
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Wed Oct  4 01:04:16 1995
by
1995
01:04:16 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 20:32:27 -0500
1995
20:32:25 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Oct 95 20:32:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 417

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Michigan Telecom Bill Raises Costs For Accessing Online (Richard 
Stoddard)
    Voice File Conversion Program-press release (btatro@tatro.com)
    Wanted: Bell System Picturephone (William King)
    Re: Lots of Goofups This Week (Dale Robinson)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (David E.A. Wilson)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Tom Horsley)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
    Re: 911 as quid pro quo (Mark Brader)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Mark Brader)
    Re: The Rush For Unabomber's Essay (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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.

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



   The Michigan Legislature is now rewriting the state's 
telecommunications 
act.  While the bill, which is supposed to be introduced on Thursday, 
October 5th, by Sen.  Matt Dunaskiss, addresses many different issues
affecting telecom providers and consumers, SOME OF THE PROVISIONS WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE PHONE BILLS FOR ANYONE WHO REGULARLY ACCESSES
THE INTERNET OR OTHER ONLINE SERVICES, AND FOR RESIDENTS OF SMALLER
COMMUNITIES IN THIS STATE.  (It goes unmentioned what this will do to
families with teenage children.)

    This bill moves us much closer to having local telephone service
billed in the same way long-distance service is: based on frequency,
distance, AND DURATION.  The committee staff in fact testified that in
the future they envision local calls being billed just as long
distance calls are.

    More and more people are accessing the Internet for both business
and personal use.  We are increasingly able to do our banking,
shopping, pay our bills, and plan vacations online.  Kids are able to
do the research they need for their schoolwork online.  Businesses,
both small and large, are increasing their presences on the web.  But
if Ameritech and the other phone companies gets their way, the meter
will be running every second we are logged on.

    The bill's sponsors talk about furthering the development of the
information superhighway, but this bill provides for toll booths every
mile.

    The bill reduces the number of allowable calls to 200 per month,
with the charges for extra calls determined by the phone company, not
the Public Service Commission.  (Residents currently get 400 calls per
month, with extra calls billed at 6.2 cents per call.)

    The bill also allows for billings based on frequency, distance,
and duration, or combinations of those factors.  While the bill allows
consumers to determine which of those methods they want (provided it
is technologically feasible, whatever that means), it will be much
easier for the phone companies to structure the rates to make the
"flat rate with a limit of 200 calls" much more expensive, pushing
people into metered service.

    The bill also allows automatic rate increases up to the consumer
price index less one percent, even though the actual cost of providing
the service is going down.  Furthermore, once a service is "competitive" 
--
meaning that there is more than one provider, the service SHALL be
deregulated -- and you can be at the mercy of the phone companies!

    Finally, the bill REQUIRES that phone companies increase their
rates in smaller communities in Michigan on the premise that they are
"below cost" currently, even though a company may be making significant 
profits on local service on a statewide basis.  Based on figures we
have seen from other states, this may lead to rate increases of 200 - 
300 
percent in some communities.

    The bill is not available online, but copies of the bill can be
obtained from your state legislator.  However, you can access
testimony provided to the committees earlier this year. All testimony
is archived at <gopher://mdenet.mde.state.mi.us:70/11/tech/mta>.  (My
testimony, which covers this issue as well as issues like number
portability, can be found at:
<gopher://mdenet.mde.state.mi.us:70/00/tech/mta/950426/Stoddard>.)

    We will be pushing a number amendments during the upcoming
process.  At a minimum, we will be attempting to eliminate the local
measured service provisions, the automatic rate increases, and the
proposals to jack up rates in smaller communities.  But we need your
help to have any chance against the high-priced lobbyists and campaign
contributions of the phone companies.  It is critical, therefore, that
people immediately contact their state senators and representatives
and express their concerns about these provisions.

    Interested people should contact their own legislators, but they
should also contact members of the committees with jurisdiction over
the bill.  If you are unsure who your legislators are, contact your
county clerk for information.

