TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Jun 94 10:54:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 303 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Dialing Plan in New York (Dave Niebuhr) Ameritech Playing Games? (Clifton T. Sharp) Caller ID and the FCC Ruling (Monty Solomon) Caller ID; the Argument Continues (John R. Levine) Calling Number ID For Cellular Users (Lynne Gregg) Cross-Country Caller ID (James Taranto) SOS For Online Telecom Consultants (tym%infoage%sdnpk@sdnhq.undp.org) Norstar Phone System for Sale (Brian Wicks) DECT Standards (Shree N. Murthy) ANSI and Bellcore Telecom Specs Wanted (Donald V. Johnson) KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? (John Refling) Telex Information - Good Sources Wanted (Matthew B. Campbell) IEEE Infocom '95 Announcement (Brian McKeever) 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. 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: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: New Dialing Plan in New York Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 09:28:10 EDT My latest NYNEX (NYTel land) bill insert has instructions on how to dial until September 24, 1994, when the cutover to 1+ dialing will become mandatory. This is what is given for the Metropolitan New York LATA which is defined as New York City (ACs 212, 718, 917), Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties - AC 516), Upstate NY (Rockland, Westchester, Putnam, Counties, and Greenwood Lake, Highland Falls and Tuxedo in Orange County). No mention of the tiny portion of Connecticut (AC 203) that is served by NYTel and is in the NY LATA. Current Dialing: Calls to Other Area Codes: AC + 7D or 1+ AC + 7D Calls Within Area Code: 7D New Dialing: Calls to Other Area Codes: 1+ AC + 7D Calls Within Area Code: 7D (no change) Credit Card and Operator-Assisted Calls (within your area code) Current Dialing: 0 + 7D New Dialing: 0 + AC + 7D I'm making the assumption that the rest of NY will change in this manner; however, I don't know about Rochester Tel, Fisher's Island Tel and any other independents that are in the state. Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 1+(516) 282-3093 FAX 1+(516) 282-7688 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 19:50:54 CDT From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) Subject: Ameritech Playing Games? AT&T's advertising in the Chicago area, saying that for a limited time tye would carry "C" and "D" band calls cheaper than Ameritech, has been talked about before in this newsgroup. I decided just now to try it for the first time. I dialed 10288 708 974 ... ... and an intercept told me, "When dialing a call outside your area code or an 800 number, dial 1 first. ..." Naturally, I tried 10288 1 708 974 ... got the same results. Ameritech's switch is grabbing my call! Well, let me try 1 800 222 0300 next ... ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Subject: Caller ID and the FCC Ruling Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:27:12 -0400 Excerpts from EPIC Alert 1.03 [3] FCC Caller ID Decision Appealed Several state utility commissions, including New York's and California's, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its controversial Caller ID decision. The petitions ask the FCC to reverse its decision mandating per-call blocking for interstate calls and its preemption of state regulations. The commissions are concerned that the federal regulation will limit consumer privacy protection for intra-state calls. It is uncertain if the FCC will take the unusual action of accepting the petitions. Since the Caller ID decision was released in April, two new commissioners have joined the FCC. A total of 48 parties, including telephone companies who are concerned about which party is charged the cost of transmitting the information, have filed petitions asking the FCC to reconsider its decision. Per-call blocking, which is favored by telephone companies, requires that a caller to enter a series of numbers into their telephone before each call to prevent their number from being distributed. Under per-line blocking, privacy blocking is the default and the caller may opt to release their number. The New York Public Utility Commission's petition notes that "there is no technological bar to enabling each state to designate per line or per call blocking and have that privacy notation affixed to that caller's phone calls both intra and interstate." The PUC calls on the FCC, which did not hold a single hearing on Caller ID, to review the decisions of the many states that did hold hearings. Professor Rohan Samarajiva of Ohio State University, who also filed for reconsideration, found that 46 states held hearings on Caller ID before the FCC issued their final decision. He found that as information became more available on Caller ID, the state utility commissioners increasingly required that per-line blocking be offered in addition to per-call. By 1994, 33 jurisdictions developed rules with stronger privacy protection than the FCC decision. 