Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA28950; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711092246.RAA28950@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #308 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Nov 97 17:46:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 308 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Bob Keller) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Kevin R. Ray) Re: Risks is Alive and Well (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Blake Droke) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Ed Ellers) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Bill Ranck) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Jeremy Rogers) Data Recording - Real-Time Digital Comms (Edwin Kayes) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape (Monty Solomon) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Matthew Black) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:09:53 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 #304, Al Varney , in response to Judith Oppenheimer , wrote: > Judith, I can understand your basic argument, but have problems > with some of the logical extensions of them. It would seem a property > right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license > might be a reasonable claim. As one who as represents Judith and ICB on these issues before the FCC, let me jump in and offer few observations. I think there are, indeed, some useful analogies (and some differences) to be drawn between the "public resource" concept of both the electromagnetic spectrum and telephone numbers. The key trick in both is not to forget that the "public" are the citizens, including the citizens who own and operate businesses, and that the government serves the public, not the other way around. > But to claim an ownership/right to a number that was never used in > trade seems a stretch. "Ownership" and "property rights" are, IMO, red herrings that divert us from the basic issues. Just as I can have rights to do things with portions of the radio spectrum without "owning" it, the fact that I may not "own" my telephone number is not a basis for denying that the number has an inherent "value" or denying me the right to transfer it to someone else, and even to be compensated for it. > If I "find" an 800 number with some alphabetic or even numeric > attractiveness, have I established some right to that number at the > moment of "discovery"? There is a significant distinction between rights in the number itself versus any intellectual property rights that may arise by virtue of discovering a corresponding pneumonic or other unique characteristic or use of a particular number. Dreaming up the idea of 1-800-WIDGETS does not confer any rights in 1-800-943-4387, although I may have the right to prevent someone else from using the number in a manner that infringes my IP rights. An analogy: I am probably free to use the image of Jersey cow in any number of ways; but if I start using it to market computers, I'll probably be hearing from Gateway's attorneys in short order. The "right" in a number flows not from the "discovery" but rather from being the assigned user of the number. Whatever your views respecting property interests or ownership in numbers, it must be conceded that, when a number is assigned, the designated user has certain rights in that number as against the rest of the world. And, IMO, that right has a certain value. The value may be great as to some numbers and nil as to others. And, even as to a given number, the value may vary from user to user. But there is a value in a number, even if it is nothing more than the longevity of the number assignment. My mother has had WHitehall 5-xxxx for 50 years. I'm sure that number has a certain intangible value to her that would be appreciated by virtually no one else. The number 1-800-FLOWERS, on the other hand, has a very tangible and vary large value that is appreciated by many (i.e., it would probably bring a "pretty penny" on the open market). So, an assigned user clearly has *some* kind of rights in the assigned number. And third parties may place a value on (covet?) the number. The policy question, of course, is whether or not economic nature should be permitted to follow its course. > If I apply for that number through a RespOrg, do I have a right > established at that point, even if the RespOrg (and indeed, the entire > world) is unaware of my "discovery" of the number's value? The "right" you have, or "should" have, is to have the RespOrg take reasonable steps to reserve the number for your use at your direction. If a RespOrg confirms the availability of a particular number and agrees to reserve the number for me, the RespOrg has a contractual obligation to take all reasonable steps to do so. The "discovery" associated with the number is largely irrelevant, although it may, if disclosed, place the RespOrg on notice of the possible greater value to me of that particular number (and the corresponding greater exposure to liability if it fails to meet its contractual obligation). In the WorldCom case, it was not a "right" to "1 800 FOR LEASE" that was really at issue, rather it was the right to have WorldCom honor an agreement. The number might just as well have been any seven digit 800 number. Play Time wanted that particular 800 number (the reason why the customer wants a particular number should be of no consequence to the carrier or the RespOrg unless the customer chooses to disclose it), and WorldCom contractually agreed to reserve the number for Play Time. Then WorldCom screwed up and gave the number to someone else. The correspondence of the number with "1 800 FOR LEASE" did, however, come into play as to the "value" of the number and, hence, the amount of damages to which Play Time was entitled. But that's true in any case involving liability. If I go down the street indiscriminately lobbing grenades at garages, when I am later sued I am going to owe greater damages to the gal with the BMW than I will to the guy with the Honda. This might have been just