TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:50:41 EST Volume 20 : Issue 13
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Matt Simpson)
Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (hoxley@nouce.shore.net)
Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 (David Lind)
Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend (Hal Murray)
Re: Long Lines Bells (Hal Murray)
Cost of Wiretapping (Hal Murray)
1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Don Kimberlin)
Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 (Joseph Singer)
Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (John S. Maddaus)
Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Ryan Tucker)
Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 (Eli Mantel)
WTB: Altigen Quantum card (TSL)
Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Marvin A Sirbu)
DoubleClick Beats a Retreat on Privacy (Monty Solomon)
Virginia Law Standardizes Internet Contracts (Monty Solomon)
Feds: Your Secrets Are Safe With Us (Monty Solomon)
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
611 Poplar Street
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 805-545-5115
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
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.
From: Matt Simpson <msimpson@uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:58:15 -0500
Organization: University of Kentucky Computing Services
In article <telecom20.12.9@telecom-digest.org>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote:
> Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really*
> happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ?
A lot of new Internet users are not very Internet literate. Their ISP
gives them a browser customized to show them the startup page that the
ISP wants them to see every time they turn their computer on.
Obviously, that can be changed. But many users never do. So if the
content company owns the ISP, they can direct a lot more eyeballs to
their content.
Matt Simpson -- Obsolete MVS Guy
University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
<mailto:msimpson@uky.edu> <http://rivendell.cc.uky.edu/>
From: hoxley@nouce.shore.net
Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:13:13 GMT
Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net)
Something that I see COULD happen is "content" which used to be available
to all Internet users will eventually move behind AOL/TimeWarner's
firewall, to only be accessable by AOL/TW subscribers.
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> wrote:
> Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really*
> happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
= Herb Oxley (hoxleyATshore.net) =
= Please note I *never* buy any product or =
= service advertised by unsolicited E-mail =
= from anyone I'm not doing business with! =
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: David Lind <davidlind@my-deja.com>
Subject: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:28:07 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Sooo glad to have this forum and the moderater back!!
The Aussies have mandated wireless phone number portability to be implemented
in 12 months. So what is holding us up?
storypath=News/Story_2000_03_06.NRdb@2@5@3@5&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@14@2@1">http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_06.NRdb@2@5@3@5&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@14@2@1
David
From: murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray)
Subject: Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend
Date: 7 Mar 2000 09:52:03 GMT
Organization: Compaq Systems Research Center
> The same undeniably simple logic is behind a huge fight now brewing
> between the already anachronistic banking industry and Internet
> entrepreneurs who are trying to put more power in the hands of
> consumers.
> http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/
Nice article. Thanks.
Although technically possible, it will be difficult and costly for the
banks to deploy systems that etermine when online records are being
requested by an actual customer or by a third-party website that has
access to the customer's password.
I have visions of smug bankers who have just hacked their router to
black hole the evil third-party sites. How long do you think it will
take for somebody to write an app that runs on your PC and gets the
info from your bank and sends it to the third-party?
Is that more or less secure?
From: murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray)
Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells
Date: 7 Mar 2000 09:59:19 GMT
Organization: Compaq Systems Research Center
> Many moons ago I asked someone from New Englad Telephone why in state
> toll rates were so ridiculously high. They explained that AT&T Long Lines
> handled all in-state toll traffic. It looks like NET at the time didn't
> have their own toll switches so they let AT&T rape the crap out of us.
Many moons ago in California, the PCU set intra-state long distance
charges high in order to cross-subsidize residential rates.
For a while, it was cheaper to call the east coast than across the
state.
From: murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray)
Subject: Cost of Wiretapping
Date: 7 Mar 2000 10:40:20 GMT
Organization: Compaq Systems Research Center
I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems
to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps.
Is there a good description of that system available on the web?
What fraction of the current COs support it?
I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make
sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason
that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep
hackers from tapping whatever they want?
How much does that system cost? If I took the total cost of that
system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would
they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else? Is this just
a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:18:38 -0500
From: Don Kimberlin <dkimberlin@prodigy.net>
Subject: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Re: Telephone-Pole
In article Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:38:16 -0600 (John Hines
(jhines@enteract.com) wrote:
> ... power line poles, owned and maintained by Commonwealth Edison,
> and the telephone, and cable companies lease space from
> them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity to run the city/village
for the lease on the right of way for the poles.
... This may be one of those numerous twists and turns in the complex
byways of life for common carrier utilities in the United States, but
in the southeastern part of the country, and a few other spotty areas
I've worked in, the streets and sidewalks are public right-of-way,
available free to any state-certificated common carrier -- i.e., no
leasing by municipalities or otherwise.
