to display standard TV signals should have to implement V-chip just as regular TVs do. This proposal has nothing to do with computers interfacing with the Net. According to the October 30 {Communications Daily}, the FCC claims that the Federal Register summary of its proposal has been misread. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 02:25:01 EST From: Ron Schnell Subject: Bellsouth Erroneously Billing Me - Help When I moved ten miles from North Miami Beach, FL to Pembroke Pines, I lost my grandfather status on my ISDN line, and could no-longer have unmetered usage. This made it very expensive to have my nailed-down line. My ISP offered to call me instead, since they are still grandfathered. All was working fine, but all of a sudden, Bellsouth says I have 40,000 minutes of usage this month. Now, I know that I have not screwed anything up, because my equipment is not configured to make outgoing calls, and my provider isn't configured to accept incoming calls from me. Nonetheless, they don't believe me, and insist that I pay the bill. Granted, I have only just begun the process of working up the Bellsouth hierarchy, but I was wondering if this has happened to anyone else? If not, can anyone think of how the equipment could have screwed up? The number they have for the outgoing calls they allege I made is indeed the number of my provider. Ron ronnie@twitch.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:56:08 -0500 In article , Allison Hift wrote: > ...This Firm solely represents counties and cities in > telecommunications matters. > I am collecting information concerning tower site lease agreements > throughout the United States so that I can assist a client of the > Firm's in making an informed, intelligent decision. Would that include Massachusetts municipalities that desire to lease space to telecommunications carriers? Would you know if the state, and it's subdivisions, are legally permitted to do that (by the letter of the law, that is)? ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 10:00:00 GMT Speaking from 25 years experiene in real estate investment management, I see nothing wrong with looking for "comparables" for the purpose of determining value. It is done all the time in the real estate industry for everything from appraisals for home mortgages to the valuation of large commercial portfolios. My experiences with telecom and utility companies has been that their real estate departments are equally experienced and sophisticated, and understand the process. I was puzzled, in fact, by Marty's comment: > On the average they would come back and request a new lease at > four to ten times the original lease, usually after construction > had started." To this, I would ask why Marty's firm would start construction before the lease was signed -- both for his own protection and for the protection of his contractor. (No sensible landlord would let a contractor on site without evidence of insurance and indemnifications so that the landlord would not be liable if someone were injured in the construction process; and the contractor should want to be sure he has authority to access the site and know his position if he has to file a lien to collect his fees.) Keep in mind that usually telecom companies enter into many, many leases for tower sites and for cable easements, etc. They usually have well-crafted standard-form documents and procedures which cover their concerns and protect their interests. On the other hand, the typical landlord sees very few telecom leases and is far less experienced in knowing the ins-and-outs of what to worry about. (Interestingly, this turns the tables on the usual situation where landlords negotiate many leases but tenants are only in the market once every several years -- kind of like the unequal negotiating skills of full-time automobile dealers and occassional car buyers.) If Marty has his contractor on site before his documents are done, Marty's boss should take a hard look at the risks to which he is exposing his company. Or possibly Marty is playing fast and lose with his contractor, rushing him onto the site without authority and then using partially completed construction as a ploy to intimidate a landlord into signing up or face having to litigate to get the semi-completed structure removed and his property restored. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Tower Site Leases Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:00:00 GMT > I take this opportunity to respond to the post by Marty Bose: >> I'm disappointed to see TELECOM Digest publishing a troll request >> like this one. When I worked for a PCS carrier this was a typical >> request from a lawyer trying to find a way for his client to bust >> a lease that the owner had second thoughts about. On the average >> they would come back and request a new lease at four to ten times >> the original lease, usually after construction had started. . . > ... I, along with [my] Law Firm, pride myself on practicing fairly > and ethically. I do not appreciate you rude posting concerning my > question. I am collecting information concerning tower site lease > agreements throughout the United States so that I can assist a client > of the Firm's in making an informed, intelligent decision. . . And, a response by oldbear@arctos.com which appears just before this in this issue: > Speaking from 25 years experiene in real estate investment management, > I see nothing wrong with looking for "comparables" for the purpose of > determining value. It is done all the time in the real estate > industry for everything from appraisals for home mortgages to > the valuation of large commercial portfolios. My experiences with > telecom and utility companies