Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA07595; Sat, 1 May 1999 20:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 20:56:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905020056.UAA07595@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #67 TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 May 99 20:56:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Digest Business Directory! 800 Spam List (Babu Mengelepouti) Cell Phones in Airplanes: Costa Rica (AES) 5 cents/minute US-UK Sundays. Which Company? (ValH.) Re: MCI Weekend Rate Available Through 1010 Code? (Eli Mantel) Re: BNC, was Book Review (Andrew Emmerson) Re: Bizarre Cellular Cross-Talk (Simon Hewison) Re: The Complete PC's ->> Complete Communicator VoiceMail (Carl Navarro) Re: The NANP Has 8+ Years to Go Says NANPA (Rob McMillin) Re: Portable Local Numbers: Why Aren't They? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Lawsuit Says MCI 'Redlines' (Brian F. G. Bidulock) Re: Imminent Exhaustion of the NANP Should be a Wake-up Call! (Art Kamlet) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:54:25 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Digest Business Directory! 800 Spam List [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought what we needed to have here was a business directory; a place where Digest readers could easily locate the phone number of folks who want to do business with you. Naturally, anyone who wants our business will make it easy for us to be in touch with them on the telephone, which these folks listed below have done. You know what needs to be done. PAT] ------------------------------ People often ask me what to do with these spammer's phone numbers. Please know that every call to an 800# cost someone money. Since it is a free call to you.. guess who pays? There ya go. So.. if posted to a mail list of 1000 people, and even 100 call, the spammer gets to pay. So listen to the entire message when you call. Call from payphones, courtesy phones, etc. One call to each number from each phone you have access to. Any more than that is potential harassment and WE are law abiding citizens. Of course, some of these ask you to leave your name or number and they will get back to you. Be creative :) (newest entries at top of list) =-= 04.25.99 increase sales 1-888-869-5520 ext: TKM 04.23.99 (800)899-8849 04.22.99 weight loss 1-888-240-2779 04.22.99 " 1-888-861-5357 04.22.99 " 1-800-242-0363 ext. 2460 04.22.99 LD calling 800-400-8532 04.21.99 meet girls 1-800-750-GIRL (4475) 04.19.99 make money 1 800 345-9688 ext 9630 04.19.99 make money 1-800-636-6773 ext. 3886 04.19.99 credit cards 1-888-264-9272 04.19.99 merchant accounts 1(800) 600-0343 ext. 1234 04.16.99 canada vacation 1-888-682-0043 04.12.99 MLM 888-386-4290 refcode JDC 0411 04.12.99 retire early 1-800-345-9688 Ext. 7777 04.12.99 cable descramblers 800-242-0363 ext.2748 quit smoking 1-800-328-7102 quit smoking 1-888-725-8419 www.casino-help.com 1-800-636-6773 ext.7635. avoid irs/money spam 1-888-217-2894 1-888-217-3291 marketing (800) 242-0363 EXT. 2427 computers/bulk mail (800) 242-0363 Designs In Life 1-800-340-0162 credit rebuilding (800) 337-5812 vmb/calling solutions (888) 546-5348 search engine spam (800) 771-2003 spam 1-888-445-0206 to be removed.. 1-888-829-1943 MLM 1-800-345-9688 ext. 4718 MLM 1-888-713-7210 height increase 1-888-829-1943 weight loss 1-800-345-9688 #3305 From: corporate@tssolutions.com 1-888-357-1852 To: gideqoo12@mci2000.com 800-600-0343 ex. 1256 (leave a message) From: worldly55@hotmail.com 1-800-401-0209 PKirch1179@aol.com 800 607-6006 Ex 2492# press 1 stop smoking 1-888-725-8419 misc spam 800-242-0363 Ext.1659 Commercial Copier Sale 800-300-6693 Photo Sticker machines 888-386-4290 Reference code V462 From: rise7813w@yahoo.com (800) 771-2003 http://www.software602.com 888-468-6602. stop smoking 1-800-328-7103 web hosting spam 1-800-242-0363 x2361 www.hakai.com 1-800-668-FISH (3474) Commercial Copier Sale 800-300-6693 From: mailer@mail2.powercall.ca 800.427.6937 phone spam 800.473.9199 FAT-LOSS SPECIALIST 1-888-689-3097 spam 1-800-345-9688 Ext. 7777 Multilevel Marketing 1-800-600-0343 ext. 2310 associate mentor program 1-888-248-6850 psychic spam 1-800-372-3384 From: "Thomas" 1-800-248-1137 Online Fufillment Orginization 800-771-2003, "we do not send