    The Senate Technology and Energy Committee, which is chaired by
Sen.  Dunaskiss, will hold a hearing on the bill on Wednesday, October
11, at 3:00pm.  The bill, which is on a fast track because the current
law expires at the end of this year, may be reported out by the
committee that day.

    Because the bill is starting in the Senate, it is imperative that
you contact your senator and members of the Senate committee
immediately.  Members of the Senate Technology and Energy Committee,
their addresses, and their phone numbers are provided below.

    However, it is not too soon to also begin contacting members of
the House of Representatives.  Again, please contact your own state
representative along with members of the House Public Utilities
Committee.  Contact information for House members is also provided
below.

    You should contact legislators by regular mail or telephone.  If
you use E-mail, please also send a letter by mail, since many of them
may not know how to use E-mail yet.  The Legislature is just now
making E-mail available to members and their staffs, and many of them
have not had training yet.

    Finally, you should pass the word to other Internet or bulletin
board users in Michigan.  If you have access to more local newsgroups,
you may repost this provided you do so without alteration.  This
legislation will affect all of us.

    I will provide more information on other provisions of the bill in
the near future, along with periodic updates on the bill's status.
You may also contact me for additional information.

    Thank you.


                        CONTACT INFORMATION
SENATE   
Members of the Senate Technology and Energy Committee are as follows:
    
         COMMITTEE                            PHONE     
         Sen. Matt Dunaskiss, Chair        517-373-2417
         Sen. Mike Bouchard                517-373-2523
         Sen. Bill Schuette                517-373-7946
         Sen. Jim Berryman                 517-373-3543
         Sen. Dianne Byrum                 517-373-1734

Regular mail* can be addressed to all senators as follows:
         Senator (Name)
         P.O. Box 30036
         Lansing, MI   48909
    *Most senators do not have e-mail addresses yet.


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The House of Representatives has a web site with members' names,
addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses (for those that have
e-mail).  Its URL is http://www.house.state.mi.us/; a list of
committee members, along with links to their addresses and phone
numbers, is at http://www.voyager.net/house/commpubutl.html.  


Richard H. Stoddard  stoddard@sojourn.com
Michigan Consumer Federation Phone 517-482-6262 
115 W. Allegan, Ste. 500 Fax: 517-487-6002 
Lansing, Michigan 48933

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



For more Information, Call: 205-650-0095
or: info@tatro.com

Huntsville, 2 October, 1995

Telephony File Format Coinverter

For Immediate Release:

 Tatro Enterprises is pleased to announce the release of their
telephony file format conversion program. the program will enable all
IVR developers toi convert voice files from all generally used
vox-formats to all commonly-used wav-formats and back. This will allow
the editing and recording of voice files in the familiar Windows environ-
ment and converting the files back to vox-format for inclusion in
IVR-applications. The full program retails for US $20.00 plus $3.00
shipping and handling. A demonstration program is available which will
let you convert files from vox- to wav-format using the default
settings. Bulk conversion of files in one directory with directory
synchronization is possible. The program runs under Windows 3.11, 
Windows NT, and Win 95.

The following file-formats are supported:

VOX-Format Options:
PCM (8 bit) (ALaw-encoding possible)
ADPCM (4 bit)
- both 6000 Hz and 8000 Hz

WAV-Format Options:
8000 Hz
11025 Hz
22050 Hz
44100 Hz
- 8 bit or 16 bit per Sample
- Mono or Stereo

The demonstration program can be downloaded from the following internet 
site:
ftp: vespucci.iquest.com  /tatro-enterprises/demo/vfc.zip

or

http://iquest.com/~btatro

Tatro Enterprises. All other brands and product names are trademarks 
and/or 
registered trademarks of their respective holders.

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



I would like to acquire a Bell Picturephone (probably a Mod II).  It
need not be a working unit.  If you have two, I might be interested in
the set.  Please contact me if you want to sell a Picturephone or if
you know of someone who might.


