Date: 8 Sep 2000 23:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20000909033336.16182.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #46 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: 9ada3dca5f945a73052525170a5ef569 Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Friday, September 8 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 046 In this issue: H.110 bus Toll-free numbers that lead to charges on phone bill AT&T Operator Rates These Days (re: C-ID and Answr Suping) Dialing the US from France Re: Toll-free numbers that lead to charges on phone bill Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service phone cables down, was: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service PFIR Statement on Government Interception of Internet Data Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service Punch-down for a Premier SLS 612 9/8/00 ICBTollFree.Com HEADS UP HEADLINES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Sep 2000 07:33:13 -0400 From: "Lokesh Johri" Subject: H.110 bus On c-pci racks how much support is there H.110 bus on WIndows NT, provided the bus extends upto the system controller? thanks, - -Lokesh - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 09:25:07 -0400 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" Subject: Toll-free numbers that lead to charges on phone bill Damon, a query on TOLLFREE-L might result in useful information. It's at http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html. Judith Judith Oppenheimer, +1 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://www.icbtollfree.com/testimny.cfm Register for FREE 800/Dot Com Headlines here: http://www.icbtollfree.com/reg.cfm?NextURL=Index.cfm LAST DAY OF ICB $99 PREMIUM SERVICE SALE http://www.icbtollfree.com/order.cfm - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 11:51:38 -0400 From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: AT&T Operator Rates These Days (re: C-ID and Answr Suping) quonk@my-deja.com wrote in "Re: Caller ID and answer supervision?": > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: >> Here's what happened, as far as the exhorbitant rate, not necessarily >> the one-min situation of whether or not the call actually "suped": >> the call was placed as a "0+" type call... AT&T's rates for card calls >> placed via 0+ as opposed to 800- dialups, ESPECIALLY 800-CALL-ATT, and >> where the card is a LEC-issued card rather than an AT&T-issued card, >> and whether or not one is on a discount plan or not.... >> The "basic" 0+ domestic (state-to-state) card rates, 24/7, for the >> past several months are: >> >> 89-c per min !!! (OUCH) >> >> PLUS a $2.25 per-call surcharge (when billed to an AT&T-issued card) >> PLUS a $4.99 per-call surcharge (when billed to a LEC-ussued card) >> >> (DOUBLE/TRIPLE OUCH) >> >> And if originating the card call from a payphone, there's that extra >> 30-c per call surcharge that the COCOT industry has extorted out of >> us, via the LD carriers. >> >> SO, add that up: >> >> 4.99 LEC-card surcharge, plus >> 0.89 one-min, plus >> 0.30 payphone-origination extortion, and you get.... >> >> $6.18 for one minute. >> >> Don't even ask how much the surcharge would have been had you asked >> the AT&T Operator to dial the destination number or even just key-in >> the card number (if you were on a rotary dial phone)-- you probably >> don't want to know that the Operator-Handled surcharge is (probably >> now) as high as aprrox $10.00 per call. > Geez, Mark, do you work as a customer service rep? Their rates are bad > enough that you don't have to exagerate them! > > The standard non-special-plan rate is $.89 per minute plus a service > charge. > > The service charge is: > If placed using 1-800-CALL-ATT: > $1.25 using an AT&T card. > $2.25 using a "commercial" card (MC, AMEX, etc.) > $4.99 using an LEC card. > > If not placed using 1-800-CALL-ATT: > $2.25 using an AT&T card. > $4.99 all other cards. > > So there is no advantage to dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT with an LEC card. That's right, there's no advantage to using 800-CALL-ATT and billing to a Local Telco (LEC) card. But using 800-CALL-ATT (and POSSIBLY 800-3210-ATT, 800-TTA-CARD = 800-882-CARD remember 882 is ATT spelled backwards, and the 800- dialups to AT&T automated OSPS card/opr svcs with alternate language platforms) and using an AT&T Card _IS_ cheaper than using (101-0288)-0+/01+ access to AT&T-OSPS or (101-0288)-00 "menu" access to AT&T-OSPS. (There's been a menu/platform now on AT&T '00' Operator/Card services for several years now, although certain types of originating lines, such as payphones, PBXes, cellular, etc., when reaching AT&T's '00' access to OSPS _might_, depending on the trunk group interface and/or ANI / ANI-II-digits, could route to the auto-voice "AT&T-Please Hold for Operator Assistance", without giving a "menu"). If you are on a special discount plan, especially one of the AT&T Card discount plans, using 800- access to OSPS _IS_ cheaper than 0+/01+ or 00-menu access to AT&T-OSPS. And the "best" AT&T discount (card) plans, such as their "one-rate" card plan for domestic card calling (I think it is 25-c/min 24/7, for $1.00/month fee), "One Rate Global" or other card plans allowing international, and grandfathered "Personal Network" customers (rate for US/Canada/UK on card is 10-c/min 24/7, rates to other countries on card is comparable to the 011+ rates or 1+non-US-NANP rates for "One Rate Intl/Global" or other intl.discount plans) -- to get the "best" card discount rates, you _MUST_ access AT&T-OSPS on 1-800-CALL-ATT menu. Of course, you must also be using the _AT&T_ issued card on the account that is "subscribed" to the particular plan as well. These discount plans do _NOT_ apply to LEC-issued cards (not even the 1980's era "LEC" cards that have the AT&T name/logo, that were "reclassified" as LEC issued/managed cards circa 1990/91). REMEMBER - originating from (most) payphones _WILL_ incur a 30-c per call (and a sequence-card-calling session with multiple "suped" calls -- each individual "suped" call during that session is an individual call for billing purposes) payphone originiation surcharge, a "kick-back" extorted from us on "behalf" of the COCOT industry. This applies regardless of whether the ultimate destination number entered (and "suped") is local, intra-LATA, inter-LATA, intra-state, inter-state, Canada, Caribbean, Mexico, or Intl/Ovs (non-NANP), etc. > The rate for a live operator assisted calling card or collect call is > $5.50 plus $.89/minute. (Collect rate is new as of 9/1/00). No > difference how you dial or what type of card you use. > > The rate for most other kinds of live operator assisted calls is $9.99 > plus $.89 per minute. A few months ago, I'd asked an AT&T Operator (supervisor) about rates for the AT&T Operator to assist on a call to a "non-dial ring-down/toll-stn" type of line/service in Nevada... there are still several of them around mostly in remote parts of Nevada, California, Oregon, Canada, possibly Alaska, and in the Caribbean -- and maybe even Mexico as well. The AT&T Operator must ring the local telco operator in the LATA or terminating homing region where the "non-dialable toll station" customer is located. (BTW, most of these are somewhat semi-automated these days- they actually are connected via a real central office, not on a magneto type line anymore; but because of their remoteness, the expense to provide service to these points is re-couped by the LECs and AT&T by having _ALL_ calls to/from the location be billed at Operator _HANDLED_ rates. The actual customer(s) in the remote location are proabably billed at a monthly tariffed rate that is FAR below the actual cost to telco to maintain the loop to the customer -- thus the expensive Operator rates to recoup that "loss". The local telco "inward" operator these days actually dials (keys) a real "POTS/geographic" telephone number that is NON-pub'd. Even the customer with the "non-dial toll-stn" service probably doesn't even know that number. They have an "account" number when they do business with Telco Business Office or Repair Service. Their outgoing calls - they frequently get DIALTONE from the DMS or 5E 50-miles away, but any single digit '1' thru '9' will give re-order or "vacant" recording. Entering/dialing '0' will get them their LEC/LATA TOPS operator who will see the "class of service" of their line... Anyhow... I had asked an AT&T Operator Supervisor about the rates to call a non-dial toll-point... and since AT&T Operator/Special rates change all the time, since these were quoted to me about three months ago, things may have changed... It matters not how you reach the live AT&T Operator, whether you use '00' or any 800- access number and then time-out or enter '0(pound)' to cut-thru to the live AT&T Operator... but if you want to bill the call to your calling number/line, you MUST come into AT&T-OSPS as '00' (AT&T Operators won't bill to the calling number/line on 800- access to AT&T-OSPS, though)... also, the calling line must show up on her board as "non-restricted", the rate quoted was something like $9.99 for the first min (or three mins?) and 90-c each add. minute. Even if you are an AT&T Customer -- even if you have discount plans with AT&T -- none of this matters -- EVERYONE is going to pay this same rate! :( If you bill to your AT&T-issued card, the rate was something like $6.00 for the first min (or three mins?) and 90-c each add. minute. (AT&T Discount / card-discount plans do _NOT_ apply) If you bill to a (valid/honored) LEC-issued card, the rate was something like what billing to your calling (non-restricted) line is - $9.99 initial and 90-c additional. Of course, calling from a payphone will probably add an extra 30-c to the card bill. And if you are calling from a "traditional" c.o.controlled / AT&T-OSPS / LEC-TOPS/OSPS "ACTS" coin-controlled payphone, you could PROBABLY pay in coins, but the operator must live-monitor and ring-fwd first to make sure that the line is working, since anything over $6.00 is too much for the "escrow bucket" in the coin phone to handle -- the Operator must do a "post-pay" type operation - get the party on the line first and THEN collect money in $3.00 or $5.00 intervals. Of course, this is impossible at "COCOT" and "COCOT-like" interface phones. AT&T Operator-assisted/handled rates have been CLIMBING for the past several years now... AT&T Person-to-Person and "Time & Charges" rates have gone sky high! :( Where state-regulatory has approved it for inTRA-state in that state, and the FCC already HAS approved it for inTER-State, AT&T Operator rates for Busy-Line-Verify and Emergency-Interrupt (on verified as "busy" lines) can run from rates as high as $10.00 to $20.00. The LEC Operator can do BLV and Emergency-Interrupt as well (probably at "less expensive" but still EXPENSIVE rates, state-regulatory 'approved'), but LEC TOPS/OSPS oprs can only do such for desired numbers in the same LATA. AT&T-OSPS must be used for anything outside of the LATA, which could still be in the home state, though. AT&T (with the LECs) is still probably the ONLY IXC that ever has done 1+/011+ toll coin from "traditional" payphones. For the most part over the past couple of years, while semi-automated (thus reducing or frequently ELIMINATING the need for a live operator), the rates have CLIMED (mostly on inTER-State and US->Canada) to such a degree, that US->Canada 1+ coin from "traditional" interface telco payphones can't be "automated" anymore. The first min (or 3-min?) 1+ US->Canada coin rate (as of several months ago) was over $6.00. Because "escrow bucket" in the phone can't handle that much coin for potential refund, you now get a LIVE operator who first informs you of the rate, so that you can start digging thru your pockets and spilling the coins on the "shelf" at the payphone, then she must ring-fwd to get the party on the line (something like a "person" call), and then collect the coins deposited in intervals, on a "post-pay" type of operation. No, I don't work as a Service Rep nor as an Operator with AT&T (nor a LEC). And while these services and functions have diminished over the years (BLV, Emer.Interrupt, Non-Dial Toll-Stations, Collect, Person, etc), there is still use of them and still a NEED for them. They are still "traditional" Bell System functions. Some other carriers/Operator entities do "provide" some of these services/functions, but some of these things can still ONLY be handled by an AT&T or LEC Operator! While I rarely (and even NEVER) have used some of these "traditional" Bell System provided features/functions, IMO, it's just a SHAME that the rates for them have climbed as high as they have! :( And I try to find (for myself) the BEST rate plans from AT&T (and others) for my 1+ and card calling. But I also want to know HOW MUCH such a call would cost if I placed/billed it in another manner... Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 13:34:06 -0400 From: Barry Lustig Subject: Dialing the US from France Does anyone know what the dialing sequence is to make a direct dialed call from France to the US? I have a friend who is vacationing in Paris and he asked me how to do this. Thanks, Barry Lustig - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 14:48:18 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Toll-free numbers that lead to charges on phone bill >Is billing calls to an 800 number like this legal? That's cramming, and its illegal. The FCC says: Toll-free numbers may not be used to charge callers for information services unless the caller has a written agreement to obtain and be charged for the service or has agreed to pay for the service by prepaid account, or through a debit, credit, or calling card. - -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 15:58:54 -0400 From: "Mark Swope" Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service Maybe you were having trouble getting through because a whole lot of trunks went down....somewhere.... ;-) mas "The Old Bear" wrote in message news:oldbear.7626.077D9929@arctos.com... > > Now I realize that Bell Atlantic / Verizon just settled a > strike about a week ago and has a backlog of work orders, but > this is a bid ridiculous: > > This afternoon a high truck took down an overhead drop across > a major street near where I live. I saw cars trying to steer > around the wire which was hanging down into one lane. I > stopped, identified that it was a telco (not power!) line, > and pulled it down from the tree branch it was caught on and > rolled it up in a coil by the side of the road. > > I then tried to call Verizon repair service at 1-617-555-1611. > First try: busy signal. Second try: call allocator... press > 1 if this is a new call, press 2 to check on an existing > repair order, etc. Start by entering the number you are > reporting... press 0 at any time to speak to representative. > > Well, I had no phone number to report, just a downed wire, > so I pressed 0. And got a busy signal. > > Hung up, tried again. Pressed 0, got a message saying > to please hold while my call is transferred, then -- do > you beleive this -- a recording which said "We are unable > to take your call. Bell Atlantic