TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Dec 93 22:36:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 826 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Yellow/White Pages Copyrighted? - No! - (Mark Voorhees via Danny Burstein) Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This? (John R. Levine) Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This? (David Leibold) Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers (Paul Robinson) Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Wire Types and Crosstalk (Gary Breuckman) Re: Telephone Company Rate Survey (Paul Robinson) Re: Cable and Phone Monopolies (Thomas Chen) Re: AT&T 9100 Phone Review (Bill Seward) Re: Phone Line Teaming (Tony Harminc) 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. 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 compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates and redistribution/cross-posting of articles herein to news groups such as those distributed via 'Usenet' is prohibited unless permission is ob- tained in writing. This does not apply to *authorized* redistribution lists and sites who have agreed to distribute the Digest. All cross- postings or other redistributions must include the full Digest intact and unedited. 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. You can reach us by snail mail at Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or Fax at 1-708-329-0572. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Yellow/White Pages Copyrighted? - No! - Date: 18 Dec 1993 14:26:22 -0500 Passed along FYI to the list: From markvoor@MINDVOX.PHANTOM.COM Ukn Dec 18 13:52:16 1993 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 13:25:28 EST Sender: Computer-assisted Reporting & Research From: Mark Voorhees Subject: copy cats To: Multiple recipients of list CARR-L Re: copyright and yellow and white pages Enough people asked for copies of these articles, I decided to make them available for general consumption. I don't pretend to know whether they would apply to duplicating the {Washington Post's} job listings here. Source: Information Law Alert BELLSOUTH PLAYS TOUGH ON COPYRIGHTS (June 18, 1993) Two years after the Supreme Court limited copyright protection for directories and databases, BellSouth Corp. is working harder than ever to protect its flank. The company is vigorously defending its copyrights and trademarks in at least six suits. "They are taking positions not being taken by the other Bell operating companies," says Elliot Kaplan of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, who is defending American Business Information against a BellSouth suit. Many directory publishers stopped pursuing copycats in the wake of the 1991 Supreme Court decision, Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Co. The court ruled that a telephone book's copyright does not prohibit a competitor from copying the white pages' underlying facts. The directory served only 7,700 people in rural Kansas, but the ripples from the ruling have been far reaching, throwing out a long line of case law known as "sweat of the brow," which awarded copyrights on the basis of hard work alone. SECOND LOOK The Feist case has not, however, dissuaded BellSouth, which some observers say has more directory business to lose than other telephone companies. After the Feist decision, BellSouth won an 11th Circuit case upholding copyright protection for its yellow pages. The court ruled that Donnelly Information Publishing, Inc., had violated BellSouth's copyright by extracting key information for use in a competing publication. Even that case is now up for grabs. It was briefed and argued before the Feist decision, but decided afterward. After the issuance of the Feist decision, Donnelly asked to submit new briefs addressing the high-court ruling, but the circuit refused. The court is now taking a belated, second look. In November, one-and-a-half years after the Feist decision, the circuit accepted Donnelly's petition for an en banc hearing. Since the February hearing, both sides have been eagerly awaiting the outcome. Anthony Askew of Atlanta's Jones & Askew remains confident that his client, BellSouth, will prevail. The Feist decision confirmed copyrights for compilations, Askew says, so long as there is a modicum of originality in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the facts. "We think there is a lot of creativity that goes in to the creation of yellow pages," Askew says. PICTURE TAKING The yellow-page publisher exercises originality in its selection of headings, placement of businesses under headings, and geographic scope, according to Askew. In his brief, Askew likens the process to a photographer snapping a picture of a moving train: "The changing business population of a city is like the train moving past the railroad crossing. The instant at which the photograph is taken is like a directory close date. The camera takes a snapshot of the train at that instant just as the directory represents a snapshot of the business population at the time of publishing the directory. The type of lenses on the camera is like the geographic scope of the directory." Donnelly's lawyers decline to comment on the case. But their briefs, prepared