
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Tue Oct 17 17:19:05 1995
by
1995
17:19:05 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:07:22 -0500
1995
12:07:15 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Oct 95 12:07:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 438

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Power and the Internet Domain (Jesse Hirsh via Sean Murphy)
    Shutdown of Email -> Usenet Gateway (Danny Burstein)
    Help Wanted With PHS Standard (Francois Denis)
    Regulatory Question - LATAs vs. State Lines (Jerry Pruett)
    Faxback Modem With Credit Card Abilities? (pringler@cuug.ab.ca)
    Calling 911 Where No 911 Service Exists (georges@mhv.net)
    AT&T's Bait and Switch Tactics (Jason Fetterolf)
    Internet Over the Atlantic (Stuart D. Brorson)
    Commercial Satellite Communications Help Wanted (James E. Diskin)
    AT&T Switch Access via PC (Sean Doherty)
    Re: The Irony of the AT&T Breakup (Tayeb Damerji)
    Re: Keeping NPA/NXX Separate (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Raymond Charles Jender)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Edward A. Kleinhample)

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 America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the 
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available 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: 500-677-1616
                        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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



Forwarded to the Digest FYI. 

"Power and the Internet Domain"  by Jesse Hirsh

This story is almost too easy to believe.

Turns out (no surprise really) that the Internet domain registration
monopoly (internic.net) is indeed owned by the military-industrial-
biological complex. For once it's as if the double-speak vanishes and
the truth is as open as a web page.

Now Internet domain registration will begin to be priced according to
user-fees starting at $50 annually. One source, one collecter of fees.
One databank with all Internet registration ...

Scientific Applications International Corp.

To quote web reviews (emag):

"The company, with over 20,000 employees and 450 locations around the
world, reported $1.9 billion in gross revenues in 1994. Over 90% of its
income was generated by government contracts - more than half of that
from defense, intelligence, and federal law enforcement contracts."

They are a large military technology corporation. Check out some of the
projects that are listed in the corporate report:

- National Security: "Our advanced technology for the Army Global 
Command
and Control System will allow quick response deployment and tracking of
troops in simulated or actual evetns."

- Information Management: "SAIC is supporting Department of Defence's
renovation of the 52-year-old Pentagon, one of the largest buildings
in the world and workplace for nearly 25,000 people. Under U.S. Armyd
network" of shared communications and computing services.  We are
designing the network to operate more efficiently than today's
disparate systems, yet require less human and fiscal resources to
operate and maintain."

- Military Technology: "Our contribution to the U.S. Navy/Defense 
Nuclear
Agency Electro-Thermal Chemical Gun illustrates this new focus."

WAIT A MINUTE, READ THAT SENTENCE AGAIN...

- Military Technology: "Our contribution to the U.S. Navy/Defense 
Nuclear
Agency Electro-Thermal Chemical Gun illustrates this new focus."

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DECIPHER THIS?

- Law Enforcement: "A new SAIC system will give federal, state and local
law enforcement agencies fast, on-line access to criminal histories."

- Environment: "SAIC supports the decontamination and decommissioning of
defense plants and military facilities."

These guys are some bad dudes.

To quote web review (emag):

"In 1990 SAIC was indicted by the Justice Department on 10 felony
counts for fraud in its management of a Superfund toxic cleanup site.
(SAIC pleaded guilty.)  In 1993 the Justice Department sued SAIC,
accusing it of civil fraud on an F15 fighter contract.  In May 1995,
the same month SAIC purchased NSI, the company settled a suit that
charged it had lied about security system tests it conducted for a
Treasury Department currency plant in Fort Worth, TX. (The company
paid the government $125,000 to cover the cost of the investigation as
part of that settlement.)"

So why is this coming up now?

SAIC with the purchase of NSI, which owns Internic.net, now controls
all Internet domain registration. A monopoly that now wants to charge
$50 annually for every domain name. Turn the funnels of money on.