Thank you,

Joey King
joeyking@u.washington.edu
jking@hitl.washington.edu

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



Pat Townson wrote:
     
> The other major screw-up involved pagers........
> Does anyone have further details on this????
     
Pat,
     
You have probably have seen dozens of replies to your query, but here's 
my 
5c worth.
     
  From the FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED 
SYSTEMS,
  Digest Volume 17, Issue 37:
     
 ----- Start Cut & Paste -----
     
A SpaceCom technician at their uplink facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma
accidentally send out a spacey command shutting down the satellite
receivers used by pager systems throughout the country, affecting
millions of pagers.  SpaceCom supports 5 of the largest 10 paging
outfits.  This happened at 1 a.m. yesterday, and each receiver had to
be manually reprogrammed -- which took all day until most of the
service could be restored.  Al Stem, VP and GM of SC said, "This
hasn't ever happened before.  And we're putting additional systems in
place to make sure it never happens again."  [Source: AP report, seen
in the San Francisco Chronicle, 27 Sep 1995, p. A2.]
     
I guess they haven't been reading RISKS.  Wow, what a user interface!
Sort of like being able to type rm * without any confirmation
required.  Accident?  Malicious act?  Whooops?  PGN]
     
     ----End Cut & Paste-----------------------
     
You would think that there would be a way to prevent this.  Maybe the
technician's level of authority was inappropriate?
     
Or was it a case of tiredness that caused the technician to mistype the 
command and hit the GO key.  I've seen similar things done to IBM 
Mainframes :-).
     
I damm well hope it WASN'T intentational!
     
May I add that comp.risks is a "Good" read!
     

Regards, 

Dale

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



morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) writes:

> It's my opinion that the designers of the phone books are a bit to
> blame. They should include the 7 (or 10) digit non-emergency number of
> the police on the same page as the 911 listing. Pacific Bell uses the

Here in Australia we have a similar system (000 instead of 911) and
here is what we get inside the front cover of our phonebook. It seems
to address many of the points raised.

LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCY    [red 17mm high]
FIRE  [black 10mm high]
POLICE   "  000  [red 43mm high]
AMBULANCE  " (24 hour service) [black 6mm high]

* ASK THE OPERATOR FOR THE SERVICE YOU NEED
* WAIT TO BE CONNECTED
* THIS IS A FREE CALL

Privacy Considerations

When reporting an emergency by calling 000, the telephone number and
address from where you are calling, may be disclosed to the Emergency
Service to enable a quicker response to the emergency.  If you do not
wish to have the telephone number and address details disclosed, you
must call the Emergency Service direct.

  Personal Emergency Numbers
Fire ........ Police ........ Ambulance ........
Doctor ........ Hospital........ Dentist  ........


                                                                                                                          


OTHER 24 HOUR EMERGENCY NUMBERS ON PAGE 29  [red 5mm high]


David Wilson Dept CompSci Uni Wollongong Australia david@cs.uow.edu.au

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



> And it would be nice to have a standard non-emergency number: perhaps
> 912 or 999 could be used?  All the hardware is in for 911, all it 
would 
> take is programming, and public education.

I've always thought a standard non-emergency number would be nice.
There are all kinds of things "the authorities" ought to be notified
of (things like overgrown plants blocking visibility at intersections,
big potholes, out of order traffic signals, etc). Most of the time, it
is way too much trouble to figure out who to call to report something
like this (especially in my part of south Florida where there tend to
be 5,221 separate small communities all crammed together and you never
really know if you are in Ft. Lauderdale, Pompano, Margate, Tamarac,
etc...)


Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com
Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL  33444
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL  
33309
Support Project Vote Smart! They need your support in non-election years 
too!
(email pvs@neu.edu, 1-800-622-SMART, http://www.vote-smart.org)

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would have to take exception with 
John's
<<SNIP>>
> I do not know about the tariff in California, but the tariff here 
states 
> things a bit differently. (1) any service which is not exclusively for
> the personal use of the residents of a domicile is a 'business' 
service.