... In fact, in southern states, highway rights-of-way are free for
anyone to use (with demonstration of proper engineering drawings and
construction plans).
... Do we have here an urban legend of telecommunications, with someone's
assumption bubbling into what seems plausible fact?
... In the interest of accuracy, I must challenge the poster to prove his
claim with some factual references - and more than a reported phone call
to an unnamed town or utility employee, please!
Reply-To: dov@oz.net
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:24:59 -0800
From: Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net>
Subject: Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248
heywood@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi) recently wrote:
> 2. I'm sure this is an elementary question, but I'm not in Michigan so
> maybe someone can help me. My mother in 248-651-xxxx spends half the
> year in FL, and still has to pay AT&T $3/month for the privilege of
> them being her dial 1 carrier.
> She's a low volume LD user, and I'm sure someone has already done the
> research on this. Do most reliable dial 1 carriers now charge a
> monthly fee? If not, who should I suggest she go to?
I'm not aware at this point of who the other LD carriers besides AT&T
might be that charge a "minimum useage" charge like this, but you
might consider looking at using a "dialround" long distance the so
called "10-10" services and just have your ILEC remove dial 1 long
distance. You will not be let off the hook entirely as your local
phone company will still bill you a $1 "fee" for not having long
distance! As for where to look for information on what plan to
consider I would recommend looking at abelltolls.com
<http://www.abelltolls.com/> where you'll find comparisons of many
different carriers some for pre-subscribed (dial 1) and others for the
dialrounds (so called 10-10) carriers. Also keep in mind that with
carriers you may or may not see the cost of the PICC or USF charges.
Some carrier incorporate these charges into their rates while other
carriers charge a percentage of value of the call or a flat rate for
the charge. Depending on the kind of calling you do it may be worth
your while to determine whether a carrier charges on a percentage
basis or on a flat rate basis.
Joseph Singer "thefoneguy" <fones@uswestmail.net>
PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA
+1 206 405 2052 [voice mail]
+1 206 493 0706 [FAX]
From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus)
Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast
Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:10:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Bill Horne <bhorne.nouce@banet.net> wrote:
> Sorry to be the messenger bringing bad new, but the cable conduits are
> full, and the manholes are full: there is no more copper to be had,
> and in some areas, BA has had to rip out copper cables installed less
> than five years ago to accommodate fiber.
Not exactly true. As a product planner for AT&T SLC line, we tried to
kill the Slc96 for several years. Guess who objected? BA, GTE, SWB,
BS just to name a few. Why, because analog copper was still a
necessary part of the LEC business plan, partiularly outside large
urban areas. In fact there were some states (Texas for one) where the
state and local tarriffs made copper the ONLY cost effective
alternative in certain areas around DFW.
> BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service:
> they care only about FAX lines, which work fine over DLC. If they
> need to move data around, they pay for dedicated, diverse, custom
> designed DATA circuits to do it.
Again not true. I am a small business and I darn well care about
dialup internet service. I have no need for dedicated data services
yet but I'll take the fastest modem I can get and that my ISP
supports.
> Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money
> just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive.
Not at all if another portion of the business has a competitive data
service to offer and wants to make money on it. Bell Atlantic Mobile
deliberately de-tuned their analog mobile system in the D.C area to
"force" subscribers to consider digital. There were strong
reservations about this from some BA quarters given the original
roll-out was going to be TDMA in the DC area to compete against SBMS'
TDMA roll-out. The trial performance was so bad that the only way BA
management felt they could get enough digital subscribers was to make
analog life more difficult. Cell site placement was designed
specifically to enhance digital offerings and frustrate analog users.
Drive up the 93 corridor with a CDMA and an analog phone in MA and NH
and see the difference!
By the way, it irritates me to have a 56k capable modem and not be
able to use it due to telco mismanagement. We are also served by BA
in NH and our local CO and peripherals are too old to support 56k, or
so BA says. BA said it was possible to re-home me to another CO but
they wouldn't do that for anyone. Turns out that BA had just launched
an internet service and was at the time guaranteeing 56k capability
for everyone who signed up. The internet service folks had clearly
not coordinated with the LEC side. They just stuck a bunch of 56k
modems at various locations and started advertising. I asked the
telco people how they could do that if our CO could not physically
support 56k rates and they hedged big time. I put in a false
advertising complaint to the PUC and BA. One week later, all three of
my lines were 56k capable. No change in phone numbers, no re-wiring
and only one AD/DA conversion where I had three the week before.