For those who don't know internic.net is the "central" (catch that one),
registration point for the Internet. Operated in conjunction with AT&T,
internic.net is the biggest reference source on the net. Every time you
send an email with an address like "lglobal.com", that name is 
referenced
to internic.net and converted to an I.P. address such as 210.50.120.2
which denotes network topography.

So again the military controls the maps and the bureacracy.

You've got to go see their board of directors page. It's incredible.

As an expression of global empire, SAIC is as naked as an oligarchy can 
be.
Their board of directors, 23 white men, 1 white woman, and 1 perhaps
southern european woman. Two generals, one admiral, vice-chairman of 
bank
of america.


> The press recently reported that the National Science Foundation>has 
turned
> over Internet Domain Name registration to Network>Solutions, Inc. 
(NSI) of
> Herndon, VA. The press failed to note some interesting connections.

> Tomorrow morning (Sept. 26), Web Review, a biweekly online magazine
> (see >Special Report at http://gnn.com/wr/) will reveal that NSI
> was purchased in May by Scientific Applications International
> Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego. SAIC is a $2 billion company
> indicted by the Justice Department on ten felony counts for fraud
> in managing a Superfund toxic cleanup site (SAIC pleaded guilty)
> and sued by the Justice Department for civil fraud on an F-15
> fighter contract.

> SAIC's board members include Admiral Bobby Inman, former NSA head
> and deputy director of the CIA; Melvin Laird, Nixon's defense
> secretary; and retired General Max Thurman, commander of the Panama
> Invasion. Recently departed board members include Robert Gates,
> former CIA director; William Perry, current Secretary of Defense;
> and John Deutch, the current CIA director. Current SAIC government
> contracts include re-engineering information systems at the
> Pentagon, automation of the FBI's computerized fingerprint
> identification system, and building a national criminal history
> information system.

goto http://www.saic.com/ and pick the corporate report.

it's some crazy pages, almost wonder if they're real...

Check out http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/

   <---- End Included Message ---->


R E A L    T I M E    C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
land: 2050 Claremont, suite 25  Montreal, Quebec CANADA   H3Z 2P8
tel: (514) 482-5551     fax: (514) 879-8485    email: murphy@RTCEnt.com
http://www.cam.org/~murphy

------------------------------



Afraid, as per the attached message, that the influx of the Great Masses 
of the Unwashed <tm> has led to the shutdown of a very useful service, 
the 
email->usenet gateway at texas.edu.

*sigh*


There is no longer a mail-to-news gateway on cs.utexas.edu.  It became
a magnet for abuse, which we are no longer willing to endure.  No, I
am not aware of any other similar gateways.  Sorry.

------- original message appended -------

<snip>

dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just one more sign of the times; another
example of the handwriting on the wall for Usenet isn't it ...  PAT]

------------------------------



Hi,

I am working as a telecom analyst in Paris and I am looking for recent
ressources about low tarifs mobile for mass consumers.  In France
people get a look on PHS system run in Japan by firms like DDI and (of
course) NTT.  Do you know where I can find some reports and figures on
the net about this technology and other similar low costs mobile
experiments in the world?

Thanks for your help.


denis@cnam.fr

------------------------------



I have run across a regulatory issue that I can't quite figure out.  
There are a number of examples, but to zero in on one:

South Haven, MS is in the Memphis, TN LATA and is also in the
free-calling area of metro Memphis.  Do calls from South Haven to
Memphis fall under state PSC jurisdiction or under FCC jurisdiction?
It *appears* that South Haven falls under the jurisdiction of the TN
PSC for POTS service (I am sure that MS has figured out how to at
least collect taxes from the situation), but a private line from South
Haven to Memphis falls under FCC jurisdiction.  I have always known
that LATAs can span state boundaries, but I have just encountered the
jurisdicational issue as to where to go for tariffs for different
services.

Other examples:
St. Louis, MO - East St. Louis, IL
Reno, CA - Reno, NV
West Memphis, AR - Memphis, TN.