repair service is > available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Please call > back at another time." > > I made two more attempts, all with the same result. > Figured they don't care if they have a cable down. I'm > just glad it wasn't a pole. > > Cheers, > The Old Bear > -- > The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail > messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 18:36:56 -0400 From: "Adam H. Kerman" Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service comp.dcom.telecom.tech dropped from crosspost; don't need to post to two similar newsgroups. Ed Ellers wrote: >The Old Bear wrote: >"This afternoon a high truck took down an overhead drop across a major >street near where I live. I saw cars trying to steer around the wire which >was hanging down into one lane. I stopped, identified that it was a telco >(not power!) line, and pulled it down from the tree branch it was caught on >and rolled it up in a coil by the side of the road. >"I then tried to call Verizon repair service at 1-617-555-1611." >Next time, call 911. Even if it isn't a power line, if the cable is hanging >down into a lane it's a traffic hazard. They'll know how to get hold of the >right department at the phone company. Do not make such an assumption. A month or so ago, we had a discussion in a railroad newsgroup that after a reorganization, the railroad failed to notify all the local police departments how to contact dispatch in an emergency. Likely, some utilities are better than others at notifying the cops as to their emergency numbers. Here you would be talking about the phone company where it's unlikely that 411 has the correct number for 911. I disagree that it's a 911 call, though, as it isn't an immediate threat to life. If possible, I'd call Public Works. If after hours, I'd call the police non-emergency number. Downed power line? Yeah, that's a 911 call. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 19:57:31 -0400 From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: phone cables down, was: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 [lots snipped] >>Next time, call 911. Even if it isn't a power line, if the cable is hanging >>down into a lane it's a traffic hazard. They'll know how to get hold of the >>right department at the phone company. >I disagree that it's a 911 call, though, as it isn't an immediate threat to >life. If possible, I'd call Public Works. If after hours, I'd call the police >non-emergency number. Ah, but I'll disagree with your disagreement. a) you and i have no way of knowing (ok, well maybe some of us do...) whether that phone line is just killing off five houses, or if a neighborhood is out. Or, for that matter, if it's an inter-CO tie and has knocked out half the 911 service in the county. It's better to give the PSAP [1] a heads up in this in case they have to take action. b) Even if it's just a small phone cable, it's still attached to something overhead. Which means it can pull down other and nastier stuff. [1] PSAP =Public Safety Answering Position. Basically think of it as the "911 center". - -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 20:39:54 -0400 From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service It was a dark and stormy night when "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >I disagree that it's a 911 call, though, as it isn't an immediate threat to >life. If possible, I'd call Public Works. If after hours, I'd call the police >non-emergency number. 911 policies vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Around here (Minneapolis), you call 911 for any situation where the cops may need to dispatch a car, not just "emergencies". So here, if the wire could be considered to be a traffic hazard, 911 would be the right call. - -Dave - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 21:51:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PFIR Statement on Government Interception of Internet Data Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: PFIR Statement on Government Interception of Internet Data From: pfir@pfir.org (PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility) PFIR Statement on Government Interception of Internet Data September 7, 2000 http://www.pfir.org/statements/interception PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org [ To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this list, please send the command "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" respectively (without the quotes) in the body of an e-mail to "pfir-request@pfir.org". ] Given the realities of today's society, most of us would agree that there clearly are times when it is necessary for the sanctity of private communications to be breached for the common good. The most commonly known such interception is the wiretap, which dates to the very dawn of telecommunications. We've come a long way since the invention of the telegraph and the development of the telephone. The Internet in particular, through its vast reach and increasingly ubiquitous nature, has opened