Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA05049; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:56:37 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905230156.VAA05049@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #92 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 May 99 21:56:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 92 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Chat Room Rebuilt From Scratch (TELECOM Digest Editor) AT&T Now CHARGES For BASIC Numbering/Dialing/Geographic Info! (Mark Cuccia) Book Review: "Windows NT Domain Architecture", Gregg Branham (Rob Slade) Cone of Silence About ICANN Engulfs IETF, IANA, etc? (Ronda Hauben) Court Strikes Down Fee Cuts Applied To Bells (Monty Solomon) Prices For 5ESS & Alcatel SDH ADM (mobassharahmed@my-dejanews.com) PBX and MP3 - Help (Kurt Bewersdorf) Using V&H to Calculate Distance (Scott Prugh) FCC Rules Online (Harold Hallikainen) CFP: Computer Research for Wireless Systems Mobile Computing (Wm Gilreath) 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: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:11:06 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Telecom Chat Room Rebuilt From Scratch The 'chat room' which was being offered as part of http://telecom-digest.org has been removed and replaced with something different. It had been operated remotely by myself from an account on xoom.com but those people are so full of advertising and unwanted email that I finally got very tired of it. Plus, when you were using the applet they provided, not only was it full of advertising messages but when you exited, it dropped you into one of their pages where you got to read a few more ads as you exited. All that is over with. Now the chat room -- still located at http://telecom-digest/chat is part of an advertising free IRC network called irc.ram-page.com and there are two ways you can use it. One, simply go to our chat room area if your browser is java-enabled and you will be defaulted into channel #telecom-topics ... with all the usual IRC commands at your disposal. You can change channels, or do anything you usually can do on IRC. Two, if your browser is not java-enabled or you simple prefer to use an IRC client in the usual way, you would connect to irc.ram-page.net and /join #telecom-topics, where the channel description is 'Friends of TELECOM Digest'. I am listed as the channel operator, and a bot runs the room 24 hours per day when I am not there. You may or may not need to use a password for the /nick of your choice, depending on if someone else has it, or you personally happen to be an IRC operator on that network, etc. Most important, *no advertising*, fairly rigid standards by the administrators, and security seems to be pretty well under control. Meet other TELECOM Digest readers there in the late evening hours Eastern time, or if you get tired of #telecom-topics visit the various other channels available. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 12:29:11 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: AT&T Now CHARGES For BASIC Numbering/Dialing/Geographic Info! Yes, you read the subject line correctly. AT&T's Operators now will CHARGE you to inquire about an Area Code (and we ALL know how the changes in area codes these days is EXTREMELY confusing!), a location of an NPA-NXX code, country/city code info for locations outside of North America, and other similar numbering/dialing/geographic information! :-( It started this past Monday 17 May 1999. If you dial (101-0288)-0('#'/0) from a "non-restricted" line, and ask an AT&T operator for such BASIC and NECESSARY numbering/dialing/etc. info so as to PROPERLY and MORE EFFICIENTLY place customer-dialed calls via their network, the AT&T OSPS Operator will put the auto-quote on which states that "this service is now provided by AT&T 'double-oh' info", and to please hold while your call is connected. They DON'T tell you that anytime you are connected to their 'double-oh' info pseudo-directory that you are charged NINETY-NINE-CENTS, whether or not their pseudo-directory is able to find the directory listing or other such info that you are inquiring about - and I assume you are charged ONCE the AT&T 'double-oh' operator 'supes' back to the initial operator. If you dial ANY of the AT&T Operator/Card 800- dialup access numbers (or from a foreign country, the AT&T-USA-Direct access numbers) to cut-thru to a live operator (from both "restricted" and "non-restricted" lines), or if you dial (101-0288)-0('#'/0) from a "restricted" line (i.e. one that is flagged as public/coin/payphone, PBX, maybe cellular-trunk, etc), upon inquiring about BASIC dialing information from the initial live operator, she DEMANDS your calling-card number. If you ask why you need to give her your calling-card number (an AT&T-issued one and MOST NANP LEC-issued cards are honored; I don't know about cards issued by non-NANP companies such as someone visiting from a foreign country, and using an '89'+country-code+etc. card), she THEN will tell you so that she can bill the 'double-oh info' charge to the card! The supervisors and the customer service reps with AT&T all say that "all carriers" are now billing customers for inquiring about such dialing information (NOT true!), and that the FCC has permitted them to charge for this (I haven't yet checked with the FCC). The other day, I did call (collect) the number for complaints to AT&T's Exexutive Headquarters somewhere in central NJ (Bedminster? Bernardsville? Basking Ridge?). They took down my complaints and concerns, but unless the FCC or Congress (ha-ha) orders them to reverse themself, I SERIOUSLY doubt that AT&T is going to truly consider providing good customer service in this area. I am able to get area code, NPA-NXX info, country/city code, dialing info, etc. from MCI, (US)Sprint, LCI-Qwest, Stentor/Bell-Canada, and many others without having to give any card number or being charged in any