Any thoughts or clarification would be appreciated.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also consider the case of Antioch, 
Illinois
and North Antioch, Wisconsin; Beloit, Wisconsin and South Beloit, 
Illinois;
Hammond, Indiana and Calumet City, Illiniois; Whiting, Indiana and 
selected
exchanges in Chicago, Illinois, etc.  PAT]

------------------------------



I'm currently working on setting up a business that would be vending
market information via "fax-back". My question is, is there anything
out on the market that will take credit card numbers and then fax the
information? This seems to be the best way to collect the fees. But,
I'm fairly new to this and open to suggestions. Thanks.

------------------------------



While reading my local fire department's annual newspaper, an article
titled "PLEASE DON'T (DO NOT) CALL 9-1-1 IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY"
caught my eye.

There is no 911 service in this part of New York State (near 
Poughkeepsie) 
and there won't be for about two years.  According to this article, if
you dial 911 here, you will get an operator "somewhere in the United
States."  It notes that the last time it happeded here, the operator
was in Florida and it took about 30 minutes to dispatch the fire
department.  Fortunately, the fire burned itself out.
 
What should happen if you call 911 in an unserved area?  Obviously, 30
min delays in an emergency would be a disaster sometimes.  I don't
have any good ideas what should happen ... should it just give a fast
busy to indicate a non-working number, or a recorded message, or ????
There are problems with each of these options.  Going to a local
operator would be the best, but local operators don't seem to exist
any more.
 
What happens in other places?  Is there a better solution?


George   georges@mhv.net


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the few remaining cases here where no
911 service exists (primarily because two or more very small communities
are served by the same phone exchange and the authorities cannot decide
among themselves which one should handle the calls), dialing 911 reaches
a recording which says "If you have an emergency, please hang up and 
dial
the operator now."  PAT]

------------------------------



Dear Telecom Digest:  

I recently received a call from AT&T (regarding my residential
service), and they offered me a $70 check, and 50% off their regular
rates for the next three months, if I would "switch back" to their
service.  Having been lied to by them once before, where they promised
me a check for $50, and only sending me one for $15, I was suspicious,
and lack respect for them, but the salesperson assured me that this
was a true deal, and so I toyed with them, and said I would only
switch if I got a check for $150.00 first. The salesperson said: "Not
a problem, sir", and said that I would get a check for $150.00, 50%
off their regular rates (which is how much, now, hmmm...) for the next
three months, and that I could call him if there was a problem, and he
even gave me his extension at AT&T's main number.

Well, two days ago (five days after being PIC'ed over to AT&T) I got a
check for ... $15.  Wow, could they have switched and baited me twice?
YES, but never again ... how can I take action against AT&T for their
misrepresentations, and report them to the FCC?

Has anyone else ever reported these slimy tactics of theirs?

Any help with this would be truly appreciated, as a call back to this
salesperson will result in a 15 minute hold on the phone, waiting to get
through.


Thanks, 


                                                                            


Jason Fetterolf   buxboyy@aol.com

------------------------------



Hello --

This is just a short question.  I recall hearing somewhere that the
internet has only two T1 lines and an E1 line going over the Atlantic
(between Europe and North America).  Is this true, or just a silly
rumor?  Does anybody have suggestions about where to find such
information reliably?


Thanks,

Stuart Brorson  Copenhagen

------------------------------



Hi folks,

I am a stupid lowly grad student taking a course in Satellite
Communications.  I need to define a commercial application.  I have
chosen video-teleconferencing.  I am looking for people with
experience with commercial satellite communications systems to
correspond with.  I have studied a lot, and can actually ask some
halfway intelligent questions.  Are you familiar with link budgets,
EIRPs, PFDs, TASO, the Crane model, etc?

Please email me at jimdiski@wam.umd.edu.

Sincere thanks to anyone who may take the time to respond, and thank
you all for your time.