any old number that WorldCom screwed up on for a new business, and the fix might have been as easy as getting the customer a new number and paying for new stationery and business cards. But because it was "1 800 FOR LEASE", the screw-up ended up costing WorldCom $150,000 (the $50K value of the number, trebled) plus attorneys fees and court costs. > Or do I have to apply for trademark protection of the "discovery" > in order to claim it has a value? You would apply for a trademark to protect your IP rights and to prevent others from using it. That may or may not give you rights to the number. Again, your "rights" to the number come from properly getting the number assigned to you ... or entering into a binding contractual obligation to have the number assigned to you. If I get a trademark for "1-800-WIDGETS" that, in and of itself, does not give me rights to 1-800-943-4387. If someone else has and is using that number, I can not necessarily pry it away solely because of my trademark. The current user might, after all, be using the number as "1-800 YID ID UP" because she is a therapist specializing in helping Gentiles to elevate their social consciousness, (Sorry, I couldn't resist. ) What I *can* do, is prevent someone else from using the number in a way that interferes with my trademark. Thus, I could probably stop a competing widget vendor from getting the number and using it to market its product in competition with me. While they become intertwined at times, intellectual property rights in a vanity number as a brand, logo, trademark, etc., is something separate and distinct from an assigned user's "rights" in a particular telephone number. > If I trademark something like 800-FOR-LEASE, but haven't applied to > a RespOrg in order to become the assignee, do I have a right > established at that point? Vis-a-vis the RespOrg as to the number? No, IMO. As to third parties who might obtain and use the number? Only, IMO, if their use violates your trademark and/or constitutes an unlawful business practice on some other grounds. > What if the number is already in use (as 800-DMS-LEASE, perhaps by > NorTel?). Do I still have a right associated with the NUMBER? Not beyond those mentioned above, IMO. > Or just the 800-FOR-LEASE string? You do not get a trademark in the number itself, anymore than Gateway Computer has a trademark on the Jersey cow you drive past on a country road. You do not even get a trademark in the *telephone* number as such, any more than Gateway has a trademark in each and every *picture* of a Jersey cow. But, nonetheless, the number has an inherent value to you and is, in fact, more valuable to you than other numbers, because it corresponds to the string. So, let us assume that some little old European lady discovers in her attic a long forgotten Rembrandt painting of a Jersey cow. The art critics consider it of inferior quality, and it is of very little value to art collectors. It may, nonetheless, be of very great value to Gateway because of its value as an advertising tool. But, Gateway would have no "rights" in that painting (notwithstanding its IP rights in the use of the Jersey cow image to market computers) unless and until it made a deal with that little old lady. Likewise, my "discovery" of a vanity number, and even my "trademarking" of the vanity string, does not give me a "right" in the number until I get the number "assigned" to me. > If I ask a RespOrg to assign me the number if/when NorTel releases > it, and the number is grabbed by another RespOrg upon release, do I > have a valid claim of damages? That is a question of contract law. It will turn on (a) whether you and the RespOrg entered into a legally binding contract and, (b) whether the RespOrg took all reasonably necessary actions to discharge its duty to you. As a practical matter, I don't think there is any (legal) way the RespOrg can absolutely guarantee that the number won't be grabbed by someone else. But lets look at this question as it played out in the WorldCom case. WorldCom agreed to give the number to one customer, and then turned around and gave it to another customer. That's a no-brainer. It's called breach of contract. > What if two RespOrgs are asked by two entities desiring the number > (the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources wants 800-DNR-LEASE for > an upcoming auction of grazing rights, and Playtime wants 800-FOR-LEASE). To the best of my knowledge, the RespOrg that is quickest on the draw will win out. The losing customer will have a case against its RespOrg only if there was intentional wrong-doing or negligence. My under- standing of the procedures, however, is that the RespOrg could do everything it is supposed to do and still lose out to someone else. > Does the industry need to establish a queue of potential assignees? It might not be a bad idea to have some sort of waiting list system for priority to currently used numbers when they become available. That would remove a lot of uncertainty ... and business people hate uncertainty. > If so, doesn't that mean that THOSE numbers have value while they are > in the pool, and thus the FCC (and the taxpayers) should receive > payment when assigning those numbers to customers? Value is in the wallet of the beholder. What is an extremely valuable number to me may be just another number to you. There is no workable way to set the value in that context. Even auctions are not workable. In spectrum auctions the licenses have a more or less absolute value (although different bidders have different ideas of what that value is). The type of value we are talking about with numbers is neither absolute nor is it set in time. 1 800 FLOWERS was just a number until someone got the idea. How do you hold an auction today that fairly values what the number might be worth to a particular theoretical user tomorrow? That aside, I'm not in favor of a system that would have the govern- ment attempt to extract the monetary value of a number simply for assigning the number. This is a foreign concept to some, but here goes ... there just may be some private commercial