such way. I do have some of the better service plans with AT&T for direct dialed and calling card calls, both domestic/NANP and international. But I also have accounts and discount plans (dialed and card) with OTHER carriers as well, such as with MCI, (US)Sprint, LCI/Qwest, etc. In some cases, the OTHER carriers are giving me services/rates/plans which are FAR BETTER than what AT&T gives! It certainly seems that since 1991 or 1992, AT&T has REALLY gone DOWNhill in its provision of service to its customers. I could go on about all of the STUPID things they have started in the 1990's, but you can read about them in previous Digest submisssions, from the Archives. Even though AT&T _HAS_ started up with some decent discount plans here and there, some of their ATTITUDES towards their customers and REAL long-distance telephone service just repulse me. They are _NOT_ the same AT&T even in the first five or six years after the 1984 divestiture. Is AT&T trying to chase away their loyal customers? I know that ALL of the long distance carriers are guilty of one thing or another... including chasing away loyal and dedicated long-time EMPLOYEES who KNOW what the Bell System's dedication of service to the customer was for about 100 years. It is really ironic that AT&T has since ABANDONED this ethic of service, when for the first several years in the post-divestiture period, their commercials and advertizements in the later 1980's boasted about their PROUD heritage of quality telephone/customer service. For the past serveral months this year, and even MORE so now, I'm making FEWER calls over the AT&T network, and FAR more calls over Sprint and LCI/Qwest using the accounts I have with them on other lines or card numbers. AT&T has REALLY become a double-ZERO, as far as I am concerned. Yes, Pat, it has been some time since I've posted to the Digest. I've just become burned-out and dis-illusioned by what I've been seeing going on in the telephone industry over the past year or so! :-( mjc [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Burned out and dis-illusioned? No kidding! Nothing is the same any longer is it? I will quote the title of a book by Thomas Wolfe: "You Can't Go Home Again" ... Ma Bell doesn't live there any longer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:22:57 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Windows NT Domain Architecture", Gregg Branham Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKWNTDMA.RVW 990411 "Windows NT Domain Architecture", Gregg Branham, 1999, 1-57870-112-0, U$39.95/C$57.95 %A Gregg Branham www.altusnet.com info@altusnet.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1999 %G 1-57870-112-0 %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$39.95/C$57.95 800-858-7674 http://www.mcp.com info@mcp.com %P 298 p. %T "Windows NT Domain Architecture" Most NT books will show you the dialogue boxes that are used to set up domains. Some may even tell you, in simplistic terms, what a domain is, and these generally also mention trust relationships. A domain architecture, however, is a complicated beast, and worthy of substantially more discussion. Which Branham intends to provide. Chapter one outlines the workgroup and domain models for Microsoft networking, with particular emphasis on the security complications of workgroups. Domain controllers and some of the mechanisms for authentication are reviewed in chapter two. The SAM (Security Accounts Manager) is covered in chapter three, in some detail. Chapter four describes basic trust relationships, but could benefit from some discussion of more complicated examples. Various domain models are presented in chapter five, but, again, the deliberation could be extended, particularly where more complex security relations are involved. Good, solid information about domain structures and realities helps with domain planning in chapter six. Domain reconfiguration, in chapter seven, points out some of the possible traps to avoid. Chapter eight not only provides reliable information about domain security, but also takes care to expose some of the more prevalent security myths surrounding NT. User and groups relations with domains and trust relationships is dealt with quite thoroughly in chapter nine. Scripts, policies, and profiles are handled well enough in chapter ten that NT administrators might find it worth investing in the book even without needing to design domains. Chapter eleven's coverage of resource permissions is good, but perhaps should concentrate more on the effect of trust relationships in the complex mix of permissions and rights. The function and operation of the NETBIOS server resource browser is discussed in chapter twelve. DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol), WINS (Windows Internet Naming Service), and DNS (Domain Name Service) operation is covered well in chapter thirteen, but usage and setup could stand some additional material. Appendices cover issues that can have an impact on domain design, such as performance of individual machines for load balancing to eliminate bottlenecks. The material is very well supported with frequent citation to the relevant Microsoft Knowledge Base articles. In addition, while Branham does not go to great pains to point out design problems with NT, he does not gloss over them, either. There are numerous points raised about the differences between NT and the coming 2000 version. In large measure, Branham succeeds in presenting information that is covered poorly, if at all, in most NT texts. There is a great deal of technical detail that will be useful both in tuning a network and in diagnosing trouble. Some work should still be enhanced in the realm between the broad concepts and the internals level specifics. