TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Mar 95 19:24:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 129

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    True NANP and Common Dialing Practices (John Shelton)
    Winsock Problem (Greg Polimis)
    Wireless Modems (Mukesh Sharma)
    And the Grammy For Poor Planning Goes to ... (Scott D. Fybush)
    Bulk Call Generators (jplotky@atlanta.glenayre.com)
    Rio-1 ACS-CELP Information Wanted (Sing Li)
    Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Dcott B. Campbell)
    Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Steve Copeland)
    Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Jean Tkacik)
    Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Need Help With Digital Phone Line (John Lundgren)
    Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Tim Allman)
    Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Atri Indiresan)
    Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Glenn Foote)
    Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" (George Wang)
    Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Planned for the 'Net' (John Steele)

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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

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. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Shelton <jshelton@parcplace.com>
Subject: True NANP and Common Dialing Practices
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 8:57:48 PDT


When will we really have a true North American Numbering Plan, one
that is used consistently throughout US and Canada?

Is it really that hard to get everone to agree:

xxx  - special service codes (e.g. Info, Emergency)
xxx xxxx - abbreviated form of 1+ ten digit dialing,
    where the area code (NPA) is the same.

0 xxx xxxx - abbreviated form of 0+ ten digit dialing,
    where the area code (NPA) is the same.

1 xxx xxx xxxx - caller paid, direct dialed call

0 xxx xxx xxxx - alternate billing, direct dialed call

Using the long form should *always* be legal.

Seven digit dialing might require timeouts (or trailing #).

It's really frustrating that I cannot program my cellular phone with
autodial numbers that work anywhere I go.  Some places REQUIRE a
leading 1 for all calls, and some places REQUIRE lack of a leading 1.

Harumph.


John


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your complaint has validity, however I
suspect the people in Pakistan with cellular phones would be quite 
pleased right now if they could dial *anything at all* on their cell
phones. As reported here a few days ago, the citizens of that country
found their cellular service suddenly turned off -- apparently perman-
ently disconnected when the government was unable to monitor their
conversations as it wished. When the carrier there was unable for
technical reasons to provide the level of monitoring desired by 
the government, the government's response was to raid the offices of
the carrier and turn it off completely.  I wonder if they have since
relented and restarted the service or if it is still off.   PAT]

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

From: Greg@quadravision.com (Greg Polimis)
Reply-To: Greg@quadravision.com
Subject: Winsock Problem
Date: 02 Mar 1995 15:44:26 GMT
Organization: Quadravision Communications


I'm having a problem with Winsock. My username is being sent fine but
my password is not accepted. Has anyone ever encountered this problem
before and can they render any assistance? I'd appreciate any help you
can offer. 

Thanks!

Quadravision Communications
931 Yonge Street   Toronto, Ontario  M4W 2H2
voice (416)-960-8400    fax (416)-960-8401

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:47:43 EST
From: telenet!honey!msharma@uunet.uu.net (Mukesh Sharma)
Subject: Wireless Modems


Hi,

I am looking for some information on wireless modems. I am just
starting in wireless area. Text/publication or magazines names is what
I am looking I will appreciate your help


Thanks,

sharma     MUKESH.SHARMA@adn.sprint.com

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

From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: And the Grammy For Poor Planning Goes to ...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:38:27 GMT


During the Grammy awards Wednesday night, AT&T was a heavy sponsor
with their "True Voice" ads, including the first one I'd seen in
Spanish (at least on English-language TV).  Curious to hear the
Spanish-language True Voice demo, I picked up the phone and
dialed ... only to get a recording in Spanish informing me to try my
call again in five minutes, as the demo lines were busy.  When I tried
the English-language lines, same thing.

Seems to me if I were advertising something, especially if I were the
(well, "a") phone company, I'd try harder to have enough lines
available to handle expected caller demand ...


Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com

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

From: jplotky@atlanta.glenayre.com
Subject: Bulk Call Generators
Date: 2 Mar 1995 22:22:57 GMT
Organization: Glenayre Electronics


I'm looking for a large capacity bulk call generator (48 T1 or E1
spans).

I need the equipment to test the call handling capacity of various
equipment.  I am looking to meet the following requirements:

 - generate and accept calls from the system under test;

 - line and register signalling protocols fully programmable on per line 
   basis (e.g. E&M, loop, DTMF, MFR1, MFR2 compelled, etc);

 - ability to do continuity test port to port;

 - generate/detect DTMF tones under program control at any time during 
   the test call.