18 states require per-line blocking be offered to all consumers, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, California and New York. CPSR has also filed a petition asking the FCC to revise its decision. CPSR calls for free per-line blocking and note the additional burden of per call blocking will cost consumers who have unlisted telephone numbers $1.2 billion each year through the disclosure of unlisted numbers. They describe the FCCUs suggestion that consumers who wish to ensure that their numbers remain private purchase equipment as unreliable and discriminatory. In addition, the California PUC has filed suit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to overturn the ruling and prevent its implementation. The FCC decision on Caller ID and the CPSR Petition for Reconsideration are available from cpsr.org. See below for details. [4] NY PUC Letter to FCC on Caller ID The following is a letter set by New York State Public Utility Committee Chairman Peter Bradford to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt on the FCC's Caller ID decision. For more information, contact Stacey Harwood at 518-473-0276. STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALBANY 12223 PETER A. BRADFORD THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA CHAIRMAN (518)474-2530 June 1, 1994 Reed Hundt, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Hundt: I am writing to express My concern about the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision (Docket #91-281) limiting the range of privacy protections available to telephone callers in connection with Call ID service. The potential preemptive features of this decision undermine sensible allocation of responsibility between state and federal jurisdictions, namely that the federal government preempt only where issues of overriding national concern are clearly at stake and then only after strong proof that no alternative approach will protect the national concerns. All of these essential elements (clear national concern, strong proof, and the absence of other alternatives) are lacking here. Instead, the casual reasoning and the destructive remedy mock stated Clinton Administration eagerness to work with the states to assure that telecommunications decisions are sensitive to important consumer issues. The FCC's decision appears to ignore the states' considerable experience with Call ID. Prior to its authorization of Call ID, the New York Public Service Commission (like many other states) conducted extensive customer outreach and education programs to determine how best to balance the privacy interests of the calling and called parties. many witnesses, including psychiatrists, social workers, police, other public safety officials, as well as family violence crisis centers, saw danger and/or nuisance in Call ID without the option of per line blocking. These hearings established that privacy protection consisting only of per call blocking represents the worst of all worlds. The harassing caller is unlikely to forget to use per call blocking. It is the customer who does not realize the implications of the availability of Call ID to commercial number gatherers (or others who may abuse it) who is likely to make his or her telephone number inadvertently available. As a result, we concluded that in New York callers should have the option of both per call and per line blocking. Since Call ID service was approved with these options two years ago, no complaints have been received from either Call ID subscribers or callers on the issue of blocking. Furthermore, the market for Call ID does not seem to be hurt by the availability of per line blocking, for subscription rates are at least as high in states with per line blocking as elsewhere. Nevertheless, the FCC decision contemplates preemption of state requirements inconsistent with a federal per-call-blocking- only regime. Since per line blocking only for intrastate calls does not seem feasible, New York's standard (and those of some 40 other states) will be preempted. Protracted litigation over the FCC decision is certain and may impede the introduction of interstate Call ID service. Several states, including New York are seeking reconsideration of the FCC decision and California has challenged the FCC order in court. Customer confusion and disappointment with limitations on privacy options will spawn a host of complaints. Furthermore, it will be hard for state regulators, to justify the current surcharge for unpublished listings while telephone companies market a service that compromises the value of those listings. I have enclosed a recent New York notice raising this concern for parties in two major cases. Telephone companies are not likely to go forward with Call ID if they must forego tens of millions of dollars per year in charges for unpublished numbers. I hope that the FCC will think again about the impact of this decision. It is likely to damage the prospects for Call ID, and it is certain to damage federal-state relations in the communications area at a time when much depends on our