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKWNTDMA.RVW 990411 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Just because you are into control doesn't mean you are in control - Larry Wall http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: rh120@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Cone of Silence About ICANN Engulfs IETF, IANA, etc? Date: 22 May 1999 18:03:09 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: rh120@watsun.cc.columbia.edu Thought folks reading TELECOM Digest would find the following article by John Horvath in TELEPOLIS of interest. Ronda ---------- Cone of Silence ICANN or Internet Democracy is Failing by John Horvath URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html an excerpt follows: "...There's a battle being waged behind the scenes that many of us don't know about - even those whose lives have now become dependent on computer mediated communication systems like the Internet. The process to hand over government control of the Internet to a private body - a process which was formulated last summer and initiated toward the end of that same year - has been rife with problems that various sides are continually struggling to deal with. While many people who use the Internet will have heard about this process and the organisation involved - ICANN , to which the whole process has become synonymous - the truth of the matter is that for the vast majority it is something relatively unknown. Indeed, there's been a "cone of silence" over the issue, and for those involved that's just the way they like it. In order to try and break this cone of silence and to better understand what is really at stake, what will be looked at is the origin and evolution of the process and the organisation it has created, ICANN. Its first moves and the corresponding negative reaction that gave the whole process a stillborn start will be examined, along with ways in which attempts have been made to rescue the process. This will be followed by a more in-depth look at those for and against ICANN and the process, along with some observations as to how and why the silent complicity that surrounds the issue exists. In the end, it will be shown how the issue is not just one involving the transformation of the Internet from a government body to a private one, but strikes at the very heart of democracy in the digital age. It also affects the emergence of a new form of civic discourse, one that transcends the limits of physical space. In fact, it's something which will profoundly change our lives, and unless more attention is paid to what is actually going on behind the scenes, a future will be built for us that will run counter to many of our hopes and expectations." (see URL for rest of article) Also there is an ICANN meeting in Berlin scheduled for May 25-27. The Amateur Computerist Vol. 9 No. 1 Winter 1998-1999 25 Year Anniversary of TCP/IP DNS: Short History Short Future The Internet: Public or Private Role of Govt in Internet write for free copy rh120@columbia.edu or ronda@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 23:25:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Strikes Down Fee Cuts Applied To Bells http://news.lycos.com/stories/business/19990521rtbusiness-telecom-court.asp WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Appeals Court Friday struck down a key regulation that annually reduces the billions of dollars long distance companies must pay local phone companies for completing their calls. The Federal Communications Commission in 1997 decided that the $20 billion or so of fees paid primarily to the regional Bell companies and GTE Corp. by long distance companies should decline by 6.5 percent per year. Friday's decision threw into question over $1 billion of expected fee reductions scheduled for July 1, but the court said it might be willing to temporarily set aside its ruling while the FCC reconsidered the rate, known as the X-factor. FCC officials were still studying the decision Friday but planned to ask for a temporary stay 'promptly,' a spokeswoman said. The 6.5 percent figure is intended to reflect increased productivity at the local carriers but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the agency had not provided an adequate explanation of how it reached the 6.5 percent rate. The FCC 'failed to state a coherent theory supporting its choice,' the court wrote. Long distance carriers like AT&T Corp. and MCI WorldCom Inc. are already paying billions of dollars less in so-called access charges due to the FCC-ordered reductions. Local phone carriers say each one-tenth of one percent reduction equals about $23 million in cuts. Access charges, which are added to each minute of a long distance call, are higher than the actual cost to the local carriers of connecting and completing calls. But there is little agreement over how much and how fast the charges should be reduced. Local carriers argue amounts above cost are used to subsidize phone service, keeping monthly charges affordable in rural and low income areas for example. Mike Glover, assistant general counsel at Bell Atlantic Corp. said the local carriers, 'have always believed that the FCC decision overstated the amount of the annual reductions that can be justified.' Long distance carriers maintain the extra fees simply pad the profits of the local carriers. "Nothing in today's decision even remotely suggests that the local companies' access charges are justifiable," said AT&T general counsel Jim Cicconi. "In fact, the record in the FCC's current access reform proceedings confirms that the productivity factor should be much higher, and access reductions substantially greater than would otherwise occur." Industry analyst George Reed-Dellinger of HSBC Washington Analysis said the FCC had never provided an adequate rationale for raising the X-factor to 6.5 percent in 1997. "The best I could say is that it was ambitious -- the worst that it was illegal," said Reed-Dellinger. "At first blush, I don't think the Bell companies get money back but at the margin there is reduced pressure for them to reduce rates in the future." ------------------------------ From: mobassharahmed@my-dejanews.com