I would also like to have:

 - detect call progress tones and voice;

 - ISDN

If anyone can point me in the direction of such equipment, my thanks
will be bountiful.


jp

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

From: lsing@hookup.net (Sing Li)
Subject: Rio-1 ACS-CELP Information Wanted
Date: 1 Mar 1995 00:39:00 GMT


Does anyone know where I can obtain some technical information on the
Rio-1 ACS-CELP coder?

Any help (via email or follow-up posting) will be greatly appreciated.


Regards,

Sing Li  microWonders Inc.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 16:10:05 +0000 
From: scott-b.campbell@nt.com
Subject: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted 
Organization: Northern Telecom 


In article <telecom15.118.11@eecs.nwu.edu> , keith.knipschild@asb.com
writes:

> Does anyone know where I can get my hands on the NORTHERN TELECOM 
> "M9516" Telephone?

In Canada, try Anixter.  In Mississauga, their phone number is 905-897-
5665.
The telcos will be picking it up a little later.

The only reviews I know of are in industry mags (like the market 
research 
paper Yankeevision) or on TV (i.e., Gadget Guru, the Today Show).


Scott

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

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 23:32:14 +0000 
From: steve.copeland@nt.com
Subject: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted 
Organization: Bell Northern Research 


keith.knipschild@asb.com wrote:

> Does anyone know where I can get my hands on the NORTHERN TELECOM 
> "M9516" Telephone?

In the U.S., call Call Direct at 1-800-842-7439.  

They can mail you one.


Steve

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

From: tkacik@mathworks.com (Jean Tkacik)
Subject: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted
Date: 2 Mar 1995 15:05:31 GMT
Organization: The MathWorks Inc.


You may want to give TAC CENTRE a call at 617-944-5709. Located in
Reading MA, they are a remarketer of Northern Telecom equipment. Ask
for Stephen, Jeff or Dave.  They should be able to help you or place
you in contact with someone who can. Good luck!!

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

From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs
Date: 2 Mar 1995 11:14:56 -0800
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


I have edited the Bell Atlantic press release a little to keep the
quotes tighter:

Bell>   Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 13:23:21 GMT
Bell>   From: Bell Atlantic <howarth@ba.com>
Bell>   Subject: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs

Bell> On Jan. 11, the FCC refused to allow NYNEX to restructure ISDN 
Bell> subscriber line charges (SLCs) to be more competitive with other 
Bell> carriers.  The SLC is federally mandated and is set annually.  The 
SLC 
Bell> is used to subsidize local telephone network costs, which helps to 
keep 
Bell> basic residential telephone service affordable.  The Commission 
ruled 
Bell> that separate SLCs should be billed for each ISDN channel; ISDN 
lines 
Bell> have up to 24 channels.

Bell> Bell Atlantic said ... customers, but the recent FCC ruling will
increase
Bell> the cost of the service 20 to 30 percent.

Bell> Several other carriers are billing SLCs per ISDN line, not 
channel.  
Bell> SLC amounts vary by jurisdiction, but are currently as high as 
$6.00 
Bell> per line within Bell Atlantic's region.  Bell Atlantic is a world 
Bell> leader in providing ISDN technology with over 91,400 ISDN lines in 
Bell> service.  All common carriers must now comply with the FCC's rule 
Bell> interpretation in the NYNEX case unless they obtain a waiver. 

I find this propaganda piece both strange and outrageous for several
reasons.

(1) The definition of a telephone line must have been discussed before;
    after all, delivery of local loops on T-spans predates the MFJ.
    Surely, you pay the SLC PER CHANNEL on a T-span, no?

(2) Since the SLC goes directly to the LEC, the cost to the customer
    (base subscription plus SLC) should be the same regardless of the
    amount of the SLC, shouldn't it?

    If the monthly amount is $10 per line plus $6 SLC, the customer pays
    $16. If the SLC goes away, the LEC loses the SLC-funded subsidy, so
    they will have to charge $16 per line per month. The difference is
    entirely in the bookkeeping of amortization and depreciation
    allocations.

(3) If the SLC is mandated by FCC, I would think that the amount would
    be standardized across the country. How can it vary with the Bell
    Atlantic Service Area ?

What is going on? Is my point two above completely wrong?