up a Pandora's Box of problems when considering the ramifications of wiretap-type interceptions, even when they are for the most laudable of purposes. When considering these issues, it is all too easy to fall into the trap of focusing our attention on particular instances and specific hardware or software systems. At this moment, the spotlight is blaring brightly on the FBI's Carnivore system, which, according to the Bureau, is used to monitor Internet e-mail addressing and related data under court authorization. Since the inner workings and operational parameters of this system have not been known publicly (in fact, the system's existence was only recently revealed to the public), considerable skepticism has been voiced regarding whether or not the system actually functions "as advertised" and would always be operated in an appropriate and correct manner. As important as these considerations are, we feel that it is a serious mistake for so much attention to be focused on these specific issues and this specific system, instead of on the much more serious and broader policy implications and questions related to the entire area of Internet "wiretaps," regardless of the specific instrumentality through which they are implemented. To a significant extent, it appears that the ongoing controversy regarding an "independent review" of the Carnivore system is actually diverting public attention from the more significant issues that desperately need to be addressed. With regard to any officially-authorized Carnivore analysis, the U.S. Department of Justice has severely constrained the possible results. In particular, their requirements prevent any meaningfully independent evaluation; they reserve the right to censor and edit all resulting reports, and they confine the analysis solely to the source code -- ignoring important considerations such as the operational environment. In the final analysis, the results of any such Carnivore review will contribute little or nothing towards resolving the much more important policy questions relating to this entire area. The essential nature of these questions revolve around the fundamental issue of when it is appropriate to intercept private telecommunications channels in the first place, and under what conditions. There has been a disturbing trend for increasing amounts of data that most observers would consider to be integral parts of communications, to be treated instead as "addressing" information for interception and legal purposes. This is not an unimportant distinction. In general, the procedure for obtaining authorization to intercept communication address data is much less rigorous than that for obtaining communication contents. In a telephone context, this is the difference between monitoring the specific phone numbers dialed from a particular telephone line (the so-called "pen register" system) and actually overhearing the parties speaking on the calls. Even before the Internet issues moved to center stage, the blurring of these demarcations was becoming increasingly problematic. It has become common, for example, for the actual message data sent to pagers to be treated merely as addressing information from the standpoint of interception authorizations. The rationale for this determination is difficult to understand, because by any normal analogy, the contents of a pager message are comparable to the contents of a telephone call. It appears that the specific mechanisms of the technology have been used as an excuse for treating pager message contents in this sort of seemingly illogical (but convenient) manner. When we move into the Internet universe, similar kinds of issues arise, but in guises that are orders of magnitude more complex. One obvious issue is the question of control. Most traditional wiretaps (at least until very recently) have usually been under the ostensible control of the telephone companies themselves, and involved specific telephone lines. It would have been unthinkable in most "routine" law enforcement interception situations for Ma Bell or her descendents to hand over masses of calls relating to non-targeted individuals (a "trunk-side tap") to officials for them to pick through as they saw fit, without telephone company supervision or control. Systems such as Carnivore are very much an analogue of trunk taps and by definition cannot be controlled by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who must install them deep within their networks. In contrast, the correct venue for the control of interceptions should actually be the ISPs themselves, not black boxes under outside control. Such ISP control might entail the creation of standards to assist the ISPs in responding to such matters in a reasonably uniform manner from a technical standpoint, but it does not follow that "tapping" systems need to be designed into the networks themselves (an intrusive concept which has been roundly rejected by most network technologists). Perhaps most importantly, ISP technical standards in this regard can be completely *open* and *public* in nature. Closed