Subject: Prices for 5ESS & Alcatel SDH ADM Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 07:15:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I need to do a report and I need some rough prices. Please can someone give me rough or incicative prices for Alcatel SDH ADM (Add Drop Mux) and a 2400 Line (80 E1 trunks) Lucent 5ESS CDX. I need this before Monday so any rough estimates would suffice. Please send copy to e-mail as I may miss this in the NG. Rgds. ------------------------------ From: Kurt Bewersdorf Subject: PBX and MP3 - Help Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 10:07:48 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I have announcements recorded for my PBX, sitting on my PC in MP3 format. Can anyone suggest a way to get them onto my PBX. I was thinking that there is probably a piece of equipment out there that will allow me to do this. What I'm looking for is suggestions ... If there is a piece of equipment that can do this, I would need for it to have an audio jack (that can be plugged into the audio out on my computer) as well as a jack that a telephone handset could be plugged into. Anyone seen anything like this? Kurt ------------------------------ From: Scott Prugh Subject: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 19:28:20 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server I found the following in TELECOM Digest: Within North America, rate distance is calculated using the "V&H" system. V stands for "vertical" (north-south position) and H for "horizontal" (east-west position). Each exchange is represented by a location expressed as a V&H co-ordinate. A rate distance can be calculated from two V&H co-ordinate sets based on Pythagorean Theorem, i.e. rate distance = sqrt((V1-V2)^2+(H1-H2)^2)/10 where (V1,H1) is the V&H for one end of a call, and (V2,H2) represents the other end of a call. Seems pretty easy. So I pulled out my LERG and took the switch coordinates for two switches: SW1 = 'PSWYNJPIDS5' (v1,h1) = (5080,1444) -- PISCATAWAY SW2 = 'ACMEWAXARS1' (v2,h2) = (6102,8901) -- SEATTLE And plugged away: rd = sqrt( (5080-6102)^2 + (1444-8901)^2 )/10 rd = sqrt( -1022^2 + -7457^2)/10 rd = sqrt( 1044484 + 55606849)/10 rd = sqrt( 56651333)/10 rd = 7526/10 rd = 752 This is obviously wrong, since Seattle is more that 752 miles from Piscataway. What's wrong here? Is the formula I have dated? Regards, Scott [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not a matter of the formula being 'dated', since mathematical truths remain true regardless of when they are pronounced. Two plus two has always equalled four. And I do not really the earth has expanded *that much* if at all since the above formula was given. Perhaps some readers can look it over and examine your work to detirmine what went wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Organization: Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. Subject: FCC Rules Online Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 20:06:42 -0700 Some readers here might be interested in my FCC Rules web site at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules . There you'll find the complete FCC rules in hypertext format. Every time a rule mentions another rule, there's a link to the other rule. At the end of each rule is a history of the rule from the Federal Register. Many of these FR cites have links to the Federal Register article (though I have to add these links by hand, so it's a bit slow going). The Federal Register will then cite an NPRM or Report and Order from the FCC. There are then links to these documents at the FCC (though, again, these links are added by hand, so it takes time...). Finally, also at the bottom of each rule are links to view the rule in previous years, to search the Federal Register for cites of the rule, and to search the FCC's web site for cites of the rule. For an example of something where the FR and FCC cite links are all in place, try looking at 73.1400. I hope readers find the pages useful. Meanwhile, I'll be back to read more of comp.dcom.telecom! Harold ------------------------------ From: William F. Gilreath Subject: CFP: Computer Research for Wireless Systems and Mobile Computing Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:51:48 -0500 Organization: AMC Internet Call for Papers Special Issue of International Journal for Computer Research on Wireless Systems and Mobile Computing Due to the rapidly expanding technology of wireless and mobile communications, mobile users with portable computers should be capable of accessing information anywhere and at anytime. This new communication style will significantly affect the distributed computing environments. In this special issue, we focus on all aspects of wireless systems that support mobile computing. In particular, all aspects of distributed computing with mobile communication capability. This will include the following general themes, but are not limited to: Mobile communication network architecture Mobile network management Mobile applications Local and Global) Performance modeling of mobile computing systems Design and analysis of mobile computing algorithms Fault-tolerance for mobile computing Adaptive mobile communication protocols Distributed databases for mobile computing Energy efficient hardware/software designs Wireless and Location Dependent Information Systems Security and authentication Systems and services Internetworking standards Authors are invited to submit postscript files (no more than 35 double-spaced pages) to {guizanim@umkc.edu} according to the following timetable. Submission Deadline January 31, 2000 Acceptance Notice June 30, 2000 Publication Date November 2000 Mohsen Guizani Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Missouri-Columbia 5605 Troost Avenue Kansas City, MO 64110-2823, USA. Tel: (816) 235-1550 Fax: (816) 235-1260 guizanim@umkc.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #92 *****************************