Lars Poulsen   Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
Rockwell Network Systems Phone:        +1-805-562-3158
7402 Hollister Avenue   Telefax:      +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Need Help With Digital Phone Line
Date: 1 Mar 1995 20:59:53 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


sharp@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu wrote:

> I need to build a phone system in my apartment.  I want to come out of 
> the handset jack on the phone with a normal telephone, answering 
machine,  
> and a fax/modem board.

> They tell me their dedicated data lines won't support over 9600 baud.  
> Would a 14.4 or 28.8 modem work over the voice line?  I'm thinking 
there 
> may be some limitation to the A/D D/A converter in the telephone, or 
else 
> they'd be doing that.

> I'm on a university phone system with digital voice and data lines.  
> Instead of a modem, I have to rent an Ericsson MD110 TAU (terminal 
> adapter unit) 2520 "modem."  I'm sure this was great when they bought 
it 
> in '88 but I'm stuck at 9600 baud.

It sounds like this is an ISDN phone system.  If so, then there could
be a way to get another channel of data on the other digital channel,
since there are two 64 KPBPS channels per line and one data, or 16
KBPS channel.

> Because of the digital voice line, I also must use an (as in 1 and 
> only 1) Ericsson telephone and the university voice mail system, which 
> crashes a lot.

> The setup is cool in that I have separate data and voice #'s but I can 
> still control the voice line from my pc.  If I could come up with 
> something that could take advantage of this, that would be great, 
> although I'd prefer to have a standalone unit independant of my pc.

> What's more, I'm in married student housing so I'm due to get updated 
> some time in the next century.



I'm astounded that the university can't make an accommodation for your
needs whether they be modem, FAX, or a second analog voice circuit.
With standard telephone wiring all over the place, it's just a matter
of crossconnecting the pair to some other circuit that goes to a
central office instead of to your PBX.  If this is a matter of money,
that you don't want to pay to have it done, then that is another
matter, and you'll just have to deal with that.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs  
Rancho Santiago Community College District  
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706   
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

From: tea@mcs.com (Tim Allman)
Subject: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act
Date: 1 Mar 1995 09:29:39 -0600


It is not really necessary to pay to avoid a listing.  You can use ANY
name for your listing -- seperate from your billing name.  If you look
up Tom Mato in the phone book, you will find me.  The side effect of
this is that when you get phone calls at dinnertime looking for "Mr.
Mato", you can really have some fun.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lots of people list the phone in their
(imaginary) roomate's name. Of course, that by itself does not get
away from the problem of having your address available when people
use a cross-reference directory and find your 'roomate' name.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 18:17:22 -0500
From: Atri Indiresan <atri@eecs.umich.edu>


I have a friend who simply had the number listed under another name.
So, if the phone rang and the caller asked for Mr. or Mrs. Smith (or
whatever it was), she knew right away that it was a telemarketer.
Worth a try, I think.

A philosophical question: why should a telco charge to keep a number
unlisted? It doesn't seem like it would cost them anything (one more
field in the customer record), and would save them printing a few
pages in the directory.


Atri


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the old days when telco did not charge
for directory assistance, they charged for non-pub listings simply 
because
people could not find the number in the book (obviously) and would waste
the time of the DA operator trying to find it from her. That was the 
reason for the 'added cost of a non-pub phone'. Now that everyone pays
for DA whether you get anything out of them during the conversation or
not, it would seem to be hard to justify charging the subscriber also.  
PAT]

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

From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote)
Subject: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act
Date: 2 Mar 1995 15:01:13 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet


Ron Higgins (rhiggins@carroll1.cc.edu) wrote: 

(privacy act to limit info via Caller ID)

TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you will find the various 
privacy
> regulations apply more to the government than they do to private 
businesses.
> Since telco is a privately owned business -- not a government entity -- 
it
> may be hard to apply this as you want. Also there would be a conflict 
where
> your contract with telco (as expressed through its tariffs) is 
concerned.
> I can see what you are trying to accomplish, but I don't think it will 
work.
> Remember also that according to telco tariffs, you have no 'property 
rights'
> in your telephone number. It is not, strictly speaking, yours to 
'protect'.
> It will be interesting to hear the results of your investigation and 
efforts
> as you proceed further on this, if you do. You should also bear in 
mind that
> you can press *67 all you like, but it will NOT prevent subscribers to 
800
> service (or people who subscribe to 500 service who accept your 
reverse
> charge call via a PIN) from getting your number. Likewise, long 
distance
> carriers are entitled to have your name, address and phone number 
*despite
> your non-pub status* for billing purposes when you use their network.  
PAT]

My comments ...