standards and secret software source code do not and can not engender public confidence. The argument that the source code for a system such as Carnivore must be kept secret to protect it from hackers or from being bypassed seems overstated. As discussed above, whereas we feel that too much emphasis on the technical side of these issues misses the critical points, it is at least prudent that the technical systems operate in as open an environment as possible. We appreciate that even the availability of source code is of only limited value due to its ephemeral nature and ease of alteration, but there's simply no excuse for a completely closed approach in this kind of situation. There is nothing magical or even particularly complex about packet filters (the heart of such systems), but it is possible for implementation errors or intentionally placed Trojan horses to cause them to behave in inappropriate manners. Such errors would be best exposed by wide public inspection -- sunlight remains the best disinfectant. Properly implemented, the availability of source code would not permit anyone to bypass the systems based on such knowledge. The key to the usefulness of such interception systems is that the targets of surveillance must not be aware of the systems' use. Once a target realizes that it is under surveillance, the probability of its using easily available mechanisms (such as encryption, alternative addresses, etc.) to complicate the task of observers rises dramatically. Neither source-code dissemination, nor the placing of interception systems under responsible ISP control as we recommend, is likely to alter any of these factors. Another stated reason for the source code secrecy in the Carnivore case is to protect the commercial interests of the software firm that wrote the original source code upon which Carnivore is based. This may be a reasonable attitude from a commercial standpoint, but it demonstrates again why a better course would be open systems where such commercial considerations could not easily warp crucial public policy considerations. Other aspects of these issues regarding the Internet relate back to our earlier discussion of addresses versus information content. A given packet of Internet data may contain text, segments of an image, a piece of a voice phone call, or innumerable other sorts of data. The specificity with which determinations are made regarding which kinds of data may be intercepted in any given situation are extremely important. Current trends in this regard are not at all encouraging. For example, from the standpoint of interception and other law enforcement purposes, the record of visited Web addresses (URLs) is often treated as roughly analogous to addresses on conventionally mailed envelopes. This is an inappropriate and incorrect analysis. URLs allow for the tracing of complete interactions deep into specific areas of Web sites, including keyword searches and other information lookups, and in many cases data submissions, login/password information and other detailed data as well. Web users' URL histories are effectively a diary of nearly every aspect of their Web use, and are more properly analogous to the *contents* of an envelope, not to what was written on the outside. However, given the abuse of this same sort of URL data for commercial purposes (such as tracking users via Web cookies and other means), this unfortunate state of affairs should not be at all surprising. When we look at the overall situation, a continuum of both policy and technical system issues is apparent and most important. At a minimum on the technical side of the equation, it is crucial that system architecture and operation continually satisfy the system requirements for security and privacy, and that they be independently verified. For this to be possible, the detailed system requirements must be known to the public, and independent assurances are needed that the system in operation remains consistent with those requirements into the future. The analysis of source code can lend some credibility to the process, and should be among the minimum requirements, but this only represents a snapshot -- such code can be perpetually changing over time. Therefore, these processes must also include some demonstrable assurances that the code subjected to analysis was actually the code in use, and that any subsequent changes have left the entire system operationally compatible with the previously verified requirements. Any seemingly positive analysis of a particular piece of source code is inherently incomplete in and of itself. Given the serious vulnerabilities that exist in most commercial operating systems and application software programs today, it is the overall *interaction* of system issues, taken in their totality, that matters most in this regard. Beyond such technical considerations, the policy issues that play into all aspects of these questions and systems must be rigorously analyzed and understood by all concerned. This is too important a complex of issues to be handled in sloppy or offhanded fashions. The