has been that their real estate > departments are equally experienced and sophisticated, and understand > the process. > I was puzzled, in fact, by Marty's comment: > "On the average they would come back and request a new lease at > four to ten times the original lease, usually after construction > had started." > To this, I would ask why Marty's firm would start construction before > the lease was signed -- both for his own protection and for the > protection of his contractor. (No sensible landlord would let a > contractor on site without evidence of insurance and indemnifications > so that the landlord would not be liable if someone were injured in > the construction process; and the contractor should want to be sure he > has authority to access the site and know his position if he has to > file a lien to collect his fees.) We never started construction before we had signed leases and all necessary approvals. This usually happened after the owner had a conversation with one of his counterparts and discovered that the other guy got paid more. Rarely would he take into account the many variables incumbent in site pricing, he just knew he got less. (snip) > If Marty has his contractor on site before his documents are done, > Marty's boss should take a hard look at the risks to which he is > exposing his company. Or possibly Marty is playing fast and lose > with his contractor, rushing him onto the site without authority and > then using partially completed construction as a ploy to intimidate > a landlord into signing up or face having to litigate to get the > semi-completed structure removed and his property restored. As I said, this is an unfounded assertion that I take great offense at. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:26:31 -0500 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Seattle Area Split Michael Gutteridge wrote: > (Seattle), 425 (Eastside and north end), and 253 (South King County). > There is an additional layer of complexity in that they are implementing > ten and eleven digit dialing, where some exchanges accross areacodes are > dialable using solely ten digits, and some exchanges within the areacode > require the full eleven digits. > They way I understand it, this is because some calls are inter-carrier > (ie, a call from USWest territory into GTE requires the eleven digits). > Ok, that's assumption number one. Is that correct? No. You are in Bellevue. If you call anything that is local to Bellevue (e.g. Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Issaquah, North Bend) that is in the 425 NPA, you can dial it with only seven digits. You will note that (most of) Bellevue, Renton, and Issaquah are in USWest, Kirkland and Redmond are in GTE, and North Bend is PTI. But you can still dial these calls with only seven digits as always. But let's say that you want to call Woodinville or Bothell, long distance calls within the 425 NPA. Rather than dialling 1-206-NXX-XXXX you will now dial 1-425-NXX-XXXX. This is because I (and several others) insisted to the Washington State Public Utilities Commission that "one plus required always means toll." If you want to call over to Seattle, you dial 206 (note the absence of a 1 because it's a local call) plus the number. And, something that I oppose the PUC ruling on, we're following the "Dallas model" where you are not *allowed* to dial 1+ if the call is local. I see no reason why the call should not go through with 1+ dialled, I just don't want 1+ to be required on local calls, and I want it to always be required on long distance ones. > Now, given that, is there some reference table where I can look up the > NPA/NXX combination and thereby determine what dialing scheme I need to > use? I've looked at the offerings from the TRA. I suspect the data is > buried somewhere in the LERG and/or NIPC. I don't have enough knowledge > to extract it, and the class on interpreting the LERG isn't offered > until the day after the dialing plan goes mandatory! You don't need the LERG for this. USWest and GTE have both been putting pamphlets in the mail for the past two months detailing the NXX's affected by the split. If you call 1-800-244-1111 USWest will be happy to send you one; I live in 360 and they sent me one. Basically anything that is local now remains local. But if that local number will fall in a new NPA, you need to dial the NPA first. Nothing in 253 is going to be local for you in Bellevue, so you can assume that all 253 calls are 1+. And most of 206 (with the exception of some northern suburbs of Seattle like Edmonds) will be local. Just keep dialling 1+ for calls that are long distance, but switch NPA's from 206 to 425 if necessary. Prepend 206 to calls that are on the west side of Lake Washington if they are local. And while you *can* prepend 425 to local calls on the Eastside, and it's good practice to do so, it is not required (you can still call Bellevue with seven digits). An interesting note in relation to this: for quite awhile until I got USWest to fix it, calls from the Glencourt CO in Bellevue (behind the post office downtown) to numbers in the Sherwood CO (off Lake Hills Blvd, serves the Lake Hills area and Eastgate) would *not* go through with 425 prepended. Finally, of all places to report it, translations laughed and said "Oh, you can just call repair for that!" Apparently USWest repair, while located in "floating" offices in the Midwest (I've gotten Des Moines, Minneapolis, and Omaha), can remotely print out a trouble ticket in the affected CO. So they printed a ticket for Glencourt and the next day it was fixed. ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: FBI Chief Calls For Computer Crime Crackdown Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1997 11:30:01 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , monty@roscom.COM wrote: > FBI chief calls for computer crime crackdown << Freeh told the International Association of Chiefs of > Police that software manufacturers should be required by law to > include a feature that allows police to descramble encrypted > communications. > ``It could take a $30 million supercomputer a year to > figure out the simplest encrypted message without this feature,'' > Freeh said. ``And that message might be 'we have the victim and will > kill him in an hour'.'' > The problem with all of this is that no computer can figure out what the phrase "It's going to be a cloudy day tommorow" means if the phrasing has been agreed upon in advance between two parties. Simple phrases like "The traffic is terrible here, but the light was green at 3rd and Main" could mean one thing, and "The traffic here is terrible, but the red light at 5th and Grape was stuck". Both of these phrases can be quite innocent and have real basis in fact, but mean two different things. Given the language, do we need to supply the government with the decoding of all the double entendrare we discuss in casual conversation. My feeling is that this is what the government is asking for. Criminals have used cryptic messages all the time, and it takes people quite some time to "decode" them. This has been done in the past even WITHOUT computers. Computers have just made it easier. In a conversation Ted Koppel had with another newsman, they discussed an "ad-hoc" code relating to military maneuvers. It related to questions about "Beetle Bailey" and "Steve Canyon". Get a computer to decode that!! Personally, if they just prosecuted all the "Make Money Fast" schemes on the internet, it would go a pretty long way in my book!! tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nah, they are not going to do that. Louis Freeh and his Federal Bureau of Inquisition would never work on the spammers for the simple reason that the spammers are accomplishing more to wreck the net than any number of FBI agents could do. You have to understand that law enforcement in general has a very strong dislike for the Internet (as do many/most government agencies) simply because of the speed with which everyday, average citizens are able to communicate and exchange information. What government wants its citizens to be able to do that? Oh, they had to get in the loop along with everyone else; like the newspapers on the one hand with their notoriously inaccurate and mostly anti-net stories while still operating their own web pages in the hopes of salvaging some of their circulation losses; but if the federal government could put this whole net out of business tomorrow via some judicial fiat or administrative ruling you bet they would do so. In the meantime, the Spamfords pollute things so badly that more and more people have simply turned away from things like Usenet news in disgust. Same end results, but the government does not have to take the blame for it. If Freeh, Janet Reno and others high in the ranks of law enforcement want to make themselves useful, they might convene a meeting of police officers, FBI agents and others of their ilk and advise them, "not everyone who uses the Internet is trading pictures of naked children; they are not kidnapping kids; using 'chat rooms' to have sex talk." And while all the officers listened with wide eyes at these heretics in their ranks who claim there are actually positive uses of the net, Freeh, Reno and Company might continue by explaining that there are a few (in their opinion) oddball citizens around who simply want to be left alone to communicate in private. Scum to be sure, but then aren't we all if we dare to express disagreement with law enforcement's stated objectives? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ctelesca@pagesz.net (Chris Telesca) Subject: Re: Caller ID: GTE California to GTE Indiana? Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:16:17 -0500 Organization: Pagesz.net In article , fgoldstein@bbn.| nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) wrote: > You can't get it from Medford because Medford (actually, the Malden > CO) is still on an analog CO switch (1AESS). NYNEX did not spend the > serious money to upgrade its analog switches to have Signaling System > 7, which is a prerequisite for Caller ID. Instead, they (I'd say > correctly, in this case) decided to just replace them all with digital > switches before the deadline for mandatory SS7, which is 1-Jan-1998. > So it will be replaced within the next two months. Indeed, NYNEX > scheduled several CO replacements for 31-December-1997! > That won't solve the entire out-of-area problem. While non-SS7 COs > are one cause, there are others. PBX trunks that terminate on what > NYNEX called "Flexpath" (channelized T1), or on IXC switches, don't > have Caller ID either. That's because trunk side ports on CO switches > don't have regular numbers. They do have ANI numbers for billing, but > ANI is not Caller ID. (Analog switches have ANI too. ANI lacks "*67" > blocking capability, so it's not presented to sent-paid destinations, > but it does go to 800 users, who are after all paying for the call.) > We noticed this on our one residual Flexpath, whose outgoing calls > were "out of area"; it was fixed by upgrading to ISDN PRI, which sends > and receives Caller ID just fine. Of course PRI is only available in > a small percentage of former-NYNEX COs, so it's not as if most PBX > users have a choice in the matter. IXCs have PRI but no numbers to > show. Mr. Goldstein: I was hoping that you could help me with some SS7 questions pertaining to how and when I forward my calls using either Call-Forwarding from my home or Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding from some line other than my own. If you care to check DejaNews for previous posts under ctelesca@pagesz.net and ctelesca@nccu.campus.mci.net and ctelesca@ncsu.campus.mci.net, you will get an idea of the problems I've been facing. I've tried to get BellSouth (the teleco offering the CF/RACF feature) to tell me how they handle and identify toll-calls that were made because my phone was call-forwarded, but no one at the teleco wants to tell me anything. Do you know how SS7 lists or keeps track of Call-Forwarded calls? Do you know how the teleco engineers monitor Call-Forwarding activities? Are you aware of any websites that might have this information? Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Chris Telesca ------------------------------ From: hicom@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes) Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: 31 Oct 1997 03:16:01 GMT Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.285.0194 Denver Colorado Reply-To: hicom@oldcolo.com In , Kevin DeMartino writes: > Thomas G. Spalthoff is right on target (V17 #293). The > Internet is a great medium for communicating and accessing > information, but it is not a silver bullet for our schools. Do we > really need every classroom wired to the Internet, as President > Clinton has suggested? Computer literacy is important, but it is not > as important as literacy in English (and other languages). I'll tell you here and now, any English teacher can and could, with a combination of classroom computers and links to the Internet impart more ENGLISH language literacy to a group of students, than the same teacher with pencils, paper, and books over the same period of time. And, at the same time, develop facility with forms of English used online (which differs, when done well, as much from paper-written forms as does the spoken word from the written text) I proved that 14 years ago with Radio Shack and Osborne computers accounts on the Source, and modem access to bulletin-boards. And some college freshman instructors who took my course in 'Electronic English' (and I don't mean word processing) demonstrated the same thing. That does not mean that all, or many, English teachers know how to teach English using computers and networks. But give me 30 students in a classroom with 15 networked computers with software of my choice, you take 30 in a classroom with pencils, paper, and books of your choice and after a school year, my students will wipe the floor with your paper crowd, in spelling, grammar, puncutation, composition, and general English Language literacy. They will also be far more prepared to graduate to higher and more subtle levels of computer and network use for further education or movement directly into the workforce. It is beyond me why the myth persists that reading and writing using computers, and communicating via the Internet in written forms, is not itself the use of the English language in ways so much more efficient in the use of time, and the skills (or lack thereof, as in typing skill) used in writing well, than relying on traditional paper and pencils. Dave Hughes ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ringdowns and Other Non-Dialable Toll-Points Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:32:10 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. The TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > Does anyone around here remember the radio operator based in Alma, > Quebec who handled all the traffic around the far northern fringes of > that province until at least some time in the 1970's? A couple > hundred miles north of Quebec City on provincial highway 169, her > duties were to maintain communication with such northern outposts as > Inukjuak, Salvit and Deception, Quebec. > The Chicago operators were amazed that such a system existed. I asked > Alma the distance being covered and the type of radio > communication. She said it was AM (amplitude modulation) single > sideband, and she ventured a guess that the point we were calling was > 'several hundred miles north'. The other main radio station covering > northern Quebec was located a bit to the west in the town of Val D'or, > which operated in essentially the same way. PAT]" There are several out-of-the-way regions of the world where HF SSB radio is about the only way to talk to the outside world at a reasonable cost. Quite a few Aussies reportedly use HF not only for this but to reach the Royal Flying Doctor Service and/or for a "classroom of the air" educational service. There's still enough demand for fixed HF worldwide that Kenwood, known for amateur and marine radio as well as audio, makes a special simplified HF SSB two-way radio for that market with fewer controls than a typical ham HF rig would have. Once satellite "cellular" systems like Iridium come into wide use I'd expect this sort of thing to taper off in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Fred Schimmel Subject: 'Spam' Slayer Article in Philadelphia Inquirer Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 23:48:37 -0500 Organization: Prodigy Internet Reply-To: fws@Prodigy.Net After reading all the exploits of the Spam King and his troubles with his Internet providers over the last little while, maybe c.d.t readers would enjoy the story of the 'Spam' slayer. It can be seen at the following URL: http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/97/Oct/30/tech.life/adop30.htm Fred Schimmel fws@prodigy.net We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. -- Robert Wilensky ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #300 ******************************