Date: 17 Aug 2000 06:15:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20000817101510.22573.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #25 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: ea4b00fc306fe821290839bcd45d9995 Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Thursday, August 17 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 025 In this issue: Re: Legal AT&T Wireless LD slam Rates (was Re: GEICO Encourages Theft of Service) Fwd: Re: E-Mail this story? Re: Fwd: Re: E-Mail this story? Re: Legal AT&T Wireless LD slam Update on 855 & 866 on AT&T Wireless AT&T works with 866, but Alltel still doesn't. Re: Where have all the phone booths gone? Re: Lieberman's Privacy 'Tap' Dance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 2000 08:55:52 -0400 From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Legal AT&T Wireless LD slam >Actually, wireless carriers were specifically relieved from having to >provide a choice of long-distance providers, and were allowed to provide >bundled local and long-distance, by the 1996 Telecom Act (Section 601 >thereof, if i recall). > >-- >Michael D. Sullivan I have Airtouch/Verizon, but when it was still part of Pacific Bell, I was able to choose my own carrier. I later did switch to the in.house one and now have the L/D included in my rate. Maybe they were different or because if was California. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. http://www.delphi.com/gbbs The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? (c) - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 2000 12:41:59 -0400 From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Rates (was Re: GEICO Encourages Theft of Service) It was 15 Aug 2000 23:27:32 -0400, and pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: | A few months ago, I saw a presentation by some exec from worldcom | (he was talking about what a wonderful thing that merger -- since | blocked -- would be) and I seem to recall a pie chart with something | like 17% of costs going to operational stuff like switching ops and | hardware, with billing a larger chunk and marketing just under 50% | of the total. So of my 9c per minute I'm paying them 4c per minute to TELL ME their rate is low, 2c for the priviledge of being charged, and 3c for the actual service ... | It's become a strange business. Very! I wonder when it will be cheaper to give away service than sell it? JL - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 2000 17:10:09 -0400 From: Mike Pollock Subject: Fwd: Re: E-Mail this story? Okay, Digesters, here's the response I got from the New York Times. I await your interpretation and will abide by your judgment. It seems to me that I should manually send a link (alas not using their handy e-mailing feature) to avoid the storage and mass-distribution problems, but what say ye? My original e-mail appears in the quote. - --Mike - --- hilda cosmo wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:01:36 -0400 > To: Mike Pollock > From: hilda cosmo > Subject: Re: E-Mail this story? > > Mr. Pollock, > Since you are receiving permission to e-mail the > article to a friend, there > is no breach of the subscriber agreement. Posting > the NYTimes article in a > newsgroup for the purpose of discussion is > permitted. NYT content may not > be archived and must be deleted within a day or two. > The copyright and > credit mention to be included with the article is: > Reprinted With > Permission (c) 2000 The New York Times Company. > > Mass distribution or posting requires permission. > Information on how to > apply for > permission may be found at the url below: > > http://www.nytimes.com/subscribe/help/permiss.html > > > Thank you for your interest in The New York Times on > the Web. > Hilda Cosmo > > At 07:30 AM 8/14/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >Can you please clarify how the new "E-mail this > story" > >link on all the NYT stories relates to the > copyright > >policy? Especially The New York Times on the Web > >Subscriber Agreement sections 2.2 and 2.3? > > > >Can I forward a story with this link (which keeps > the > >copyright and other notices intact) to a mailing > list > >such as those at eGroups.com, or a Usenet group > with > >an e-mail gateway? I know section 2.3 allows > >downloading and copying for personal use, and I'd > >consider these lists and newsgroups personal since > >they're hobby-related and not part of any business. > >But section 2.2 forbids transmission and > reproduction, > >So what are the rules specific to "E-mail this > story." > > > >Thanks, > > > >--Mike _______________________________________________________________________________ > Hilda V. Cosmo > Rights and Contracts Manager > > > New York Times Digital Division of The New York > Times Company > 1120 Ave. of the Americas 6th Floor, New York, NY > 10036 > Telephone: 212-597-8037 fax: 212-789-3249 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 2000 19:11:53 -0400 From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: E-Mail this story? It was a dark and stormy night when Mike Pollock first wrote: > Posting the NYTimes article in a newsgroup for the purpose of discussion is >> permitted. So sayeth the NYT. For all practical purposes, the mailing list is just an extension of the ng. They're prohibiting spamming it, or posting it on your website. - -Dave . - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 2000 19:46:06 -0400 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Re: Legal AT&T Wireless LD slam On 16 Aug 2000 00:09:27 -0400, quonk@my-deja.com wrote: >The wireless companies that were not owned by the former Bell System >companies were never required to provide you access to the long distance >carrier of your choice. Even the former RBOC-owned wireless companies were >relieved of most equal access responsibilities by the Telecom Act. >Or use a service like Acculinq. You call an 800 number or a local access >number and then they identify you by caller-ID or ANI, saving you the trouble >of dialing a calling card number. Up here in Canada, we've never had the ability to sign up for third-party long distance on our cellular/PCS phones. Dialing 1-700-555-4141 from any carrier usually results in a "your call cannot be completed as dialed" message. Thankfully, cellular long distance rates are becoming SLIGHTLY less usurious, but there *IS* a way around it, and it's something like this Acculinq service you speak of. It's a company called Wintel. It's designed for landlines but works the same way: you dial a local access number (or 1-800 number at a higher rate) and ANI identifies who you are. You then dial the ten-digit number you want (overseas calls are also permitted but you precede them with "999", then country code, then the rest), and voila!, your call goes through. Off-peak within Canada is just 7 cents (that's Canadian cents, about 0.004 cents US) per minute, and 13 cents/minute to the US 24/7. When you call to sign up, DO NOT tell them the number you are signing up is cellular/PCS, because