unsolicited email" as of 3.20.99 mailbox full From: z2jd@ibm.net 1-800-345-9688 Ext. 4500 From bessey678@systemage.co.jp 800-242-0363 Ext. 1457 weight loss crap 1-800-631-3299. unknown spam 1-800-242-0363 x2361 From: URTI3318@yahoo.com Email removal 800-771-2003, unknown spam 888.403.5601 unknown spam 800.242.0363 x2428 unknown spam 1-888-248-7073 From: 1-800-328-7103 From: JCh7649460@aol.com 800-607-6006 box 2666# Cyber Advertising Systems 1-800-409-8302 Extension 1284 From goldbrg6@usa.net Thu Mar 4 CALL 1-888-264-9272 From: 1-877-449-Rocket From: SPhil79466@aol.com 1 800-607-6006 ex 2492# call now! From: pbhy@msn.com 1-800-593-3645 From: loqaswe@pvtnet.cz 1-800-320-9895 Ext 7040 From: amscott@hamkk.fi 1-800-320-9895 Ext 7040 From: Call now (800)811-2141 800.226.0633 (second number) From: JVERDUCE@aol.com 1-800-350-9692 From: y2kreport@altavista.net 1-888-248-1529 From: hotbusiness@tu.koszalin.pl 1-800-322-6169 Ext. 1882 From: blueink8@hotpop.com 1-800-810-4330. unknown spam 800.929.3576 From: DOBBIE2ME@aol.com Call some of the following toll-free numbers and listen to what other people say about this business: *1-888-703-5389 (Gay Dietch almost didn't join) *1-888-269-7961 (Brenda Cook quit her job in 1 month) *1-888-446-6951 (Big Mac made $10,000 his first month) *1-888-731-3457 (Jeff Gardner makes $1,000/week) *1-888-256-4767 (Tim Nelson made $3500 his 1st week) *1-888-438-4005 (Paul & Deb made $2000 1st two weeks) *1-888-715-0642 (Steven F. made $50,000 in 12 months) Call the Top Secrets Information Hotline: *If you live in the US or Canada: *Call 1-800-811-2141 Code# 63128 ------------------------------ From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A.E.Siegman) Subject: Cell Phones in Airplanes: Costa Rica Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 16:36:34 -0700 Organization: Stanford University I've read numerous earlier msgs in this and other groups about the illegality/immorality/technical catastrophes associated with using a cell phone in flight. Just as a data point, I was on a scheduled commercial (Sansa) flight from Tamarindo (dusty cow-pasture landing strip in NW Costa Rica) to San Jose, Costa Rica, earlier this week. Single-engined 18-passenger plane, no bulkhead between pilots and passengers; I was sitting in front row. Flight elevation 9600 feet above sea level, maybe 6000 feet above ground level. As soon as we reached cruising altitude the pilot (a Tom Cruise look-alike) took off his headphones, pulled out a very ordinary looking folding cell phone, dialed his girl friend (or someone amiable), and proceeded to yak it up (in Spanish) for a large portion of the 45 minute flight. At one point the co-pilot's cell phone also rang; he pulled it out of his hip pocket, answered, and chatted for a while also. Costa Rica has a population of 3.5 million, and just one area code (or whatever it is) for the whole country. ------------------------------ From: vhealeyS@qwestinternet.net (Val Healy) Subject: 5 Cents/Minute US-UK Sundays. Which Company? Date: 01 May 1999 16:41:46 PDT Hi All, A few days ago I caught a fleeting glimpse of a TV commercial that announced 5 cents/minute from the US to the UK, Germany, etc on Sundays. Unfortunately I had a distraction during the message and didn't find out which company it was. Anyone know? If so, a telephone number would be a huge help. TIA, valh. ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: MCI Weekend Rate Available Through 1010 Code? Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 07:54:12 GMT Benjamin D. Lukoff (bd087@scn.org) wrote: > I wasn't aware that MCI's "5 cent Sundays" rate, and in fact, any > special rates, were available by dialing 1010xxx codes before the > number. I seem to remember being charged more using Sprint's 10xxx > code a few years ago than I would have had I been a subscriber. You recall right. After several years during which people could use different carriers for each call, the major carriers all began discriminating against non-subscribers using their services by implementing a "casual-caller" surcharge, that ran a dollar or two on every call, over and above the highest rate they charge their customers. However, although you can be PIC'd to only a single carrier for your interlata calls, there's no rule that says you can't set up accounts with multiple