Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA24846; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711092156.QAA24846@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #307 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Nov 97 16:56:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 307 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Turning Away Telemarketers (Tad Cook) Global TLD Net Access Status (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) V.34 Modems, Call Waiting With Caller ID :-( (Bret A. Schuhmacher) Unregulated LD From Canadian Hotels (Paul Lantz) CallerID Info Needed (Steve Pershing) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Bob Keller) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Turning Away Telemarketers Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:48:13 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Florida Telephone Service Prevents Telemarketers from Calling Subscribers By L.A. Newkirk, Tallahassee Democrat, Fla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Nov. 7--Michael Aylin sleeps during the day because he works at night. If the phone rings, it had better be important. And he says telemarketers aren't important. "They say `We would like you to donate ...' The only thing they're going to get donated from me is a dial tone," he said. "I'm not really pleasant when I get woken up." Aylin is one of only 55,000 telephone subscribers in Florida who have signed up for a service that protects them from telemarketers. There is a total of 14 million telephone subscribers. The "No Sales" list has been available for the last seven years, but not many are aware of it. "It's a surprise to a lot of people," said Geoff Luebkemann, chief of the state Bureau of Consumer Protection. The bureau is working on a flashy flier that will regularly be included in phone bills. Under a 1990 state law, telemarketers are banned from calling anyone who has paid to be on the consumer bureau's list. Only 32 businesses have been fined for violations, but the bureau is operating under a new policy to open investigations of telemarketers that have accumulated ten consumer complaints against them. There are currently 70 cases, said Melissa Meffert, bureau regulatory consultant. The law protects you from telemarketers selling goods and services but not from charities seeking donations or companies that you've recently done business with -- such as a long-distance company you have dropped. Luebkemann said the bureau is working to amend the law by reducing the length of time that a company can still call you to no more than three years. Consumers pay $10 each year per phone number for the service and $5 to renew. Residential numbers and noncommercial pagers and cell phones can also be protected from unwanted solicitations. The fees pay to maintain the data base and other administrative costs, but Luebkemann said the bureau is seeking an increase since the current fees are seven years old. While charities are exempt from the ban, they must first register with the bureau before they can call you, Luebkemann said. The list is updated and sold to telemarketers quarterly. The deadline to be on the next list is Dec. 1; the new list comes out Jan. 1. The quarterly list costs telemarketers $100 per area code, or $300 for the whole state. More than 500 telemarketers buy it, though it's not required. But they are required to comply with the law and may not call any names on the list. If you sign up for the list and still get calls, you must complain in writing. The bureau sends you pre-printed postcards when you sign up for the service. An investigation is opened after ten complaints are filed against a telemarketer. Aylin said he used to get at least three telemarketing calls each month, so he signed up for the service last spring. "Everybody's trying to get a piece of business. Everybody wants a bigger business. Just don't bother me at the house," Aylin said. He wants to choose the businesses and charities he deals with -- not let them choose him. He said the list works. "I haven't really noticed any more (calls). They've pretty much disappeared," Aylin said Wednesday. And he's received only one charity call in that time. Aylin said the cost of the program is reasonable. "Oh, yeah. Ten dollars a year? You're talking about less than a dollar a month to get rid of the pesky phone calls. What a bargain! You'll spend a dollar a month on junk, on bubble gum." ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Global TLD Net Access Status Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:56:26 GMT Tom Watson wrote (re cable addresses): > if you ever get to some out of the way third world > country that only has a telegraph office, you are in luck. Not many of those left. FYI, here is a sorted list of countries with net access, based on data from the e-mail country codes FAQ. Impressively, of 244 national top-level domains (many of which represent territories or colonies, not countries) 187 have FULL net access. rishab ---------- National TLD net access status as of 9/97 Full internet 187 Email only 12 No access or provisional/unknown 45 Total 244 Source e-mail country-codes FAQ Copyright (c)1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh **********national TLDs with full internet as of 9/97********** AD Andorra FI * AE United Arab Emirates FI * AG Antigua and Barbuda FI * AI Anguilla FI * AL Albania FI * AM Armenia FI * Ex-USSR AN Netherland Antilles FI * AO Angola (Republic of) FI * AQ Antarctica FI * intermittent luxor.cc.waikato.ac.nz AR Argentina FI * AT Austria FI B * AU Australia FI * AW Aruba FI * AZ Azerbaijan FI B * Ex-USSR BA Bosnia-Herzegovina FI * BB Barbados FI * BD Bangladesh FI * BE Belgium FI * BF Burkina Faso FI * BG Bulgaria FI B * BH Bahrain FI B * BI Burundi FI * BJ Benin FI * BM Bermuda FI * BN Brunei Darussalam FI * BO Bolivia FI * BR Brazil FI B * BS Bahamas FI * BW Botswana FI * BY Belarus FI B * Ex-USSR BZ Belize FI * CA Canada FI B * CF Central African Rep. FI * CH Switzerland FI * CI Ivory Coast FI * CL Chile FI B * CM Cameroon FI * CN China FI * CO Colombia FI * CR Costa Rica FI * CU Cuba FI * CY Cyprus FI * CZ Czech Republic FI * DE Germany FI B * DJ Djibouti FI * DK Denmark FI * DM Dominica FI * DO Dominican Republic FI * DZ Algeria FI * EC Ecuador FI * EE Estonia FI * EG Egypt FI B * ES Spain FI B * ET Ethiopia FI * FI Finland FI B * FJ Fiji FI * FM Micronesia FI * FO Faroe Islands FI * FR France FI B * GA Gabon FI * GB Great Britain (UK) FI B * X.400 & IP ns1.cs.ucl.ac.uk GD Grenada FI * GE Georgia FI * Ex-USSR GF Guiana (Fr.) FI * GG Guernsey (Ch. Isl) FI * GH Ghana FI * GI Gibraltar FI * GL Greenland FI * GP Guadeloupe (Fr.) FI * GQ Equatorial Guinea FI * GR Greece FI * GT Guatemala FI * GU Guam (US) FI * in US domains GW Guinea Bissau FI * GY Guyana FI * HK Hong Kong FI * HN Honduras FI * HR Croatia FI B * HT Haiti FI * HU Hungary FI B * ID Indonesia FI * IE Ireland FI * IL Israel FI B * IN India FI B * IM Isle of Man FI * IR Iran FI B * IS Iceland FI B * IT Italy FI B * JE Jersey (Ch. Isl.) FI * JM Jamaica FI * JO Jordan FI * JP Japan FI B * KE Kenya FI * KG Kyrgyz Republic FI * Ex-USSR (in .su domain) KH Cambodia FI * KR Korea (South) FI * KW Kuwait FI * No BITNET KY Cayman Islands FI * KZ Kazakstan FI * Ex-USSR LB Lebanon FI * LC Saint Lucia FI * LI Liechtenstein FI * LK Sri Lanka FI * LS Lesotho FI * LT Lithuania FI * Ex-USSR LU Luxembourg FI * LV Latvia FI * Ex-USSR MA Morocco FI * MC Monaco FI * MD Moldova FI * Ex-USSR MG Madagascar FI * MK Macedonia (former Yug.)FI * ML Mali FI * MN Mongolia FI * MO Macau FI * MP Northern Mariana Isl. FI * MT Malta FI * MU Mauritius FI * MV Maldives FI * MW Malawi FI * MX Mexico FI * MY Malaysia FI * MZ Mozambique FI * NA Namibia FI * NC New Caledonia (Fr.) FI * NE Niger FI * NG Nigeria FI F NI Nicaragua FI * NL Netherlands FI B * NO Norway FI B * NP Nepal FI * NZ New Zealand FI * OM Oman FI * PA Panama FI B * PE Peru FI * PF Polynesia (Fr.) FI * PG Papua New Guinea FI * PH Philippines FI * PK Pakistan FI * PL Poland FI B * PR Puerto Rico (US) FI B * PT Portugal FI * PY Paraguay FI * QA Qatar FI * RE Reunion (Fr.) FI * In .fr domain RO Romania FI B * RU Russian Federation FI B * Ex-USSR SA Saudi Arabia FI B * dial-ip SB Solomon Islands FI * SC Seychelles FI * SD Sudan FI * SE Sweden FI B * SG Singapore FI * SI Slovenia FI * SJ Svalbard & Jan Mayen IsFI * in .no domain SK Slovakia (Slovak Rep) FI * SM San Marino FI * SN Senegal FI * SR Suriname FI * SU Soviet Union FI B * Still used. SV El Salvador FI * SZ Swaziland FI * TG Togo FI * TH Thailand FI * TM Turkmenistan FI * Ex-USSR TN Tunisia FI * TO Tonga FI * TR Turkey FI B * TT Trinidad & Tobago FI * TW Taiwan FI * TZ Tanzania FI * UA Ukraine FI * UG Uganda FI * UK United Kingdom FI B * ISO 3166 is GB US United States FI * see note (4) UY Uruguay FI * UZ Uzbekistan FI * Ex-USSR VA Vatican City State FI * VE Venezuela FI * VI Virgin Islands (US) FI * VU Vanuatu FI * WS Western Samoa FI * YE Yemen FI * YU Yugoslavia FI * ZA South Africa FI * ZM Zambia FI * intermittent ZW Zimbabwe FI * **********national TLDs with only e-mail as of 9/97********** CD Dem. Repub. of Congo PFI * formerly ZR Zaire CG Congo * CK Cook Islands * ER Eritrea * GM Gambia * GN Guinea PFI * dial-IP LR Liberia * MR Mauritania * SL Sierra Leone * TD Chad * TJ Tadjikistan * Ex-USSR VN Vietnam * **********national TLDs with no or provisional access as of 9/97********** AF Afghanistan(Islamic St.) AS American Samoa BT Bhutan BV Bouvet Island CC Cocos (Keeling) Isl. CV Cape Verde CX Christmas Island EH Western Sahara FK Falkland Isl.