primarily by David Foster and Theodore Whitehouse of Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, argue that Askew is simply dressing up sweat of the brow in fancy clothing. Donnelly admits to copying names, addresses, and telephone numbers from BellSouth's directory. It also says it copied the nature of a company's business, but not the actual BellSouth headings -- something that BellSouth disputes. The Feist decision, according to Foster and Whitehouse's briefs, clearly permits the copying of all those elements. Even if Donnelly had copied the headings themselves, that too would be protected. BellSouth is trying to protect routine business decisions, such as defining a geographic region for a directory, according to Donnelly lawyers. The company "tries to disguise its sweat of the brow premise by reliance upon a theory of its own invention," according to a Donnelly brief. Under Donnelly's interpretation, it would be prohibited from actually photocopying BellSouth's yellow pages -- but not much else. STAKING THE FUTURE If the circuit rules in Donnelly's favor, Bell South has its bases covered. One of its suits -- against Southern Directories Co. -- alleges actual copying of display advertising. The suit also seeks common-law trademark recognition of the "walking fingers" graphic. Bell tried to register the walking fingers but was turned down by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In a footnote, the board left open the possibility that the walking fingers might warrant common law protection. There's no harm in trying, as the saying goes. ------------------ cut here here---------------------- BYE BYE BAPCO; 11TH CIRCUIT KNOCKS OUT PROTECTION FOR YELLOW PAGES (October 8, 1993) The 11th Circuit has ruled that the yellow pages deserve about as much copyright protection as the white pages, which the Supreme Court has said is not very much. And so BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Corp., which has aggressively pursued copyright infringement cases, must move a marker from the win to loss column. In 1991, BellSouth won a ruling in the 11th Circuit finding that Donnelly Information Publishing, Inc., had violated its copyright. Donnelly had copied information from BellSouth's Miami yellow pages in order to develop sales leads to produce a competitive book (see June 18 issue). Between the time that case was briefed and decided, the Supreme Court ruled in a different case that a company could copy the underlying facts from the white pages of a competitor. In Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the high court said compilations of facts deserved only "thin" protection -- and only when the selection, arrangement, and coordination of facts was original. The case threw out the so-called "sweat of the brow" line of cases that rewarded hard work in the absence of creative expression. One of the leading advocates had been Anthony Askew of Atlanta's Jones & Askew, who represented BellSouth in this case. WHITE=YELLOW At the time, Donnelly's lawyers tried persuade the 11th Circuit to take briefs on the yellow pages cases in light of the white-page ruling. But the three-judge panel refused and ruled in BellSouth's favor. One and a half years later, in November 1992, the court decided to rehear the case en banc in light of the Feist ruling. And in September, it ruled, 7-1, that although the case "concerned a directory of a different color," the Feist ruling should still govern. BellSouth had tried to casts routine business decisions, such as the geographic scope of the listing in a book, as acts of originality, the court ruled. Even if Donnelly had copied the subject headings, which it denies having done, there would not have been a copyright violation, the court found. "BAPCO can claim no copyright in the idea of dividing churches by denomination or attorneys by area of specialty," wrote Judge Stanley Birch. FOLLOWING FEIST The decision "follows Feist -- pure and simple," says one lawyer familiar with the case. Judge Joseph Hatchett, a member of the original panel, dissented on the theory that Donnelly had actually copied original elements of the pages. The majority opinion, he says, "transforms the multi-billion dollar classified publishing industry from a business requiring the production of a useful directory based on multiple layers of creative decisionmaking, into a business requiring no more than a successful race to a data processing agency to copy another publisher's copyrighted work-product." BellSouth intends to ask the Supreme Court to hear this case, which is highly unlikely given the unanimous finding in Feist. úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 23:36 Message # -7041 From : TELECOM Digest Moderator To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #826 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) Three other copyright cases involving BellSouth had been stayed pending resolution of the Donnelly case. Those cases involve companies that compile mailing lists. In at least one of them, BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. EKI Inc. in federal court in Atlanta, BellSouth has asked that the stay be continued. voorhees reports 411 first street brooklyn, ny 11215-2507 Mark Voorhees 1-718-369-0906 (voice) markvoor@phantom.com 1-718-369-3250 (fax) ----------------- dannyb@panix.com adds: all the usual disclaimers regarding liability, intelligence, accuracy apply. spelling disclaimer is doubled. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 14:10 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This? Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > Mobilnet. .. they are [apparently] offering a nationwide cellular service > which eliminates the need for fiddling about with roaming codes etc. There are about five different roaming systems in operation. The newer ones operate automatically. My system (NYNEX Boston) belongs to MobileReach which is supposed to deliver calls without my having to do anything. It runs at least from New Hampshire through Mass., R.I., Conn., downstate N.Y., down to northern NJ and probably farther. I don't know if it works; nobody's called me in the car yet when I was down that way. Based on the info in the {Cellular Roaming Guide}, it'll be a long time before there's any sort of universal roaming, automatic or not, because there are so many little carriers outside of large cities that don't belong to any of the roaming networks. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 18:03:00 -0500 From: djcl@io.org Subject: Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This? I don't know the Mobilnet number, but a North American arrangement called Mobilink may be reached at 1 800 995.4000. I don't know if this Mobilink will be the same as Mobilnet (or maybe it's a competing group). Bell Mobility (Ontario and Quebec, Canada) is part of the Mobilink. David Leibold ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 11:35:10 EST From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA "A. Padgett Peterson" wrote: > The following announcemet appeared in my November Southern Bell > bill: > "Effective December 1, 1993, Southern Bell will begin blocking > access by long distance companies to local calls. Under Florida > law, local telephone calls must be handled by the local exchange > telephone company only." Apparently their system is allowing people to use a carrier to make local calls. This probably applies to someone dialing 10xxx plus seven digits or 10xxx plus 1 and the ten digit number which is within the same LATA. > My concern is that I often go through my LDC to make a local call > when at a pay phone and do not have change (it is less than the > U$1.00-U$1.25 charged to make a collect local call). I called > Southern Bell and was told that the ruling only affects residences > but have not verified this as yet. As long as you are either going through a 1-800 number or 950-xxxx number, no matter what the local company does (unless they disable the keypad on payphones or remove it) it should not affect your access. Further, if you are using a company not in Florida, their rules wouldn't apply anyway, since you make a 1-800 number call to some place out of state, which is an interstate terminated call at the switch operated by that company. Their connection to the party you want is a separate interstate call from their switch to the party you are calling. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 07:35:50 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers In Volume 13, Issue 814 cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) writes: > How do you circumvent the local company? In PacBell territory, they > will not allow you to select a long distance company on a local call. > I can, however, use my long-distance calling card (AT&T, haven't tried > with another company) for local calls. These calls are billed by AT&T > at PacBells rates and the bill reads "Local Calls Charged to Your AT&T > Card." This is true in NYTel land also. However, I can use 1-800-CALL1-ATT or 1-800-COLLECT (MCI) (1+ not required, yet). The final option is 10698+0+XXX-YYYY also (698 translates to NYT) which will allow calls to anywhere that NYT has a presence, including small portions of Connecticut, Massachussetts and Pennsylvania plus the small local calling area dialable from AC 212 in Northern NJ. > If there is a way (besides the 1-800-CALLl-ATT method) to get AT&T for > local calls, I would rather do this, as their rates are lower than > those of Pacific Bell. Have you tried 10288 + 0 + ... ? 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 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 06:06:18 -0800 From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: Wire Types and Crosstalk In article laird@pasture.ecn. purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes: > On two-pair cable, I can't remember a time when the colors weren't > red, green, black, yellow. > Our house has cheapo flat cable (grrr!) that does a fairly efficient > job presenting line 1 computer sound to line 2. The computer room is > near the telephone cable entry jack. I was thinking I'd run another > cable to the box and wire the computer in directly, and leave the > other (two-line) phones to use the flat cable (for now). My guess is > that line 2 would cease to pickup the computer noise. Is this a bad > guess? The green-red-black-yellow cable IS the reason you can hear the computer on line 2. There could be other reasons too, like