transactions from which it is not necessary for Uncle Sam to extract a pound of flesh! I say let users buy and sell numbers if they want, and let the capital gains tax law take care of the rest. Besides, the "public resource" idea of numbers has been, I believe, distorted. The concept originally arose in the context of establishing that the local exchange carriers do not "own" telephone numbers even though they were, by fiat, responsible for administering them. Somehow we jumped from that to a policy says that the users ought not be allowed to exchange money for transferring rights in assigned numbers. Now we are going a step further and saying that the Government, by Golly, *should* be allowed to charge money for numbers. > So, two basic questions: WHEN does an entity have a claim of > ownership or "rights" in a TollFree number? I don't like to call it "ownership". I'm more comfortable, and feel it is more logically and philosophically correct, to call it "rights" in numbers. I think those rights arise and vest when the number is validly assigned to me. My rights are to use the number in connection with my service, subject to the law and the terms and conditions of my service. I believe those rights should also include the right to transfer my use of and rights in the number to another user. > And are there any circumstances under which the "public" would > receive payment for use of this "public resource" (TollFree numbers) > -- or is it only the assignees/buyers that financially benefit, and > their brokers? This is not like radio spectrum which is a real, physical resource that is used to the exclusion of others. The kind of value that prompts someone to pay for a number is generally unique to that user or a small class of users. For example, 1 800 FLOWERS is extremely valuable to a florist, but is probably just another number to an oil refiner. There is no public loss of value if the oil refiner agrees to accept money to transfer its right in the number to the florist. To the extent one profits on the sale of a number, the government will get any taxes to which it is entitled. Brokers will financially benefit only to the extent that the parties to the transaction value their contribution and facilitation. The "public" has no basis for jealousy in this regard. > If 800-FOR-LEASE is valuable to Playtime, why isn't it an asset of > the FCC or the 800 number administrator or the RespOrg? Shouldn't > Playtime have to "buy" the number, or is its value just created from > thin air by the "discovery" of it's previously-untrademarked mnemonic > or numerological (800-666-FACT) attributes? Why oh why oh why has our government become so damned greedy. YES ... the number has a certain value to that particular user because that user thought of an idea. If the government will just stay the hell out of the way and let the user exploit the idea, there just might be a stimulation to the economy. There just might be some additional jobs created. There just might be some capital gains tax revenue if the entrepreneur buys the number from another user. There just might be some income tax revenue generated from the success of the business enterprise (on both the profits of the business and the salaries of the employees). Is it *really* necessary for the government either to (a) prevent that, or (b) allow it but only if it can also get a cut up front? > If "customers" can sell a number, could a RespOrg "buy" them? If so, > would the RespOrg now be able to "sell" the number they previously had > to "give away"? If a RespOrg purchases a number, but doesn't use it, > does it then have to be returned to the pool? Probably a conflict of interest, especially given the fact that most RespOrgs are also IXCs. If I were King we would get rid of the RespOrg system altogether and allow users to have direct access to the database. > If the NANC decides expansion of the NANP requires expanding the > 800 number format to more than 10 digits, can the entity with "rights" > to 800-FLOWERS claim damages from the FCC, because it would be losing > that "number"? I seriously doubt it. The value of 800-FLOWERS was built on the structure of the NPA-NXX-xxxx system, but there were no guarantees that the system would continue. Parties like 800-FLOWERS may have equitable, policy, and social arguments that might convince the government to protect that value, but I can't see it rising to the level of a "right" or "entitlement". Even if there were such private "rights" against the government in this context, they would have to be weighed against the public need for a more efficient numbering system. A prudent businessman will simply have to plan for this possibility down the road. As you may have noted from my rampage above, I am very much in favor of keeping government out of the hair of business to the greatest extent possible. But it is a two-way street. The flip side of that coin is that business should not expect government to protect it from every little pot hole in the road, perhaps not even when some of those pot holes turn out to be potentially fatal chasms. > Or would you argue that the entity is entitled to "protect" its > interests by having first chance to be assigned the whole > 800F-LOWE-RSxx range? Sounds like a good argument for domain partitioning to me! > Or would you argue the NANC has no legal right to expand the > 800-number format, because some companies have "discovered" an eternal > right to the current format? To nit pick, NANC has no legal right to do anything other than make recommendations to the FCC. The FCC has the legal right and public interest duty to do what it needs to do with numbers in general and with the NANP in particular in order to maintain an efficient and equitable numbering system. I submit that the public interest probably requires the Commission to *consider* the effect of any changes to the numbering plan on such "values" in numbers, and especially to consider any ripple effect this may have on the economy as a whole ... and I would urge the Commission to accommodate those concerns to the extent possible. But the reality of