TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Jun 94 10:54:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 303

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    New Dialing Plan in New York (Dave Niebuhr)
    Ameritech Playing Games? (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Caller ID and the FCC Ruling (Monty Solomon)
    Caller ID; the Argument Continues (John R. Levine)
    Calling Number ID For Cellular Users (Lynne Gregg)
    Cross-Country Caller ID (James Taranto)
    SOS For Online Telecom Consultants (tym%infoage%sdnpk@sdnhq.undp.org)
    Norstar Phone System for Sale (Brian Wicks)
    DECT Standards (Shree N. Murthy)
    ANSI and Bellcore Telecom Specs Wanted (Donald V. Johnson)
    KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? (John Refling)
    Telex Information - Good Sources Wanted (Matthew B. Campbell)
    IEEE Infocom '95 Announcement (Brian McKeever)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: New Dialing Plan in New York
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 09:28:10 EDT


My latest NYNEX (NYTel land) bill insert has instructions on how to
dial until September 24, 1994, when the cutover to 1+ dialing will
become mandatory.

This is what is given for the Metropolitan New York LATA which is
defined as New York City (ACs 212, 718, 917), Long Island (Nassau and
Suffolk Counties - AC 516), Upstate NY (Rockland, Westchester, Putnam,
Counties, and Greenwood Lake, Highland Falls and Tuxedo in Orange
County).  No mention of the tiny portion of Connecticut (AC 203) that
is served by NYTel and is in the NY LATA.

Current Dialing:
  Calls to Other Area Codes:
    AC + 7D or 1+ AC + 7D
  Calls Within Area Code:
    7D

New Dialing:
  Calls to Other Area Codes:
    1+ AC + 7D
  Calls Within Area Code:
    7D (no change)

Credit Card and Operator-Assisted Calls
(within your area code)

Current Dialing:
  0 + 7D
New Dialing:
  0 + AC + 7D

I'm making the assumption that the rest of NY will change in this
manner; however, I don't know about Rochester Tel, Fisher's Island Tel
and any other independents that are in the state.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred)
                            niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  1+(516) 282-3093
                                          FAX   1+(516) 282-7688

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 19:50:54 CDT
From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Ameritech Playing Games?


AT&T's advertising in the Chicago area, saying that for a limited time
tye would carry "C" and "D" band calls cheaper than Ameritech, has
been talked about before in this newsgroup.  I decided just now to try
it for the first time.

I dialed 10288 708 974 ...

 ... and an intercept told me, "When dialing a call outside your area
code or an 800 number, dial 1 first. ..."

Naturally, I tried 10288 1 708 974 ... got the same results.

Ameritech's switch is grabbing my call! Well, let me try 1 800 222 0300 
next ...

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

From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Caller ID and the FCC Ruling
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:27:12 -0400


Excerpts from EPIC Alert 1.03

 [3] FCC Caller ID Decision Appealed

Several state utility commissions, including New York's and
California's, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to
reconsider its controversial Caller ID decision. The petitions ask the
FCC to reverse its decision mandating per-call blocking for interstate
calls and its preemption of state regulations. The commissions are
concerned that the federal regulation will limit consumer privacy
protection for intra-state calls.

It is uncertain if the FCC will take the unusual action of accepting
the petitions. Since the Caller ID decision was released in April, two
new commissioners have joined the FCC. A total of 48 parties,
including telephone companies who are concerned about which party is
charged the cost of transmitting the information, have filed petitions
asking the FCC to reconsider its decision.

Per-call blocking, which is favored by  telephone companies, requires
that a caller to enter a series of numbers into their telephone before
each call to prevent their number from being distributed. Under
per-line blocking, privacy blocking is the default and the caller may
opt to release their number.

The New York Public Utility Commission's petition notes that "there is
no technological bar to enabling each state to designate per line or
per call blocking and have that privacy notation affixed to that
caller's phone calls both intra and interstate." The PUC calls on the
FCC, which did not hold a single hearing on Caller ID, to review the
decisions of the many states that did hold hearings.

Professor Rohan Samarajiva of Ohio State University, who also filed
for reconsideration, found that 46 states held hearings on Caller ID
before the FCC issued their final decision. He found that as
information became more available on Caller ID, the state utility
commissioners increasingly required that per-line blocking be offered
in addition to per-call.  By 1994, 33 jurisdictions developed rules
with stronger privacy protection than the FCC decision. 18 states
require per-line blocking be offered to all consumers, including
Pennsylvania, Ohio, California and New York.