leakage from one line to the other in some equipment, but crosstalk between lines is one of the reasons that most new installations are going to PAIRED cable. There can also be noise pickup from external sources with non-paired cable, and it's not good for high-frequency signals (T1, 10BaseT, etc). The G-R-B-Y cable is NOT paired, the four wires are just strung down the cable without twisting them. If you put the computer on a separate cable be sure to also not put that line on the existing cables, you will still have the crosstalk, or replace the wiring. The correspondence between the old and new wires is ... pair 1 tip green white with blue stripe ring red blue with white stripe pair 2 tip black white with orange stripe ring yellow orange with white stripe pair 3 tip white with green stripe ring green with white stripe pair 4 tip white with brown stripe ring brown with white stripe Larger cables are grouped with five pairs to a group. The groups are white, red, black, yellow, violet and the pairs blue, orange, green, brown, slate within each group. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 11:52:33 EST From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Telephone Company Rate Survey Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA "Hansel E. Lee Jr." , writes: > I am conducting a rate survey of long distance companies. > Currently I have contacted: > All Net AT&T Cable & Wireless MCI Metromedia/ITT > Opticom Sprint US Long Distance > If you know the name and customer service number to any other long > distance companies... The largest local company is: Mid Atlantic Telecom of Washington DC 800 937 6891 I used to use their Voice mail service until the price went up. Very good, but I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it. Another national company is: Wiltel 800 324 2222 Here are some ones listed locally who have 1-800 numbers: Eastern Telecom 800 448 1301 EMI Communications 800 456 2001 LCI International (Also calls itself Long Distance Service, Inc) 800 296 0220 / 24 Hr Cust Svc 800 296 7828 Here are a few local ones: Executive Telecard, Rockville: 301 770 2029 Long Distance Alternatives, Potomac 301 948 2813 Long Distance Direct, Landover 301 925 8939 Metrocomm Long Distance, McLean 703 506 6850 U S Wats, Beltsville 301 595 3055 Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ From: tchen@sdesys1.hns.com (Thomas Chen) Subject: Re: Cable and Phone Monopolies Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 23:48:45 GMT úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 23:36 Message # -7040 From : TELECOM Digest Moderator To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #826 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. In article , trenton@netcom.com (The CyberMonk) writes: > Perhaps this is a stupid question (it would not be the first time), > but *why* don't they simply allow competition for local cable access? > I read somewhere that in the few communities (in the US) that have > more than one local cable operator that there are more channels, > better service, and lover prices than elsewhere. > [Moderator's Note: Cable companies don't want competition any more > than the local telco wants competition. Like telco, the cable companies > have friends in high places. On top of that, many local governments receive revenue from cable companies that they don't really want to see true compeitition that would drive the price down and thus reducing their take. tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 13:59:32 EST From: Bill Seward Subject: Re: AT&T 9100 Phone Review rrb@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (Bill Pfeiffer) wrote: >> out of range notification; > You mention that you lose sylables at 300 feet, what sort of 'alert' > does it offer other than the obvious loss of transmission? Does it > hang-up when out-of-range? It has an audible tone for out of range, either on or off hook. If you are on the phone and walk out of range, you have about 30 seconds to move back in range, or it will hang up. >> I have tested it for range with the following results: I can get about >> 250 feet from the base with no noticable signal degredation on either >> end. I can get about 300 feet with acceptable degredation (the >> occassional lost syllable). At 375, I lose about every other syllable. >> All of these distances are witworld. > Here, again, I see this as poor. The Tropez has been tested by a > friend, in the middle of Chicago, with good trans) in any direction, > using built-in antennas in a single-story building (frame or brick). > A friend at a local Radio Shack has tested their phone from INSIDE a > building (also steel-framed) and could make and receive calls there > with no noticable interference. I'm not an EE wizard -- maybe mine is defective. However, I do know that battery charge/condition, overhead power lines, and a lot of other arcane things will have an effect such as a 110v line in the wall. If anyone else has a 9100 and has substantially surpassed my distances, I'd like to know. To pick a nit: a mile is 5280 feet. So could you friend talk in some distances an actual 1/2 mile (2640') >> but the handset is designed so that it is not really cradleable in >> the crook of your neck. Physically, it resembles a cellular handset >> in dimensions -- and I suspect they are not cradleable for a reason. > What reason would that be, Bill? It seems to me that the phone should > be as ergonomic (sp) as possible, No? Let's put it this way -- have you seen how most people drive, with maybe half the care they should use? And have you ever seen people driving, talking on their cell phone, and driving worse than the average idiot with a license? (I have -- regularly.) Now can you imagine ne, head tilted over (skewing their view) and driving? No thank you. It is thought that cradling a phone is a cause of nerve pinches in the neck area. So what is better -- a design that attempts to force you incorrect or dangerous use? Bill Seward SEWARD@CCVS2.CC.NCSU.