carriers, if they'll let you. The problem with this, though, is that most carriers insist that you give them an authorization to change your PIC. When your local phone company processes the PIC change, they will also notify your current carrier, who will no longer consider you a subscriber. I think you can workaround this by getting a PIC freeze, which should then cause your local phone company to ignore the PIC change request. Got all that? Good. But aside from the nuisance of remembering which carrier access code to dial which day of the week, there are some other drawbacks. First, MCI will charge you $1.07 each month for the PIC-C fee (even if you're not actually PIC'd to them). Second, MCI has a $5 monthly minimum on most of its plans, so your savings plan could backfire if you don't use enough time. Third, there are phone companies at least as reliable as MCI, and certainly more ethical than MCI, that charge residential customers 7.9 cents a minute 24 hours a day with no monthly fee (except for the $0.53 PIC fee), minimum, or other committment, with 6 second billing increments and 6 second minimum time per call ... and these are NOT voice over IP services (at least as far as I can tell). So while it's true that you can save money using MCI on Sundays and some other carrier the rest of the week, the incentive to do so is pretty limited if you get yourself set up on the right calling plan to begin with. ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: BNC, was Book Review Date: 01 May 1999 09:28:13 GMT Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk In article , rslade@sprint.ca (Rob Slade) wrote: > I would have been very interested to see what the derivation of BNC > (as in "BNC connector) was, except that it isn't included. That's easy. Here is the answer along with some other well-known connectors. There is a lot of misinformation going around but I guarantee these derivations are correct. BNC = Baby (or Bayonet) Neill Concelman. A baby-size combination of the designs of Neill and Concelman. C = Concelman. Developed by Carl Concelman of Amphenol. DIN = Deutsche Industrienormen Ausschuss (German standards-making authority) EIAJ = Electronics Industry Association of Japan. MUSA = Multiple Unit Steerable Array. Developed in the 1930s by the British Post Office. It is very similar to the American Western Electric video jack. N = Neill or Navy type. Originated in 1942 by Paul Neill of Bell Labs and standardised on a Navy Bureau of Ships drawing. RCA = Radio Corporation of America. UHF = Ultra High Frequency. Developed in 1940 by E.C. Quackenbush of the American Phenolic Corporation (later Amphenol). At the time this connector was designed, UHF meant what we call VHF today. Andrew Emmerson. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 11:09:31 +0100 From: Simon Hewison Reply-To: Simon Hewison Subject: Re: Bizarre Cellular Cross-Talk Organization: Demon Internet In article , Linc Madison writes > I was talking on my landline POTS phone today, to a friend who was > calling from some variety of cellphone or PCS phone. Suddenly, as > clear as day, I heard someone else's conversation, something along > the lines of "Dad, can you hear me now?" I hadn't realized that my > friend was on a wireless phone, so I thought perhaps someone was > monkeying with the demarc on one end or the other. The cut-in was > only for about 20 or 30 seconds, before the other party/parties > went away. > Kinda makes you wonder ... If it's any form of standard analog FM based cell phone, it's incredibly easy for someone with an illegal or broken FM transmitter to break through, even on harmonics. (In a similar way to being able to listen to analog cellular phones on a half decent scanner from Radio Shack.) Most digital cellular protocols such as GSM variants, and Qualcomm under similar circumstances would either attempt to channel hop to an interference free channel, or just drop the call altogether. Simon Hewison ------------------------------ From: cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro) Subject: Re: The Complete PC's ->> Complete Communicator VoiceMail Card Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 13:21:19 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:02:12 -0700, Etop Udoh wrote: > Is anyone familiar with the company "The Complete