Pat,
 You are right [as usual ;=) ].  Let us assume for a moment,
that someone had the time, some of the money, and desire to change the
above situation, and create a sutuation where your name, calling (as
opposed to billing) phone number, and ABOVE ALL YOUR *actual* (as
opposed to your billing) ADDRESS, are not going out over the network,
and often to the called party.

 In the opinion of you, and the other readers of this list, is
such a thing 1) possible; and 2) desireable?


Thanks,

Glenn L Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd think it would have to be an 
individual
decision on a case by case basis. The closest we come to that scenario
now is the ability to block Caller-ID as desired, and in actual practice
that ability pretty well preserves your privacy even though it does 
impose
some effort on the part of the caller.   PAT]

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

From: gcw@hh.sbay.org (George Wang)
Subject: Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration"
Date: 2 Mar 1995 09:44:11 -0800
Organization: Hip-Hop BBS  Sunnyvale, California


In <telecom15.116.5@eecs.nwu.edu> Carr-C10973@email.mot.com (Eric A.
Carr) writes:

> In article <telecom15.109.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, rick.edwards@cabin.com 
(Rick
> Edwards) wrote:

> (questions regarding registration deleted for clarity)

> Registration is a process where the mobile radio ("cellular phone")
> registers itself with the system with or without user intervention.
> The process essentially identifies the mobile and/or gives an
> indication as to it's status within the system to the MTSO.

> Registration occurs when a call is originated by the mobile (sending
> "access information"), or without user intervention at initial powerup
> and periodically while the mobile is within the coverage area and
> turned on ("periodic registration" -- some people use the term
> "autonomous registration").  Whether the registration is periodic or
> not, the mobile sends access information.  Amoung other things sent on
> the reverse control channel during registration, the mobile sends MIN,
> ESN, SCM (Station Class Mark).  On a mobile originated call, dialed
> digits are also sent.

> Periodic registration is optional; a flag is set in the overhead
> message on the forward control channel that informs the mobile whether
> or not it needs to perform periodic registration.  Periodic
> registration is further specified as to whether radios in their home
> service area (REGH field in the overhead message) or roamers (REGR
> field in the overhead message) need to perform periodic registration.

> In order to avoid periodic registration attempts by all mobile
> subscribers at once, a certain procedure is used to determine when the
> mobile should perform the process.  Upon powerup, the mobile generates
> an initial random number in it's internal registration register which
> determines it's initial registration attempt.  After the mobile
> performs the initial periodic registration, the registration register
> in the mobile is incremented by a constant value in the overhead
> message ("REGINC" field), sort of like a clock.  Included in the
> overhead message is the field REGID, to which the mobile compares the
> value of it's internal registration register.  When the value of the
> registration register reaches the value of REGID, periodic
> registration occurs.

> Typical periodic registration times vary by systems and is determined
> by software setting of the REGINC field.  I think it's usually around
> 20 - 30 minutes.

The above description is fairly accurate except that the cellular
phone (at least Motorola ones) does not generate a "random" NEXTREG
value. In fact, this "next time to register" value is saved in the
EEPROM.  Also, there is another type of registration which occurs when
the SID (System ID) changes which basically occurs when the phone
changes cellular systems. The transmitted information is the same.

I got this information based on the US analog (TIA-553, NAMPS, etc)
call processing specifications.  The new IS54B digital TDMA ( and
IS54C) standard has a more complex registration mechanism which
involves Location Area IDs (LOCAIDs) and power up and power-down
registration. IS54C supports registration on the Digital Control
Channel as well.


George C. Wang    Email: gcw@hh.sbay.org
Alternate: gwang@mail.ntu.edu
Finger for public encryption key.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 21:24:31 -0500
From: jsteele@insyte.com (John Steele)
Subject: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Planned for the 'Net'


Pat, I read with interest the referenced item. Unfortunately, like a
great deal of proposed legislation, on the face of it sounds inocuous
enough.  However, we have learned over the years that inocuous sound
and intent may not be enough by the time the enforcement guys and the
lawyers get finished with it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that the EFF
and company are overreacting.  But at the same time, we have to
recognize that when it snows, those boys in Washington have been known
to get a bit out of hand on occasion :-)

Although I have no personal conversations with Senators Exon or Gordon
to back this up, it is possible that the INTENT of the words "MAKES,
TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION" is meant to apply
to the INDIVIDUAL initiating the act, NOT to common carriers, etc. The
lack of clarity MAY be a result of poor staff work, not uncommon in
Washington.  (Note carefully the emphasis on INTENT and MAY.)