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 00:02:56 GMT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Phone Line Teaming Kentucky Resources Council wrote: > I want to use a standard telco line to connect to my local schools -- > they will soon have local internet connections (a big deal in the > boonies!). What I really want is a means to team a second phone > numner onto the standard number. The second number needs a different > ring cadence so I can discriminate between the two numbers -- now > comes the fun part: I want to enable the second number from 4:30 pm to > 7:30; that way we can publish the second number and not endure data > calls during the school day. Anyone who can help me enable such a > system would be a minor hero in my book -- thanks for reading this. [Moderator's Note suggests using Radio Shack distinctive ringing box.] Another approach would be to have call forwarding installed on one only of the two distinctive ringing numbers on the line. During the hours you don't want data calls, you forward that number somewhere that won't bother anyone -- say a trunk or payphone that doesn't accept incoming calls. A data caller outside approved hours reaches a recording "the number you have reached is not equipped to receive incoming calls". On the way out the door at 4:30, you unforward the number, turn on the modem, and data calls are answered. Problems: - voice calls (on the non-data number) will be answered by the modem after hours. But maybe no one calls there after the school day? - Forwarding and unforwarding is fiddly and more error prone than turning a modem on and off. If the phone on that line has programmable buttons you could set it up to do the forward. Or the modem could do it. - Call forwarding is an ongoing monthly cost. But you don't have to pay for a distinctive ringing box. Make the tradeoff -- it depends on rates in your area. - Call forwarding may not be offered on just one of the numbers on a line by your telco. Here (Bell Canada territory) forwarding can apply to the first ("main") number, and any of the other numbers, but not to secondary number(s) alone. But of course what you think of as the main number can be what you tell Telco is secondary -- the only difference is the ringing cadence. Probably the distinctive ring box is the overall best solution -- this is just an attempt at lateral thinking ... Tony Harminc [Moderator's Note: The difficulty in forwarding the phone to 'some other phone which does not have incoming service' is that most inter- cepts these days do tell you the number you reached or attempted to reach. The caller would get a message saying, "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in service for incoming calls". This would lead to much confusion by people who somehow thought *they* had dialed it incorrectly and there would be people calling the operator to ask why when they dial one number they know is good they are getting connected to a totally different number, etc. What our correspondent must do is make this as transparent as possible to the users; they should not have to get involved asking questions about why the phone rings one place sometimes and another place other times, etc. All the user needs to deal with is that the phone will be answered by modem after a certain time of day and will ring unanswered at other times. Quite some time ago, I used to know a number which was on a centrex system and it (that line) was quite restricted. It could only call other extensions (no outgoing calls via dialing 9) and it could not get incoming calls except from other extensions. When you dialed the number from elsewhere, the intercept was one I have never received before or since: "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx cannot be reached from outside the customer's premises." In other words, the customer can call himself, and that's it! :) A few times, I forwarded my line to it just for laughs, and when invariably someone trying to reach me would ask the operator to intervene and 'see what is wrong with his line', that recording would even baffle the IBT operators. To avoid confusion then, don't get other numbers or other people involved. I don't see why though our correspondent simply does not get a second independent line rather than try to work with distinctive ringing. It would make things so much simpler. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #826 ****************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253