they'll turn you down. :-) Oh, and be sure your cellular service supports caller-ID (most now do, even analog). I've used this service successfully with phones on the Rogers/AT&T, Telus Mobility, and Clearnet networks. You can also set up multiple phone numbers for access at the same time, so you can get the service with your landline(s) as well. A calling card is also available (something like 20 cents/minute for US/Canada calls) for when you're calling from a payphone or otherwise away from your regular phone number. The number is 1-888-WINTEL-1 My only connection to them is as a satisfied customer. / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / / PATH=C:\DOS;C:\DOS\RUN;C:\WIN\CRASH\DOS;C:\ME\DEL\WIN ** Tag(s) inserted by Bandit Tagger98 - http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c918704 - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 2000 21:25:58 -0400 From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" Subject: Update on 855 & 866 on AT&T Wireless AT&T Wireless can now appropriately route calls to both 866 & 855, starting this morning (at least in Pittsburgh). Calls to my 866 number work as well as calls to the test numbers documented on the ATIS web site, except the Bell Atlantic ones. BuT, given the strike, who knows what the problem is there. I go back on the road Friday, so, I will check out AT&T WS in other cities this weekend. droopy - -- Jeffrey J. Carpenter P.O. Box 471 Glenshaw, PA 15116-0471 Phone: +1 218 837-6000 Fax: +1 310 914-1716 Email: jjc@pobox.com - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 2000 22:40:44 -0400 From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) Subject: AT&T works with 866, but Alltel still doesn't. >>From 'Jeffrey J. Carpenter': >AT&T Wireless can now appropriately route calls to both 866 & 855, >starting this morning (at least in Pittsburgh). Calls to my 866 number >work as well as calls to the test numbers documented on the ATIS web >site, except the Bell Atlantic ones. BuT, given the strike, who knows >what the problem is there. I go back on the road Friday, so, I will >check out AT&T WS in other cities this weekend. Alltel, which couldn't route wireless calls to my company's new 866 number (866-DSL-EXPRESS, for those who care :), still can't route wireless calls to that number. Ameritech seems to have no problem routing landline calls, though. A techie at Alltel said she figured they probably hadn't programmed 866 into the switch. I'll have to call Star611 tomorrow and beat up on them until they do. :) - -- North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net Steve Sobol, BOFH - President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor Linux Instructor, PC/LAN Program, Natl. Institute of Technology, Akron, OH sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 2000 00:12:37 -0400 From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Where have all the phone booths gone? Roy Smith writes: >From: Roy Smith >Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom >Subject: Where have all the phone booths gone? >Date: 10 Aug 2000 11:22:15 -0400 >Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing >Lines: 18 > >The other day, I needed to make a phone call at work which required some >privacy. I set off to find a phone in a phone booth where I could shut the door >and use the phone. Could not find one. I checked out a few locations in the >complex where I work where I seemed to remember phone booths, but they had all >been converted to little alcoves with pay phones hung on the wall. > >The more I think about it, I can't remember the last time I saw an honest to >goodness phone booth, with a seat, a door, a light that comes on when you close >the door (and a fan even). A phone book, of course, would be too much to ask >for, but I'd settle for a door that you could close. Do they still exist >anywhere? Yes, they exist as collectors items being sold from time to time at antique dealers or even online auctions. I beleive I saw a 1920s vintage wooden telephone booth sell for about $2800 on eBay a few weeks ago. I just did a search of eBay and there's one phone booth being offered at the moment. You can look at the pictures and text at: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=409136957 Enjoy. Cheers, The Old Bear - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 2000 00:12:37 -0400 From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Lieberman's Privacy 'Tap' Dance phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes: >From: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) >Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom >Subject: Re: Lieberman's Privacy 'Tap' Dance >Date: 16 Aug 2000 01:35:45 -0400 >Lines: 34 >is a press release from the Progressive Policy Institute (part of >Lieberman's Democratic Leadership Council) about their proposal to >make the DMCA even worse than it is. Among other things it requires >ISP's to get verifiable ID from their users or face liability for >copyright-infringing content that the users post, and allows judges to >shut down ISP's if they host infringing stuff. Sheesh... ISPs should know who their customers are and get some hooks into them. This would go a long way to cut down on the amount of spam that is generated by spammers who open "throw-away" accounts with phoney names, use them for 24 hours to inject millions of spams into the mail system, and move on. I am very much in favor of anonymizing services for person who wish to mask their identity because these services will not accommodate that kind of mass-mailing abuse. If it were required that all email carry a real address *OR* an identified anonymous emailer address, we could easily decide whether or not to accept anonymous mail just as we can decide whether or not to accept phone calls with caller ID supressed. Right now, spamming is a fine art woven from stolen services, false identities, and absolutely no liability for the spammer. The clean up costs for service providers and legitimate businesses are huge. Having worked in a management position with a large regional ISP, when I instituted a policy of getting a call-back number for verification of accounts being opened without a credit card (i.e., direct billing), we found that almost half of persons opening such accounts gave phoney call-back numbers so that we could not reach them to verify that they had requested us to open an account. (I beleive we were one of the few ISPs to bother to do this. And it significantly reduced the number of spam complaints to our abuse desk.) >Gore, of course, also backed the Clipper chip and has kept cryptography >bogged down for many years by keeping the bogus crypto export regulations >alive. I totally agree. It took the man a long, long time to understand the issue and realize that one cannot put the genie back in the bottle. >Of course I have plenty of problems with GW Bush as well... Don't get me started. ;) Cheers, The Old Bear - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #25 *******************************