However, I also know that if this thing were to hit the books, the
original INTENT will be long lost and we will be left with the words
 -- words easily misused by overzealous enforcement, special interest
lawyers, etc., to further their own agendas.

In this age of international communications, it is patent nonsense to
think that short of massive banks of real time censors on all
international circuits, or cutting all international communications,
that this could be enforced. I suspect that Senator's Exon and Gordon
were at lunch when we rediscovered the outside world.

At the same time, I share your views on the loss of the sense of
shame, personal responsibility, etc. It seems that nothing is too
excessive, too disgusting, too degrading for this ENLIGHTENED age of
ours. Unfortunately, calling for a greater emphasis on parental
responsibility to protect children is truly "whistling in the wind" --
it hasn't seemed to work when it comes to drugs, guns, sex, etc. (How
can it when the parents don't seem to have any sense of responsibility
to pass on to the kids.) Although the sociologists and psychologists
would most likely disagree, an enormous number of the problems of our
society would be corrected by some TRUE parenting, the timely parental
application of the word "NO", and an occasional pat on the backside
(no pun intended.)

All of that notwithstanding, I don't think that we can let this thing
get enacted and I plan to write to my Senators to register my
objection.

A final note.  Your commentary included a closing statement "but with
the United States Congress controlled as it is today..."  It should be
noted for the record that the bill is named for and sponsored by
Senator Exon, DEMOCRAT of Nebraska. This little piece of wackiness
might get passed by a Republican controlled congress, but the liberals
among us should take note that this little gem originated on the left
side of the aisle.


John Steele                             jsteele@insyte.com 
information systems technology, inc.
marcus centre - penthouse 20            +1 305.595.4845 
miami, florida 33156-2660               +1 305.595.4983 

 
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it could be written exactly as
they meant it and they might mean it exactly as it is written. The
fact is, it would *never* be applied to the large carriers in any
event. I mean, try and picture this scenario: Two or three top 
executives
at AT&T standing in court with their attorney, and a stern judge 
sentencing them all to time in prison for 'transmitting pornography
on their network'. This of course would be after the Federal Bureau
of Inquisition had raided all AT&T offices and seized all their
computers, etc.  Sounds very likely, doesn't it ... <g> ... if you
wish, substitute Sprint, MCI, Compuserve, or America OnLine in the
above. 

But you say, "My name is John Steele, and I run a small company in
south Florida which provides Internet access and Unix facilties to
my (pick a figure) number of customers."   Oh! Well in that case
you must be providing a service for child pornograhers, hackers and
assorted other thieves and con artists. You know what your trouble
is John? You don't have an attorney who has good friends working
for the government; the kind who makes lewd noises when he smacks
his lips and sits at the bar drinking with the judge and the
prosecutors while cases are settled in conference and outside the
courtroom.  Therefore, the law *will* apply to you, thank you. The
big boys can whine about their 'policies and proceedures' and how 
the computer will let them do one thing and won't let them do
another and everyone will sit agog and in awe taking it all in. That
won't work for you, John. You knew or should have known what 'they'
were doing. 

And as you point out, the federal government has a way of stretching
and distorting the meaning of all kinds of things. I'm still having
real problems with this whole thing for myself. In the many years I
have listened to the ACLU and their arguments and the few years I
I have listened to the EFF present their views, I've have never once
been in agreement. Thousands of ACLU cases; I can tell you what I
find wrong with their position in every one of them. Long time
readers will recall a source of derision here in this Digest are
what I term the Socially Responsible Computerists, based on the
group whose name includes those words, as in "I am glad I am
not Socially Responsible, nor would I want to be". But anymore, I
just don't know ... as Brad Hicks said in an issue of the Digest
earlier Thursday, it would nice if the lynch mob could be a little
more honest about their intentions. It would also be nice if Exon
and Company would rewrite that proposal eliminating any ambiquities
or questions. 

You are also correct that for the most part it is useless to demand
that parents require accountability and/or personal responsibility
of their children. After all, what would they (the parents) know
about it?  Now that we are into the third generation after Doctor
Benjamin Spock, the old ways have been forgotten by most people, if
they ever experienced them at all. They simply raise their children 
the way they were raised; they don't know any different.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #129
******************************

                              