PC" which came out > with the "Complete Communicator" voice mail card and some accessories > for them ... > I have several of their cards including my latest one, the Window's > Version of the card. I have the Window's Software, but I'm missing > the DOS software which installs itself in a directory called "CCDOS" ?? > I believe there are several versions of this software, and the last > version which came off of their bbs, or ftp site (now BOCA) is not > quite 100% compatible ... so I need one that is a little older than > that one. I have 2.62 running on my PS-2 model 30 and it's pretty stable. I can't find the original 5 1/4 inch disks (all packed away while my office is being constructed!), but I can zip up my working cc subdirectory and ship it to you if you like. Does the WINDOZE version handle multiple cards better and allow sharing of the database? Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Rob McMillin Subject: Re: The NANP Has 8+ Years to Go Says NANPA Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:50:07 -0700 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site "Eric B. Morson" wrote: > Looks like the first REAL steps have been taken to evaluate just how > SOON the NANP will be in SERIOUS jeopardy as a whole. > The NANP Exhaust Study has been published.... > http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/NANP_Exhaust_Study.pdf > VERY informative ... they now project total exhaustion between 2006 > and 2012, with their best guess being 2007... 8 1/2 years to go! NO > FCC action recommended regarding 10-D or 11-D dialing yet. No timetable > for expansion yet. No FCC mandate for implementing expanding dialing > patterns from 3+7 to 4+8 with a deadline for launch. How about > deciding IF 4+8 will be the solution? What he didn't mention was that the report says this is ONLY if number allocation continues in blocks of 10,000. If, as has been proposed, NPA blocks start being allocated in blocks of 1,000 (NPA-NXX-Xxxx), the estimated exhaust date is more like 2094... but then, they don't really give a basis is for that statement. Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Portable Local Numbers: Why Aren't They? Date: 1 May 1999 00:12:24 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Jan Ceuleers wrote: > Ralph Hyre wrote: >> What's the real issue with Local Number portability? >> 800 Number portability was achieved years ago (1993?), and the >> technology and operational issues are basically the same, with some >> minor scaling issues. > These scaling issues are not minor. They are the difference between > triggering the IN platform (and global title translation etc.) on only > a percentage of calls (i.e. freephone calls), and triggering the IN > for essentially _all_ calls. Well, it's not quite that bad initially. You can avoid that by setting Specific Digit String triggers only on codes that have had numbers ported in them, and it'll be a while until that's every NPA-NXX. Quite a while. Of course, since it's now the SDS trigger instead of the 3/6/10 trigger, you can even avoid querying with finer resolution than NPA-NXX; for example, if you wanted to build the tables out to a sufficient depth, you could trigger on 847-830-1XXX but not on 847-830-2XXX. The other big issue is that, very much *unlike* 800 number service, here both the dialed and "routing" numbers are real telephone numbers. This is the source of much of the complexity. When you make an 800 call, the database dip is done, yielding a carrier and a routing number -- these days, usually just another 800 number; then that carrier gets the call, probably dips to its own 800 number database, and comes up with a *real* telephone number, an NPA-NXX-XXXX number where the NPA-NXX identifies a real office to router the call to, and proceeds to route the call accordingly. In that scheme, it's easy to tell the difference between the "fake" and "real" numbers, because there are no offices in NPA 800; 800-NXX can never be mistaken for a real office to route the call to, so you always know whether the database dip has been done or not. With LNP, there's no such guarantee. Both the dialed number and the number returned by the database dip (The "LRN" or Location Routing Number for the office the number's been ported to) are "real" telephone numbers -- they both