California's tariffs define residential service as telephone service
that is used *mostly* for social and domestic purposes.

California defines a residence location (in A2.22 I think it was) as a 
location designed for residential living and has things such as a bed, 
kitchen, etc.  I had one customer who had residence service in a known 
commercial location. I had a maintence supervisor go out there to 
inspect 
the location (for tariff compliance reasons) and they had a bed and a 
kitchen there.  Residential service!

> (2) at an address which has historically been used for business, then
> any service installed there must be business service; however at an 
> address which has historically been residential in nature then 
residence
> service is available *unless the line is being used for business 
purposes.*

Refer again to above.


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU   Tempe, Arizona 

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



> Talking about Bell Canada's Soft Dial Tone allowing 911 calls for two
> months only ... I wondered:

>> Can Bell Canada really be so cavalier to only provide 911 service for
>> two months?

> ... If I owned the facility (University dorms in the Canadian
message) I would inform the phone company that if the line was live
*at all* it would carry 911 ...

I guess Pat didn't run my reply on this point the last time around.
Cc'd to the above poster this time.  Please go back and reread the
original article, or take my word for this:

The article did *not* say that soft dial tone was being tried and would
provide access to 911 for the first two months.  It said that soft dial
tone *was being tried for two months*, and would provide access to 911.

All clear now?


Mark Brader         "A clarification is not to make oneself clear.
msb@sq.com           It is to PUT oneself IN the clear."
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto       -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes, Prime Minister"

My text in this article is in the public domain.

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



>> Call Trace serves this function now. It does what caller-ID is
>> frequently misrepresented as doing, collecting the calling number
>> of a call that you need to report to the cops.

> The answer is that [caller-ID] allows you to collect the calling 
number
> of a call that you don't need to report to the cops.  I would prefer 
to use
> cops when there's an emergency, and to use less expensive measures
> when there is not.

Is it not actually correct that Call Trace collects the calling number
of the call *in case* you need to report it to the cops?  And
furthermore, it does it in a way that isn't dependent on your own
honesty and record-keeping; that's not the case if you get the number
from caller-ID (or from Last Call Return in areas where it provides
the number), 


Mark Brader, msb@sq.com    "Every new technology carries with it 
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto      an opportunity to invent a new crime" 
                            -- Laurence A. Urgenson

My text in this article is in the public domain.

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



In article <telecom15.414.1@eecs.nwu.edu> I wrote:

> I finally got a call from a fellow at the FBI in San Fransisco on
> Monday, and I put him in touch with a correspondent here who had given
> much of the background information printed in the Digest. We will see
> what comes of it, if anything.

In private correspondence someone replied:

Pat, you might be interested in knowing that the STANDARD FBI
procedure would have been to have a LOCAL FBI agent contact you
directly, present his badge (identification) and request information.
That info would then have been checked locally (or fowarded to the
proper agent in the area in question who *could* properly and
*personally* verify/check your data).  Having dealt with this agency
in the past, I find it somewhat strange that you were contacted by
telephone only ...

Are you *sure* that you spoke with the FBI ?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you know ever since that time when
I fell off the turnip truck and banged my head on the ground when I
landed I have not been thinking too clearly. Do you think someone may
have played a trick on me?  Actually what happened was I got a call
Monday morning while I was over at the IHOP across the street for my
breakfast. When I got back a message on the answering machine said to
please call this fellow. He gave a number for voicemail and a general
switchboard number, something-7400 in San Fransisco. I rang that number
and a woman answered saying 'FBI'. I left a message for him on his
voicemail and he called back a bit later. I assume there could have
been some massive plot, but it seems unlikely. He did offer to give
me what was termed an 'event number' which was my proof of the conver-
sation in the event my nomination for Unabomber of the Year turns out
to agree with theirs. I know I could certainly use the money from any
reward given although it is quite unlikely I will get anything. My
personal suspicion is they gave up on personal interviews with people
who 'know exactly who the unabomber is' somewhere after the first
thirty thousand interviews or so.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #417
******************************

                                                                                                                      