mutual trust and cooperation. Sincerely, /sig Peter Bradford [6] Files Available for retrieval The CPSR Internet Library is a free service available via FTP/WAIS/Gopher/listserv from cpsr.org:/cpsr. Materials from Privacy International, the Taxpayers Assets Project and the Cypherpunks are also archived. For more information, contact ftp-admin@cpsr.org. Files on Caller ID: /privacy/communications/caller_id/ The FCC decision - fcc_caller_id_decision_94.txt. CPSR Petition for Reconsideration - CPSR_RFR_on_FCC_Caller-ID_Order.txt To subscribe to the EPIC Alert, send the message: SUBSCRIBE CPSR-ANNOUNCE Firstname Lastname to listserv@cpsr.org. You may also receive the Alert by reading the USENET newsgroup comp.org.cpsr.announce ---------------------- The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, medical record privacy, and the sale of consumer data. EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert and EPIC Reports, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research on emerging privacy issues. For more information email info@epic.org, or write EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1 202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax). The Fund for Constitutional Government is a non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a national membership organization of people concerned about the impact of technology on society. For information contact: cpsr-info@cpsr.org ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Caller ID; The Argument Continues Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 9:34:12 EDT The New York Public Utility Committee Chairman Peter Bradford sent a letter dated June 1 to Reed Hunt at the FCC challenging the CLID decision. Major points: * Many states have had hearings on CLID, the FCC didn't, and the FCC didn't appear to take into account the states' experience with it. Claims that nobody will buy CLID if line blocking is available are not borne out by experience, subscription rates are similar in states with and without. * If unlisted subscribers can't get line blocking, state regulators are likely to reduce or eliminate the charge for an unlisted number, since the privacy it provides will have been considerably reduced. This last one could be interesting, since the amount of money telcos are likely to make from CLID is dwarfed by what they make from unlisted numbers. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Calling Number ID for Cellular Users Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 02:07:00 PDT johng@ecs.comm.mot.com wrote: > Caller ID service is among several services that have been available > to analog subscribers on narrow band AMPS (NAMPS) systems since 1991. > See the April 1991 issue of {Communications} magazine for more on NAMPS. Not so! Cellular services based on NAMPS do not deliver CPN. They rely upon the caller's willingness and inclination to key in their telephone number. These services can be a hassle for callers. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: taranto@panix.com (James Taranto) Subject: Cross-Country Caller ID Date: 30 Jun 1994 01:04:26 GMT Organization: The Bad Taranto At 8:20 this evening, my phone in Brooklyn rang. I glanced at my Caller ID device and saw the number was unfamiliar, so I prepared myself for a surprise. I picked up the phone, and was indeed surprised -- it was my friend Rich from California. I looked more carefully at the Caller ID readout: 310-843-XXXX. It seems at least some numbers are being transmitted across LATA boundaries via Caller ID. I experimented a bit, calling through various long-distance carriers to my voice line. Sprint, MCI, AT&T, and ITT did not pass Caller ID data, even on an intra-LATA (intra-room, for that matter) call. I found one company that does, however. "Wiltel" (I don't know the spelling), whose access code is 10555. Cheers, James Taranto taranto@panix.com ------------------------------ From: tym%infoage%sdnpk@sdnhq.undp.org Date: 30 Jun 94 04:25:15 Subject: SOS For Online Telecom Consultants Dear Mr. Townson, My organization is attempting to introduce advanced telecom facilities in Pakistan for the first time. We desperately require online consultants to assist in ushering the Information Age into our country. You are requested to post this message onto the appropriate BBS/s because we have very limited connectivity for the time being. Thank you, Tayyab Yazdani. CEO, INFOAGE ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN FAX:92-51-212796 EMAIL:TYM%INFOAGE%SDNPK%SDNHQ@NYGATE.UNDP.ORG ------------------------------ From: bwgti16v@telerama.lm.com (Brian Wicks) Subject: Norstar Phone System for Sale Date: 29 Jun 1994 11:47:15 -0400 Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA For Sale: Bell Atlantic Meridian Phone System Includes: 1 Norstar DR5 6 Line CPU/Software Unit 3 Black M7208 Programmable Multi-line Phones This is a full featured, user programmable, expandable phone system. It would be perfect for any small business or startup. Purchased new for $2660 4-19-94. Asking $1495. ------------------------------ From: shree@maple.cse.ucsc.edu (Shree N. Murthy) Subject: DECT Standards Date: 29 Jun 1994 15:52:10 GMT Organization: UC Santa Cruz CIS/CE I am looking for an on-line source for the DECT standards put out by the European Telecomm Standards Institute (ETSI). Any information on an FTP site or CD-ROM vendor for these would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Timothy A. Gonsalves, Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras - 600 036, India (91) (44) 235-1365 x 3512 E-mail: tag@iitm.ernet.in FAX: (91) (44) 235-2120 ------------------------------ From: c32dvj@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Donald V Johnson) Subject: ANSI and Bellcore Telecom Specs Wanted Organization: Delco Electronics Corp. Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:51:06 GMT A friend of mine -- his name is Dave -- is looking for on line documentation for ANSI and Bellcore telecom specs. If anyone knows of any sites with such documentation please email him at: scheer@lts.sel.alcatel.de You may also e-mail to me and I will forward to him, but direct is obviously preferred. Since I do not regurlarly read this newsgroup, I will not see any followup postings, so please e-mail. Thank you, Donald V. Johnson Delco Electronics Corp. c32dvj@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com The REAL Don Johnson (not some actor who stole my name!) ------------------------------ From: jrefling@rosslare.ece.uci.edu (John Refling) Subject: KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? Date: 29 Jun 1994 23:22:19 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine Here's the situation: +-----+ +---------+ +-----------+ | PC | - phone----> | UNIX BOX| -- INTERNET-->| UNIX BOX | +-----+ +---------+ +-----------+ Now, after you dial the first unix box over the phone and are logged in, you telnet to the second unix box. On the second unix box, you start kermit to server mode. Then you escape back to the pc and try to transfer files and the whole thing dies. I can sort of see why things won't work -- maybe the boxes get confused over where thier input is coming from ... then again it's not a problem normally. Is there a way to get this to work? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: mcampbe8@mason1.gmu.edu (Matthew B Campbell) Subject: Telex Information - Good Sources Wanted Date: 30 Jun 1994 13:08:39 GMT Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Hello, I am working on a project that involves controlling Telex lines within a larger network control system. I know a little about Telex, but I really need to know what to listen for on each side ("marks", and "spaces", etc.), what these things look like psysically (80v burst = "mark"?), and possibly information on what type of devices would be ideal for listening to the Telex channels, as well as controlling the "make or break" for each call. Any help, or references would be great! Matt Campbell Senior Engineer Synergistic Technologies, Inc. ------------------------------ From: mckeever@vax2.cstp.umkc.edu (Brian McKeever) Subject: IEEE Infocom '95 Announcement Date: 29 Jun 1994 15:17:20 GMT Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City, CSTP Reply-To: mckeever@vax2.cstp.umkc.edu IEEE INFOCOM'95 The Conference on Computer Communications Bringing Information to People April 2-6, 1995 Boston, MASS., USA CALL FOR PAPERS Fourteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies Sponsored by the Computer Communications Technical Committees of the Societies. Authors are invited to submit full papers on recent advances in computer communications. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to: Gigabit Networks Congestion Control Internetworking (LAN/WAN) Switch Architectures ATM Wireless Networks Video Communications Protocols for High-Speed Networks Personal Communication Systems Network Management Protocol Design and Analysis Distributed Network Algorithms Network Design and Planning Computer Security and Privacy Photonic Switching Lightwave Networks Broadband ISDN Network Reliability Routing and Flow Control Multimedia Protocols Scheduling Testbeds and Measurements Network Standards Multimedia Terminals and Systems Traffic Management Multiple Access Signaling and Control Network Restoration SCHEDULE Full Paper (6 Copies, Double Sided Preferred) - August 1, 1994 Notification of Acceptance - November 1, 1994 Camera Ready Copy - January 13, 1995 Conference - April 4-6, 1995 Tutorials - April 2-3, 1995 General Chair: Jeffary M. Jaffe Technical Chairs: Aurel Lazar and Khosrow Sohraby Submit six double-spaced, double sided copies of the manuscript to: Prof. Khosrow Sohraby, Technical Program Co-Chair, IEEE INFOCOM '95 CSTP, University of Missouri-Kansas City 5100 Rockhill Rd., Kansas City, MO 64110 Email: infocom@cstp.umkc.edu, Telephone: (816) 235-2361 Fax: (816) 235-5159 (FAXED SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED) PLEASE INCLUDE KEYWORDS AT THE END OF THE ABSTRACT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #303 ******************************