have NPA-NXX for which real offices exist, to which you could route the call. Were the queries done just like 800 database queries, there would be no simple way to tell whether or not the lookup had been done already, introducing a number of very ugly corner cases, things like routing loops, query storms, etc. To avoid this, the ISUP IAM was modified to include the TCNI bit, which indicates that the query has already been done. This, of course, involves changing every implementation of ISUP in the network... every switch, and then some other miscellaneous hardware. It's really the only available solution that met all the constraints, but it's not hard to see why it's taking so long! Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Brian F. G. Bidulock Subject: Re: Lawsuit Says MCI 'Redlines' Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:48:23 -0500 Organization: Brian F. G. Bidulock, P. Eng. "L. Winson" wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone know why card reader type >> phones never really caught on? [good points snipped] > Damn good question. I myself would rather have the security of > inserting a card and entering just my pin number rather than entering > (and remembering) a whole series of numbers. [snip] Regulation, de-regulation, liberalization. If you accept your own card in a card reader payphone you are forced to accept everybody else's. Countries with little to no payhone competition with the monopoly carrier always have card readers on payphones. Then the competition complains to the regulator that their cards should be accepted by the incumbent's phone, otherwise it is a barrier to entry. Bye-bye card readers: result, increased fraud. Fraud detection mechanisms, on the other hand are getting more sophisticated. Some systems track velocity of usage, others track the speed of movement of the user of the number or the number of pseudo-simultaneous sessions which the card number exhibits. Most mechanisms act to limit the rate and volume of fraudulent use which can be perpetrated against a single card number. This is all for the "protection" of the user, however, it reduces to a question of cost and liability, like most things. Brian F. G. Bidulock, P. Eng. bidulock@dallas.net ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Imminent Exhaustion of the NANP Should be a Wake-up Call! Date: 30 Apr 1999 23:03:00 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Arthur Ross wrote: > BTW - I have been writing memos to some of my acquaintances at Lucent > for some time now to the effect that "It is time to re-think network > addressing," the general theme being that numeric, geography-based > addressing in this age of 300 MHz processors and multi-gigabyte hard > drives on every desktop, is an anachronism. While these memos are > probably winding up in the circular "nut" file, I still believe > it. There are, of course, a few small problems .... As you say below, IP addressing, to be expanded from 32 bits (absolutely essential of course, but there's lots of hardware and firmware from a zillion companies that becomes obsolete quickly) will eventually replace the NANP -- but not all that quickly. My note, however, is about Lucent's role in network addressing. The NANP itself is probably included in Judge Greene's 1982 decision which split apart AT&T and the RBOCs in the Jan 1 1984 divestiture, and is still humorously :-( referred to in some circles as the Second Modification of Final Judgement. (The 1956 decree issued in Newark NJ against Western Electric in which, among other things, they agred to make communications patents available to all, was the earlier judgment, the one being modified by the Justice Department lawsuit.) The MFJ created BellCore and mandates Bellcore to be responsible for all coordination of national issues, national security etc. I believe that makes BellCore, under agreement signed by the Justice Dept and AT&T (from which Bellcore and Lucent sprung forth, and which has not been superseded by later legislation) responsible for the NANP, and Lucent is but one of many interested parties, but not the one responsible for the NANP. Perhaps you should be asking your friends at BellCore (Lockheed/ Telcore?) rather than Lucent? Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #67 *****************************