(Malvinas) FX France (European Ter.) France Metropolitaine GS South Georgia and HM Heard & McDonald Isl. IO British Indian O. Terr. IQ Iraq KI Kiribati KM Comoros KN St.Kitts Nevis Anguilla P KP Korea (North) P LA Laos LY Libya MH Marshall Islands MM Myanmar MQ Martinique (Fr.) MS Montserrat NF Norfolk Island NR Nauru NU Niue PM St. Pierre & Miquelon PN Pitcairn PW Palau RW Rwanda F currently cut SH St. Helena SO Somalia ST St. Tome and Principe SY Syria TC Turks & Caicos Islands TF French Southern Terr. TK Tokelau TP East Timor TV Tuvalu UM US Minor outlying Isl. VC St.Vincent & Grenadines P VG Virgin Islands (British) WF Wallis & Futuna Islands YT Mayotte ------------------------------ From: bas@cascade.healthcare.com (Bret A. Schuhmacher) Subject: V.34 Modems, Call Waiting With Caller ID :-( Date: 09 Nov 1997 15:54:17 -0700 Organization: Healthcare Communications, Inc. OK, I just got call waiting with Caller ID service from USWORST. The idea was that when I'm on line, I'd know when someone was trying to reach me and I'd have the option of manually disconnecting the data call. However, I don't get any signal! I know it works with voice calls because I tested it while talking to a USWASTE representative (he called me back on his other line and I was able to see the incoming call info). I've tried the following setups, but it doesn't seem to matter: wall -> CID box -> modem -> phone wall -> modem -> CID box -> phone I'm using a USR Sportster 33.6 w/voice. FWIW, I have call forward on no answer and call forward on busy features with this line. I originally thought the call forward on busy was the problem, but then the USWURST guy proved it wasn't. The modem has to have something to do with it (is the V.34 protocol still getting in the way somehow?). And no, I don't have call waiting disabled, I checked that. Is anyone using call waiting id for this purpose? What'd you do to get it to work? Thanks for any pointers! Regards, Bret A day without sunshine is like night. ------------------------------ From: Paul Lantz Subject: Unregulated LD From Canadian hotels Date: 9 Nov 1997 20:59:30 GMT Organization: Ontario Northland--ONLink Recently I stayed in a hotel in Toronto. The telephone information sheet stated that long distance services were provided by US Telephone (or something) which was an unregulated service. I wondered if this would affect the price of telephone calls (visions of having long distance calls diverted through some offshore company at astronomical cost). Does anyone have information on this? I made long distance calls but they went through Bell; I didn't try any calls to the US. Are there are any risks for people using these services? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are sufficient risks in using hotel/motel phone systems for long distance (sometimes even local!) calls that one should always read carefully any literature placed by the phone in the room, and question front desk personnel for details before using the room telephone to any extent. Some of them are frankly outrageous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Pershing Subject: CallerID Info Needed Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 13:04:38 -0800 Organization: Questor Technologies Inc. I am looking for information on what can be transmitted in the callerID data burst, which is sent by the telephone switch between the first and second rings. The purpose is so that modem software can be programmed to act on the incoming data to answer the phone in different ways, depending on the data. I know that there are bits indicating: "privacy, long-distance, message-waiting", etc, but I am looking for a more-or-less complete list of available data. If anyone has this info or ideas where to find it, please drop me a note. Thanks in advance for any help. Steve Pershing ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:19:02 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 # 305, Ed Ellers wrote: > Among other things, the FCC usually doesn't allow a broadcast license > to be sold separately from the real and other property of the station > in question, so someone who has just obtained a license can't just > turn around and sell it; s/he has to actually put the station on the > air, somehow, and then sell the operating station. Yeah, BUT ... First, as you note, parties do find ways around this. And the ways around it are even more common in some other services than in broadcast. For example, most licenses that have been obtained by auction are subject to no such restrictions whatsoever (provided that the parities comply with "unjust enrichment" rules so that I can not, for example, take advantage of a small business bidding credit and installment payment plan and then turn around and sell to AT&T and have AT&T take the license on the same terms). Even apart from auctions, in many non-broadcast services the only requirement *is* that the facilities be timely constructed, and in a few service not even that is required. Also, in cellular the Commission created an exception to the construction requirement that permitted licensees to acquire unconstructed authorizations for other markets. The theory of the exception was that some smaller were not viable unless operated as part of the adjacent larger market. The seller is required to execute a sworn statement that it intended to construct and operate the system when it filed its application (yeah, right ) but the unforeseeable changed circumstances now dictated incorporation of the market into a larger system. I am aware of no case, after this exception was established, in which the Commission ever challenged one of these showings. My point is, whatever goes on in the broadcast services notwithstanding, the so-called anti-trafficking and holding period rules have been substantially eroded in the past 10 to 15 years. Second, as far as the fiction that the license is being sold ancillary to the sale of other property, e.g., the tower, the transmitters, the studio, etc., let's not kid ourselves -- and I'm sure the Commission is not kidding itself when it approves these transactions. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how the bean counters may show it on the books, that piece of paper from the FCC is what makes these multi-million (and sometimes billion or more) dollar deals. All of the other property put together is typically worth only a small fraction of the value of the license. In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 # 305, Bruce Wilson wrote: > Nowhere in all this verbiage was it said which appellate court this > was or a cite to a published or slip opinion given, which makes it > almost impossible to assess the potential significance of this > opinion, This was the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Case No. 96-2066, Play Time, Inc. v. LDDS Metromedia Communications, Inc. (12 August 1997). It was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. There is probably an official citation for the opinion by now, but I don't have it handy. > nor is anything said as to whether Worldcom asserted lack of > subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within > that of the FCC and how that issue was disposed of (if it was raised) > or whether the FCC may have "participated" by way of an amicus brief > and how the issues raised in its brief (if there were one) were > disposed of. There is no indication that the FCC participated. Nor is there any indication in the opinion that WorldCom asserted, as you put it "lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within that of the FCC." Such an argument, at least worded that way, would have failed, because it is questionable whether the FCC has *any* jurisdiction over a contract dispute simply because it involves a telephone number or telephone service, and the FCC *certainly* does not have *exclusive* jurisdiction. What sometimes happens, if a particular issue in a case turns on some point of FCC regulation or policy, is the court might certify that question to the FCC. But more often than not, the court will decide the issue of FCC regulation or policy just as a federal court decides issues of state law, or one state court may be called upon to interpret another state's laws. It is really no big deal, and it happens every day. WorldCom *did* assert the policy against brokering numbers (then an informal and voluntary industry policy, because the facts of this dispute arose before the FCC's anti-brokering rules in CC Docket No. 95-155) based on the FCC policy that numbers are a public resource and are not privately owned. However, this was offered, at least at the appellate level, not as a matter of jurisdiction, but rather as an attack on trying to set damages based on a monetary "value" of the number. The Court rejected that argument. > In general terms, decisions aren't binding on anyone not a party to > the litigation; and a Federal appellate court decision has > precedential value only within the appellate jurisdiction (i.e., a > Second Circuit decision is only precedent within the Second Circuit, > for example). Although another Circuit Court of Appeals or a District > Court within another circuit might find it persuasive, it's free to > reach a contrary decision; and it's only decisions of the U.S. Supreme > Court which establish precedent binding on all of the circuits and > trial courts within them. Yeah, so what. The "persuasive" value of an opinion from another circuit is nonetheless of much greater value than your statement implies. If I were going into the Second Circuit to argue a case, absent a Second Circuit precedent against me, I'd sure feel a whole lot better it there were a First Circuit opinion in my favor than if there were no relevant opinions at all. Moreover, the vast majority of issues never make it to the Supremes. Thus, what the various circuit appellate courts have to say about issues is of significance. This may be one of the first appellate court decisions to address the issue of the value of a vanity number to a user before the number is actually assigned to and used by that user, and it is certainly the first such decision since the FCC adopted its anti-brokering rules in CC Docket No. 95-155. For that reason alone, it is an important decision worthy of commentary. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #307 ******************************