Magic huh?
John Maddaus
jmaddaus@usa.net
Bedford, NH
From: rtucker+from+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker)
Subject: Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe
Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:08:40 GMT
Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY
In <telecom20.10.7@telecom-digest.org>,
Joe Machado <jmachado@webzone.net> spewed:
> In the meantime, why can't we work at projecting a web page or a
> NetMeeting type interaction inside a car windshield instead of the
> speedometer?
Because it's already possible. :
-) -rt
Ryan Tucker <rtucker+25@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425
Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored.
From: Eli Mantel <mantel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:18:28 PST
Heywood Jaiblomi (heywood@gloucester.com) wrote:
> My mother [pays] AT&T $3/month [as a minimum monthly fee]...
> Do most reliable dial 1 carriers now charge a monthly fee?
AT&T, MCI, and Sprint all do one or more of the following: have
monthly minimums or monthly fees, overcharge the single-line user for
the PICC fee, charge a flat universal service fee instead of a
percentage fee. If you're on their basic service plan, AT&T does all
of these things: They charge a $3.00 monthly minimum, $1.51 for the
monthly PICC fee, and a flat $1.38 universal service fee, penalizing
the low-volume user even further.
If that weren't enough, they charge very high per-minute rates for
long distance. But can you really blame them for gouging people who
can't be bothered to shop around?
There's not that much to be concerned about when switching to a
different long distance carrier. The local phone company will charge
a few dollars for the switch, and you may start getting a separate
bill from your new long distance company. Just make sure you
understand the monthly fees and per-minute rates.
Customer service will vary from company to company, but MCI and Sprint
don't necessarily earn high marks on this anyway. The quality of the
phone calls is the same unless they're offering IP-based service.
There are a number of long distance carriers that don't have a monthly
fee or minimum, charge only the actual cost of the PICC fee, and
charge a percentage for the universal service fee. Your mother's
$5.89 monthly charge from AT&T could be reduced to under $2.
For details, look at http://cageyconsumer.com/rateplan/pscalc.html
From: TSL <computhings@my-deja.com>
Subject: WTB: Altigen Quantum card
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:45:31 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Looking for an additional Altigen Quantum card to expand our small
system. Can be the 4 trunk / 8 extension version, or the reverse.
Needs to be a recent rev., with the onboard power supply.
Will take new, used, demo etc. as long as the price is right, which
means well below street. If you have one of these and want to turn it
into quick cash please get in touch.
Thanks,
Nick
computhings@my-deja.com
212 269-7044, then press 1
From: Marvin A Sirbu <sirbu+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:03:44 -0500
Organization: Epp, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
There are a couple of nice papers on the problems of mixing ADSL and
DLC, and CLECs and DLC available at
http://www.bullcreek.austin.tx.us/mci_worldcom.html
Marvin Sirbu
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:33:05 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: DoubleClick Beats a Retreat on Privacy
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/1,1151,12596,00.html
After a stock slump and bad press, the online ad giant opts out of
tying Web user profiles to offline data.
By Ben Hammer
Responding once again to the controversy over online privacy, Internet
advertising firm DoubleClick said Thursday it will not tie Web users'
anonymous online activities to their offline personal data until
there's agreement on privacy standards.
DoubleClick CEO Kevin O'Connor revealed the company had second
thoughts after meeting with hundreds of consumers, privacy advocates
and others. The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a
complaint with the Federal Trade Commission at the beginning of last
month, charging that DoubleClick was merging data about Web surfers'
online activities with offline data such as names, postal addresses
and catalog purchase histories. DoubleClick's own privacy policy
forbids merging the data and, in his statement last week, O'Connor
stated that his company has never done it.
Last year, DoubleClick acquired Abacus Direct and its large consumer
purchasing database, giving DoubleClick the ability to link its
anonymous tracking of viewers' responses to ads it serves online with
those viewers' offline consumer information. The company affirmed it
would tie the information, even as it unveiled a five-point plan to
assuage the privacy brouhaha.
O'Connor's statement Thursday struck a different chord: "I made a
mistake by planning to merge names with user activity across Web sites
in the absence of government and industry privacy standards. We are
going to await clear standards before we decide the future direction of
a number of new products."
Still, DoubleClick has cross-referenced 100,000 opt-in e-mail addresses
from NetDeals - a sweepstakes site that collects personal data - with
Abacus' database for targeted e-mail marketing, but O'Connor said
DoubleClick didn't create offline profiles.