the situation is that some day in the next century we may well evolve(?) beyond one plus ten digit dialing, and the plight of vanity numbers will not (and probably should not) be the overriding regulatory policy consideration in that process. [DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to advocate, on behalf of any paying client, a different position in any formal proceedings at that time. ] > And the ultimate question: Do you feel comfortable having various > courts answer these questions, or would you prefer that the FCC > establish the rules? I think the courts should decide disputes that arise involving the transfer of numbers, just as they resolve disputes that arise involving the transfer of automobiles, businesses, body parts, houses, or anything else. WorldCom was, in the end analysis, a contract dispute. A guy had a business plan. A key part of that business plan was getting a particular number. He arranged with WorldCom to get the number for him, and WorldCom agreed to do so. Then WorldCom dropped the ball and, to add injury to insult, handled the aftermath of the screw-up rather badly. So, the guy sued WorldCom. Quite frankly, I don't think this is a matter the FCC should be involved it at all. It is a court matter, and the court handled it just fine. > By the way, the FCC recently re-affirmed the "public resource" > concept regarding numbers. On Oct. 20, 1997, regarding something AT&T > might value more than any 800 number, (the 10288 carrier access code), > the FCC stated: > 58. Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. > While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks > are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are > telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there > can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject > VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to > support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, > and that use of such codes does not confer ownership. Confirms my view that rights in the mark do not translate into rights in the number. Beyond that, however, I still see this "property" interest thing as a non sequitur or, at best, a red herring. Except insofar as it might affect certain "takings" arguments (and I see that VarTec did advance a 5th Amendment "takings" argument), whether or not you call it a property right or not, and whether or not you acknowledge ownership are irrelevant. The FCC (in the vanity number context) jumps from the irrelevant premise that number are a "public resource", to the questionable mid-point that users do now "own" their numbers, and on to the illogical conclusion that there must be no pecuniary gain for transferring assignment of a number. (But, let Congress mandate auctions of numbers, and just watch how quickly the FCC trips over itself to start raking in money for numbers!) If the Commission's logic is correct, and IMO it patently is not, then Disney should have to give back ABC, AT&T should have to give back McCaw Cellular, etc., etc., etc. Because as to radio these issues are not even arguable. By statute the spectrum is a public resource, and by statute licensees gain no ownership in the spectrum (merely a license to use it). And yet, huge gobs of money are exchanged for radio licenses every day with the FCC's full blessing. Let's be intellectually honest. Perhaps there is a valid legal or policy reason to prohibit the purchase and sale of numbers, but the ostensible lack of ownership interest ain't it. But, I digress ... this order (the 10xxx => 10xxxx order) had to do not with buying and selling but with changing the architecture ... > (From Order extending deadline for 7-digit Carrier Access Codes, > and effectively removes the 5-digit 10XXX Carrier Access Code > from the NANP mid-1998. VarTec argued that existing 10XXX > numbers should be grand-fathered and remain in the dialing plan, > along with 1010XXXX codes. Two arguments against elimination of > 10XXX were: > - [it] takes VarTec's private property without just compensation > in violation of the Fifth Amendment and > - [it] violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights under the > First Amendment; > These sound like arguments against format expansion of 800-numbers ... Which gets back to my statements regarding possible future moves beyond ten-digit dialing. The collateral effect on private users is one of many public interest considerations, but probably not dispositive or even overriding. I haven't checked, but similar issues may have been litigated in the context of area code splits and overlays. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: 9 Nov 1997 04:24:29 GMT Organization: The Windy City Kyler Laird wrote: > So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, > BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. > Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with > the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great > difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. I skipped the ISP/USRobotics help to getting my ISDN line. I called 1-800-TEAM-DATA directly. All they wanted was some equipment code that I didn't know -- telling them "Courier I-Modem" was enough. Ironically after the installation and playing with it I tried switching the Courier from using Nation ISDN-1 protocol to Nation ISDN-2, AT&T 5ESS, Northern Telecom DMS-100 ... they *ALL* worked. > Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. > It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, > but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. I too received a call back from Ameritech confirming the installation. It too took about three weeks from the initial phone call. Typical from what I've heard. > The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one > was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the > inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my > wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. You knew the installation date. Why was no one there or re-schedule it for a good time? If I was the installer (which I'm not a phone guy :) I too would have terminated at the POP box and left. It would be *possible* to fry phone equipment by simply hooking it up to a ISDN line. The installer had no idea where those pairs went inside the house. > So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going > to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up > again. Probably not the original installer who knew about ISDN, et al... > This time, however, he told her that she could not use ISDN at all > unless she had RJ-45 jacks installed at every existing jack. She was > tired of waiting, so she believed this idiot and he proceeded to > *stick* RJ-45 jacks on the freshly-painted walls. Probably because it was a installer not familiar w/ ISDN. Why he (or anyone) would think you need RJ-45 jacks at every existing jack location is beyond me ... > Enough venting for now ... My advice: > 1. Don't let an Ameritech phone > installer inside your house. My installation went flawlessly. From start to finish. And the same Ameritech installer helped me a week before (knowing that I was getting ISDN in a week) with solving a modem problem on the same number. Couldn't keep a connection. Even brought over his laptop to determine it was the line and not my equipment (for his peace of mind). Turned out to be a bad T-1 card somewhere on the line ... > 2. Don't leave your wife alone with > an Ameritech phone installer. Or don't get married. :) > 3. Do everything you can yourself > if you want it done correctly. That I can agree with ... My experience with getting ISDN installed with Ameritech was next to perfect. Believe me, from past experience with dealing with Ameritech programming screw ups on the line, I have *NOT* been a Ameritech "fan" in the past. I will say that in the last year their response time and knowledge has been wonderful! It took them *hours* to resolve a "911" problem at the office that I discovered (right address, wrong name being delivered to dispatch). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:31:29 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Risks is Alive and Well Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA Here is another web interface to RISKS for interested people: For Lindsay Marshall's web interface to the digest, which I'd had to go hand copy into the messane ... http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/bin/risksindex/ Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:17:31 -0600 Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com Bill Levant wrote: > We had some trouble in my office this week with inTRA-LATA toll > calls. > We just switched from ATX (10008) to Worldcom (10555) and calls to > certain nearby toll points were being misrouted by Bell Atlantic > (which SWORE that our PIC codes were all correct; they weren't, but > THAT's another story ...) preventing us from completing those calls, > except by using an IXC, at ungenerous rates). > At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code > 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works > just like (700) 555-4141. > I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? > BTW, if you're lucky (?) enough to have BA inTRA-LATA toll, dialing > 700-4141 gets you the dulcet tones of James Earl Jones thanking you > for using CNN, er ... BA. It's ALMOST worth switching to BA just for > that ;-). > By the way, Worldcom offers UNTIMED calling to the entire metro > Philadelphia area at about .07/call; BA charges (at best) .04/minute > during the day. How does Worldcom do this and not go broke (I assume > that they **don't** re-sell BA). I tried 700-4141 here in Memphis, I basically got nothing, sort of a where's the rest of the number type of response. At 1-901-700-4141, I got a message stating "Thank you for choosing BellSouth. We're here to meet your communications needs." Strange, since you can't pick your own intra-LATA carrier in Tennessee yet (unfortunately). (But you can override via a PIC code, ie. 10333, 10222, 10288, etc.) ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:38:23 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Jack Hamilton wrote: > PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some > incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. That's not the only bit of high tech that was used in the White House during the Nixon Administration. For a while they had Xerox Alto workstations, which were the first practical GUI implementation ever to be used outside the lab; Alto was the real inspiration for the Lisa and Macintosh. Getting back to telecom stuff, C&P Telephone installed Picturephones in the White House to link key officials, though I don't know how many had the system or if one was installed in the Oval Office (Nixon may have had his in the smaller adjoining office). Reportedly this was on a trial basis, and when C&P wanted to start charging for the service the White House had the Picturephones taken out. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: 9 Nov 1997 13:17:37 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Jack Hamilton (jfh@alumni.stanford.org) wrote: > PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some > incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. > I haven't heard anything about PROFS recently; I don't know whether > IBM dropped it, or just renamed it to something sexier. Actually, it was Reagan/Iran-Contra days. PROFS was not around in 1972. IBM no longer supports PROFS, and it is not year 2000 compliant, so anyone (like us) who still has it running will stop using it in a couple years. ;-) Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Rogers Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:32 GMT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > Certainly there were not as many long-winded and frivilous messages > as now, and as was pointed out many messages consisted of just a few > words, sent at considerable ex-pense. My favourite set of cable exchanges was that related by the novelist Evelyn Waugh between himself and the {Daily Mail} newspaper, who were employing him as a war correspondent in Abyssinia, but were concerned that they weren't getting any reports. Daily Mail: WHY UNNEWS Waugh: UNNEWS GOODNEWS Daily Mail: UNNEWS UNJOB Waugh: UPSTICK JOB ASSWISE Jez ------------------------------ From: Edwin Kayes Subject: Data Recording - Real-Time Digital Comms Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:47:27 +0100 (BST) Organization: Somerdata Reply-To: edwin.kayes@somerdata.com I am interested in making contact with anyone who has an interest in recording comms signals such as E-1 G.703 Level 1 and above. Specifically, I am looking for feedback to identify user hardware, interfacing and software requirements which will help future product development of real-time record-to-disk systems. Thanks, Edwin Kayes Somerdata Limited Wells England edwin.kayes@somerdata.com http://www.somerdata.