Internet is rapidly becoming the foundation of all manner of society's most basic functions. Routine purchases, bill payments, personal and business phone calls, education, law enforcement -- the myriad aspects of the most public and private aspects of our lives -- are finding their way onto the conduits of the Internet. Society must have the will to apply the basic precepts and protections of our cultures to the Internet. We must not be seduced into permitting these basic concepts to be undermined by technological details or related diversionary tactics in any environments, either on or off the Internet. These principles apply regardless of whether we're dealing with physical mail, electronic mail, pagers, conventional phone calls, Internet telephony, or the various component parts of the World Wide Web. Society should be unwilling to accept anything less. Lauren Weinstein lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Peter G. Neumann neumann@pfir.org or neumann@csl.sri.com or neumann@risks.org Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Moderator, RISKS Forum - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 2000 22:06:35 -0400 From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic redefines 24x7 service >>From 'Adam H. Kerman': >I disagree that it's a 911 call, though, as it isn't an immediate threat to >life. If possible, I'd call Public Works. If after hours, I'd call the police >non-emergency number. > >Downed power line? Yeah, that's a 911 call. Some of us can't tell the difference between a downed phone line and a downed power line. - -- 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: 8 Sep 2000 22:23:21 -0400 From: "Grego" Subject: Punch-down for a Premier SLS 612 I am installing a Premier SLS 612 system, but I dont have an installation manual. I need to find the punch-down schematics, so I can get my system running. If anyone has any info please email me. Thanx Greg - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:28:18 -0400 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" Subject: 9/8/00 ICBTollFree.Com HEADS UP HEADLINES ************************************************************************* ICBTollFree.Com HEADS UP HEADLINES ************************************************************************* from ICB Toll Free News - Daily News and Intelligence covering the Political, Legal and Marketing Arenas of 800 and Dot Com. ************************************************************************* CONTENTS - - WHITHER ART THOU, 800 CODE? - - AOL GETS INTO VOICE PORTAL BUSINESS - - ARE TM OWNERS USURPING FREE SPEECH DOMAINS? - - ONE MAN'S "CONSUMER" IS ANOTHER'S "NON-COMMERCIAL CONSTITUENT" - - "LEASE SLAMMERS" REPORTED TO FCC - - MADONNA WHO? - - CHINA ISSUES DOMAIN NAME REGS - - NSI FACES NEW CLASS ACTION SUIT ************************************************************************* !!! YOUR TEXT AD HERE !!! 17,000+ weekly readership, over 108,000 targeted impressions every month! Space is limited -- ORDER NOW! -- email editor@icbtollfree.com. ************************************************************************ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTE: ICB is a popular research destination, with all content archived indefinitely. Find all ICB headlines, current and archived, at http://www.icbtollfree.com/icbheadlns.cfm. ************************************************************************ ARTICLE ACCESS CODE LEGEND ICB Toll Free News offers two valuable service options: F = Free - News and Features articles P = Premium - Unlimited Site Access including all Articles and Documents. ************************************************************************* HEADLINES for September 8, 2000 F - WHITHER ART THOU, 800 CODE? A matching toll-free number can be great-assuming you can get the domain name you want. "For a high-value customer, one really looking to build a business around a domain name-this is a necessary piece of the puzzle that we're working with TeleDomains.com to provide," says Anthony Moody, director of strategic development at Register.com. But does a high-value customer really want an 877 number? CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4448 P - AOL GETS INTO VOICE PORTAL BUSINESS According to the Associated Press, "Quack's 1-800 number has been shut down. It's unclear if Dulles-based AOL will use a toll-free number to run the service." CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4447 F - ARE TM OWNERS USURPING FREE SPEECH DOMAINS? "They care about [sucks]," Love said. "... That's why [trademark owners are] fighting against its use, suing to get the name back when they don't own it and buying it if it's free. It's a powerful form of criticism, and they want to control it." Of course, none of the companies interviewed said its goal was to squelch free speech. But a few said they didn't mind making it a bit harder. "You build a lot of brand equity in a name," said Hansen of Stonepath. "The last thing you want to do is see it tarnished." CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4446 F - ONE MAN'S "CONSUMER" IS ANOTHER'S "NON-COMMERCIAL CONSTITUENT" "Early adopter" non-business registrants of domain names are those planning to buy one *next* year. What's wrong with this picture? CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4445 ************************************************************************* **************************************************advertisements********* >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://1800TheExpert.com <<<<<<<<<<<<< 800 & Domain Name Acquisition Management, Lost/Stolen 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Domain Name & Trademark Matters. ************************************************************************* Are you a local or regional business that advertises in newspapers, direct mail, on radio or tv? 1 800 BRAND IT shared use marketing programs can help your sales skyrocket! http://www.1800BrandIt.com ************************************************************************* FT Telecom Conferences In its 20th year, this event will bring leading personalities in the telecomms industry to discuss opportunities and challenges which technological advancement, increased competition and restructuring will pose to the future of global telecommunications. Book before 1/09/00 to receive your 10% discount. www.ftconferences.com/dynamic/conferences/ftwt00.htm?bn=icb ************************************************************************* EVERY 3.6 SECONDS SOMEONE DIES FROM HUNGER http://www.hungersite.com/ ************************************************************************* Visit Global Telecom Domains(SM), 'The Best Names in Telecom' www.GlobalTelecomDomains.com ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* more HEADLINES for September 8, 2000 P - "LEASE SLAMMERS" REPORTED TO FCC ... some landlords are insisting new and existing tenants switch to a single local, long-distance and broadband provider, in apparent contravention of FCC guidelines. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4449 F - MADONNA WHO? Domain names are handed out on a first-come, first-served basis. Trademarks, by contrast, are harder to get. Companies have to jump through hoops to be awarded them. So one man’s trademark often turns out to be somebody else’s domain name. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4444 P - CHINA ISSUES DOMAIN NAME REGS The State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has issued the "Provisional Regulations on the Registration of Web Site Names" and the rules for implementing them. These regulations went into force on Sept. 1. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4443 P - NSI FACES NEW CLASS ACTION SUIT Bode says NSI is only authorized to charge its costs for the service. While NSI currently asks $70 to register for two years a dot-com, dot-org, or dot-net, the complaint alleges it actually costs the company about $1 to do the work. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=4442 ************************************************************************* **************************************************advertisements********* TelecomCareers.net - Cutting Edge Telecom Careers, #1 Telecom Job Site! http://TelecomCareers.net ************************************************************************* P.A.T. - a real Live person inside your voice mail? Yes. P.A.T.LiVE, a division of ATG Technologies, Inc., rents live secretarial services through a toll free number. P.A.T. (Personal Assistance Team) can enhance your productivity and image with rates as low as 3 cents per minute. http://www.patlive.com or 800.775.7790 ************************************************************************* Free Timely Time Management Tips to increase your personal productivity and give you more time and balance for your personal life. Subscribe now at: http://www.topica.com/lists/timemanagement ************************************************************************* Read TOLLFREE-L online at http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html ************************************************************************* ABOUT ICB ICB HeadsUp Headlines Daily Email is sent by request. Subscriptions are free to qualified applicants. Visit http://www.icbtollfree.com/reg.cfm?NextURL=Index.cfm to sign up. Please feel free to pass along a copy to a friend, within reason so long as the message is not modified or used unfavorably. To unsubscribe mailto:editor@icbtollfree.com, subject: unsubscribe. *************************** ADVERTISING INFORMATION *************************** For information on advertising in ICB HeadsUp Headlines emails, see http://www.icbtollfree.com/advertiz.cfm ************************************************************************* Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. ************************************************************************* Copyright © 2000 ICB, Inc. All rights reserved. ************************************************************************* ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #46 *******************************