DoubleClick's stock rebounded after the announcement, gaining nearly 10
percent in midday trading Friday. "[This] removes a pretty major
overhang on the stock," said David Doft, equity research director for
ING Barings, which initiated coverage of DoubleClick Friday with a
positive outlook.
Some privacy advocates voiced cautious support for O'Connor's remarks.
"It is a step in the right direction, definitely, because before
[DoubleClick] insisted that opt-out was sufficient for identifying
people," said Jason Catlett of privacy consulting firm JunkBusters.
"What needs to be done now is for there to be a legal framework to
protect the privacy of online profiles."
Copyright 2000 The Industry Standard
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:43:06 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Virginia Law Standardizes Internet Contracts
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000301S0013
By George Leopold, EE Times
Mar 1, 2000 (11:37 AM)
WASHINGTON - A law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly
-- expanding Internet contracts -- could open the flood gates to
similar laws around the nation that supporters say would bring
uniformity to Internet transactions. On Feb. 15, the Virginia General
Assembly in Richmond became the first in the nation to approve a
standard commercial code for Internet contracts, the "Uniform Computer
Information Transactions Act." The measure is expected to be signed
into law by Gov. James Gilmore, a Republican, after the completion of
a series of studies on its impact. Similar measures are being
considered by state lawmakers in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and
Oklahoma.
The Virginia law, which seeks to create uniform provisions for
contracts over the Internet such as software licenses, drew support
from the software industry and opposition from engineering and
consumer groups as well as several state attorneys general.
The law contains a lengthy series of definitions designed to clarify
the reach of Internet contracts. For instance, it would allow
companies to send binding legal notices by e-mail about restrictions
on the use of their software. This and other provisions prompted
consumer groups to warn that the law could bind customers to unseen
licensing agreements, while allowing companies to disable their
product if a purchaser missed a payment.
Contract law varies from state to state, said Jane Johansen, a
software-law specialist with the Washington law firm Drinkard Biddle.
"Maybe the time has come for some uniformity" in Internet contracts,
she said.
While some groups said the bill is anti-consumer, Johansen said the
Virginia legislation could provide consumers with a better chance of
getting a refund on returned software since it contains new warranty
definitions usually not found in software contracts. She said the
expressed warranties would force software companies to add disclaimers
to licenses, thereby highlighting new protections.
Detractors predicted software firms would simply bury the disclaimers
in already confusing licensing agreements.
Still unclear is how the new code would affect so-called "upstream
transactions" by large software companies licensing their products in
the state.
Another sticky issue is whether the Virginia law changes current laws
on reverse engineering. The issue prompted engineering groups, such as
the IEEE-USA, to oppose the bill.
The legislation "would bind you to an agreement where you can't do any
reverse engineering," said Mark Pullen, IEEE-USA's vice president for
technology policy. Pullen said the capability is important for
software engineers so they can, for example, design software to read
different file formats.
Plus, said Pullen, the Virginia bill turns a "purchase decision into a
license agreement."
But Johansen said, "So far, I don't see this law changing the law on
reverse engineering" of software. Virginia legislators will study the
impact of the law on libraries and other state institutions. Opponents
have not ruled out a court challenge.
Copyright 1998 CMP Media Inc.
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:16:37 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Feds: Your Secrets Are Safe With Us
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12622,00.html
Wired News reported two bits of Clinton-Internet news Friday, without
highlighting the irony that floated between them. Declan McCullagh
summarized a report recommending ways to make it easier for cops to
trace users in "real time." A grop chaired by Attorney General Janet
Reno, and including FBI Director Louis Freeh, wrote the report.
According to McCullagh, "The group focused on what it views as the
problem of anonymity." Members complained about anonymous remailers,
and about e-mail accounts that let folks sign up without confirming
their identities.
Meanwhile in Silicon Valley, President Clinton was wagging his finger
at tech industry bigwigs, including Novell Chairman Eric Schmidt, and
warning them that if they didn't do a better job of protecting the
privacy of Net users, the government would have to do it for them.
Huh?
The executive branch could undoubtedly explain the distinction between
privacy and anonymity. But in light of the investigative pressure now
being brought to bear on DoubleClick, and given the justification
provided by the denial-of-service hack attacks, the government just
may feel that it's the only organization qualified to follow our
movements online. And that begs the question: Whom do you trust with
your secrets - DoubleClick or the FBI? - David Sims
U.S. Wants to Trace Net Users
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34720,00.html
Clinton Visits Valley of the DoS (Reuters)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34733,00.html
Clinton Warns Net Industry to Set Standards for Privacy
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB952127598514787472.htm
(Paid subscription required.)
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #13
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!