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:48:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape edited by Philip E. Agre University of California, San Diego Marc Rotenberg Electronic Privacy Information Center MIT Press, 1997 Hardcover ISBN: 0-262-01162-X $25.00 Available through the EPIC Bookstore: http://www.epic.org/bookstore/ Excerpts from the introduction can be found at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/landscape.html MIT Press Web site: http://mitpress.mit.edu/ Privacy is the capacity to negotiate social relationships by controlling access to personal information. As laws, policies, and technological design increasingly structure people's relationships with social institutions, individual privacy faces new threats and new opportunities. Over the last several years, the realm of technology and privacy has been transformed, creating a landscape that is both dangerous and encouraging. Significant changes include large increases in communications bandwidths; the widespread adoption of computer networking and public-key cryptography; mathematical innovations that promise a vast family of protocols for protecting identity in complex transactions; new digital media that support a wide range of social relationships; a new generation of technologically sophisticated privacy activists; a massive body of practical experience in the development and application of data-protection laws; and the rapid globalization of manufacturing, culture, and policy making. The essays in this book provide a new conceptual framework for the analysis and debate of privacy policy and for the design and development of information systems. The authors are international experts in the technical, economic, and political aspects of privacy; the book's strength is its synthesis of the three. The book provides equally strong analyses of privacy issues in the United States, Canada, and Europe. ------------------------------ Contributors: Philip E. Agre Beyond the mirror world: Privacy and the representational practices of computing Victoria Bellotti Design for privacy in multimedia computing and communications environments Colin J. Bennett Convergence revisited: Towards a global policy for personal data protection Herbert Burkert Privacy enhancing technologies: Typology, vision, critique Simon G. Davies Re-engineering the privacy right: How privacy has been transformed from a right to a commodity David H. Flaherty Controlling surveillance: Can privacy protection be made effective? Robert Gellman Does privacy law work? Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger Generational development of data protection in Europe David J. Phillips Cryptography, secrets, and the structuring of trust Rohan Samarajiva Interactivity as though privacy mattered ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMFORD-WALLACE.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 6 Nov 1997 15:31:54 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach In article , Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC. MIL says: [message edited for brevity --matt] > "In a letter to all customers of its wire-maintenance plans, > Bell Atlantic said the plans will no longer cover > ''malfunctions in the dial tone resulting from the use of > voice-grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which > exceed the operating capabilities of the line.'' In effect, > the Bell Atlantic policy means subscribers to the optional > wire-maintenance plans will not be covered for service calls > that involve problems resulting from modem use on a standard > voice line. Simple solution: unplug your modem BEFORE calling for repair service. If a telephone works on the line, the problem is probably with the modem/computer. > According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a > repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the > transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the > operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". I can see why Smell Atlantic wants to charge for service calls completely unrelated to dial-tone service. I support remote access users for my organization and most problems are caused by the customers/users. One of our users, for example, added a second phone line for his modem. When moving his modem to the new phone line, the computer could no longer connect. After an hour, we finally isolated the problem to his software: his computer dialed *70 to cancel call waiting and the new line didn't have this feature. GTE charges $1.00/month for the cancel call waiting. Under this scenario, GTE (or Smell Atlantic) should charge the full cost of any service call since the problem was not related to the dial tone. [To reply via e-mail, remove obvious component from reply-to address] matthew black | the opinions expressed herein are mine and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer. california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black@csulb.edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 98 4E DF BE 49 A8 DF 99 long beach, ca 90840 | 6A 7A 1B F1 3E 50 E5 D2 =============================(c) 1997 by Matthew Black, all rights reserved= ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #308 ******************************