Jim Diskin

------------------------------



I would like to use the PC and modem on my desk to access a System 75,
G2 and G3 switch.  I've tried using Procomm Plus's ATT 4410 emulation
but something is funny with the keyboard.  What software/emulations
are other tech's using?  Does any body have any suggestions?  Is their
an AT&T BBS with these type of utilities?  Any thoughts would be
greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Sean Doherty

------------------------------



Garrett A. Wollman (wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu) wrote:

> In article <telecom15.418.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, Marvin Vis 
<mvis@advtech.uswest.
> com> wrote:

>> Regarding the breakup, has anyone speculated about the driving forces
>> behind the move?  Of course, there are the factors that AT&T has 
presented
>> as their motivations (those of speed/responsiveness, targeted stock, 
etc.),
>> but has anyone tried to think of other reasons?

> I think it's pretty clear, actually, what the driving forces are.
> Consider the following facts:

> 1) AT&T is the RBOCs' principal supplier of switches and related
> equipment.

I thought Nortel had a larger share of the RBOC business for switches, 
access and transport equipment and services.

AT&T main startegic focus is to get a bigger portion of the high
margin global telecom market place, in order to do this it has to
project the image that it is a very competitve, innovative company.
One of the main manifestations of this would be rapid service
introduction.  E.g. being the first company to introduce ATM, having a
SONET network, etc. These criteria are especially important to network
managers of the Fortune 1000 companies. Telcos make most of their
profits serving these large accounts.

With its old structure AT&T was unable to react fast enough to changes
in technology and be the first with new services. AT&T does not have a
credible Internet startegy and it is loosing the lead to MCI in data
networks.  Since data networks are poised to become the main medium to
transport voice, this places AT&T in a precarious strategic position.
The main business advantage that AT&T has is its image, and the high
quality service it provides, but its competitors are catching up.

So dividing AT&T in three was the best strategy to make the telcom
services unit more competitive and agile. 


Tayeb Damerji         Tel.(613) 727 5258 
Interactive Telecom Inc.              Fax.(613) 727 5438
204 -190 Colonnade Rd                 Email: tayeb@intertel.net
Nepean , Ont K2E 7J5, Canada          Web: http://www.intertel.net

------------------------------



Bellcore's Numbering Administration (and previously AT&T Long Lines)
did not recommend using the home NPA code as an NXX, nor even adjacent
NPA codes. There were several guidelines listed in various editions of
"Notes" (Notes on the Network 1980, Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA
Networks 1983 & 1986, BOC Notes on the LEC Networks 1990 & 1994)
spelling out how local numbering/code administrators should assign NXX
Central Office codes, particularly in areas where 'interchangeable'
(N0X & N1X) office codes had been introduced. The ICCF/INC has
guidelines on this as well.

The situation is going to get messier with new NPA splits announced 
almost 
every week, and now with interchangeable NPA codes. If mandatory ten-
digit 
local dialing really does take effect in Houston and Dallas, it won't
matter if 713-713, 713-281, 281-281, 281-713 are assigned in metro 
Houston, 
and similar combinations of 214 and 972 (along with 817 and whatever
it will be announced) for the Dallas/Ft.Worth metro areas.  Does it
really matter if someone has the seven digit number such as 234-234x?
It might in some rural areas which do allow local dialing of four or 
five
digits as well as the standard seven digits, but even shorter local 
dialing 
in rural areas is fast becomming a thing of the past.

I know that within toll-free (not always?) 800, 800-800 and 800-888
are available, as well as 800-900, 800-500, 800-600, 800-700, etc, but
the 800 Special Areacode is a non-geographic mandatory ten-digit 
situation 
(along with 500, 600, 700, 900, etc). I think that there is a 900-800
and a 900-900 as well, but I don't have the Bellcore TRA office code
lists in front of me right now.

According to my December, 1994 Bellcore TRA 'Industry Numbering Plan 
Guide'
fiche, ALL possible 792 combinations of NXX codes were allocated
within the 800 special areacode. The N11 combinations have usually NOT
been used for standard central office codes. 800-555 went into the
'general portability' pool of 800-NXX's sometime in Nov. or Dec. 1994
according to one of my Bellcore NANPA IL mailings.  Also according to
the December, 1994 INPG fiche, the 800-N12 and 800-N02 combinations 
(total of
16) which had been previously reserved to 'Radio Common Carriers' (and
the *same* 800 + seven-digit number could be reused from state to state
with the 800-N02's and 800-N12's, just like the *old* pre-CCS
inTRAstate 800-NN2's) were instead identified as regular 800-NXX codes
(general portability). A small handful of 800-NXX codes were assigned
to Carribean carriers for terminating 800 calls there, and 800-855 was
still listed as for Deaf and Hearing Impaired toll free assignments, to
be carried by AT&T, Bell, traditional independents, and Canada's
Stentor companies, etc.

However, I was informed about a month ago (and now I've noticed in
some ads on radio/TV/newspapers) that there are 800 numbers now of the
form 800-N11-XXXX. I would only *hope* that they did *not* assign
800-911,

Even the best of us have from time to time called some 800 numbers by
simply dialing the seven digits - I've done it myself before. Maybe if
800-911 is NOT assigned for numbers, they could just route it to the
local 911. Where there are no major switch programming/hardwiring
problems, Bellcore recommends that 1-911 and 0-911 route to the local
911 emergency answering bureau.

A few months back, there was some questions about NPA-0XX-XXXX and
NPA-1XX-XXXX being assigned as POTS numbers. This would not be
workable with geographic/POTS areacodes since NPA-1XX and NPA-0XX are
still special internal telco routings, and for rating purposes,
NXX-1XX and NXX-0XX begin special billing (non-line number based calling
cards). But there are NO special billing cards that begin 800-1XX or
800-0XX, and I think that Bell/AT&T/etc. has discontinued special
internal routing numbers using 800-1XX & 800-0XX. There was some
discussion by the ICCF and the INC about assigning 800 numbers with
these 200 possible new 'office' codes. Even the 'independent' 800
numbering administrator included these 200 codes (800-0XX and 800-1XX)
as 'still spare' for 'possible future assignment/use'. 

This plan was abandoned since it would only make 200 new codes
available and customers might become confused when seeing 800 numbers
of that form- and might just not dial them or might try dialing
without the 800 (and getting blocked or cut to operator, or even a
toll number), so they instead decided on the 888 new toll-free code
since it would make 792 (or even 799 or 800) new 'office' codes
available (but what a joke that's been!). BTW, if I dial 1 (or 0) +
NPA + 1XX/0XX (geographic NPA's, tho') from the 1AESS offices here, I
get cut to a recording from the local neighborhood switch. But if I
dial 1-800 + 1XX/0XX + XXXX, the switch waits a half-second longer,
and I'm cut thru to the BellSouth tandem (probably associated with the
800 database) and I get the recording from *there*. It seems that *my*
local telco had the foresignt to allow 800-0XX and 800-1XX just in
case they are to be used later.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-
2497
WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu          |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-
2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr 
to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-
5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

------------------------------



In article <telecom15.436.5@eecs.nwu.edu>,  <bob@mtdcr.att.com> wrote:

> The joke going around these parts is that they'll bring back John Mayo
> to be President of the new firm, called Bell Laboratories 
Technologies.
> Yes, that would be BLT with Mayo.

> Sorry.

 I thought he didn't want to come back, so its BLT, hold the Mayo!


Raymond C. Jender
AT&T Network Systems (for now)

------------------------------



On Fri, 13-Oct, Edwin Green writes:

> The icon for American Bell was the Death Star which was adopted by
> AT&T in 1984 after it divested itself of the local operating
> companies.

I always thought that the use of the "Death Star" as the corporate
icon for AT&T was particularly interesting -- certainly deserving of
some kind of "Truth in Advertising" award. :-)


Ed Kleinhample -- General Practitioner of PC systems
Land O' Lakes, FL.    70574.3514@compuserve.com

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #438
******************************

                         