CPSR has also filed a petition asking the FCC to revise its decision.
CPSR calls for free per-line blocking and note the additional burden
of per call blocking will cost consumers who have unlisted telephone
numbers $1.2 billion each year through the disclosure of unlisted
numbers.  They describe the FCCUs suggestion that consumers who wish
to ensure that their numbers remain private purchase equipment as
unreliable and discriminatory.

In addition, the California PUC has filed suit in the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, asking the court to overturn the ruling and prevent
its implementation.

The FCC decision on Caller ID and the CPSR Petition for
Reconsideration are available from cpsr.org. See below for details.

 [4]  NY PUC Letter to FCC on Caller ID

The following is a letter set by New York State Public Utility
Committee Chairman Peter Bradford to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt on the
FCC's Caller ID decision. For more information, contact Stacey Harwood
at 518-473-0276.

                       STATE OF NEW YORK
                    PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                          ALBANY 12223

PETER A. BRADFORD                             THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA
   CHAIRMAN                                         (518)474-2530

                           June 1, 1994

 Reed Hundt,  Chairman 
 Federal Communications Commission 
 1919 M Street, N.W. 
 Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Hundt:

 I am writing to express My concern about the Federal Communications
Commission's recent decision (Docket #91-281) limiting the range of
privacy protections available to telephone callers in connection with
Call ID service. The potential preemptive features of this decision
undermine sensible allocation of responsibility between state and
federal jurisdictions, namely that the federal government preempt only
where issues of overriding national concern are clearly at stake and
then only after strong proof that no alternative approach will protect
the national concerns.

 All of these essential elements (clear national concern, strong
proof, and the absence of other alternatives) are lacking here.
Instead, the casual reasoning and the destructive remedy mock stated
Clinton Administration eagerness to work with the states to assure
that telecommunications decisions are sensitive to important consumer
issues.

 The FCC's decision appears to ignore the states' considerable
experience with Call ID. Prior to its authorization of Call ID, the
New York Public Service Commission (like many other states) conducted
extensive customer outreach and education programs to determine how
best to balance the privacy interests of the calling and called
parties. many witnesses, including psychiatrists, social workers,
police, other public safety officials, as well as family violence
crisis centers, saw danger and/or nuisance in Call ID without the
option of per line blocking.

 These hearings established that privacy protection consisting only of
per call blocking represents the worst of all worlds. The harassing
caller is unlikely to forget to use per call blocking. It is the
customer who does not realize the implications of the availability of
Call ID to commercial number gatherers (or others who may abuse it)
who is likely to make his or her telephone number inadvertently
available. As a result, we concluded that in New York callers should
have the option of both per call and per line blocking. Since Call ID
service was approved with these options two years ago, no complaints
have been received from either Call ID subscribers or callers on the
issue of blocking. Furthermore, the market for Call ID does not seem
to be hurt by the availability of per line blocking, for subscription
rates are at least as high in states with per line blocking as
elsewhere.

 Nevertheless, the FCC decision contemplates preemption of state
requirements inconsistent with a federal per-call-blocking- only
regime. Since per line blocking only for intrastate calls does not
seem feasible, New York's standard (and those of some 40 other states)
will be preempted. Protracted litigation over the FCC decision is
certain and may impede the introduction of interstate Call ID service.
Several states, including New York are seeking reconsideration of the
FCC decision and California has challenged the FCC order in court.
Customer confusion and disappointment with limitations on privacy
options will spawn a host of complaints.

 Furthermore, it will be hard for state regulators, to justify the
current surcharge for unpublished listings while telephone companies
market a service that compromises the value of those listings. I have
enclosed a recent New York notice raising this concern for parties in
two major cases. Telephone companies are not likely to go forward with
Call ID if they must forego tens of millions of dollars per year in
charges for unpublished numbers.

 I hope that the FCC will think again about the impact of this
decision. It is likely to damage the prospects for Call ID, and it is
certain to damage federal-state relations in the communications area
at a time when much depends on our mutual trust and cooperation.

                                            Sincerely,
                                            /sig
                                            Peter Bradford


 [6] Files Available for retrieval

The CPSR Internet Library is a free service available via
FTP/WAIS/Gopher/listserv from cpsr.org:/cpsr. Materials from Privacy
International, the Taxpayers Assets Project and the Cypherpunks are
also archived. For more information, contact ftp-admin@cpsr.org.

Files on Caller ID: /privacy/communications/caller_id/
The FCC decision -  fcc_caller_id_decision_94.txt.
CPSR Petition for Reconsideration - CPSR_RFR_on_FCC_Caller-ID_Order.txt
 

To subscribe to the EPIC Alert, send the message:
SUBSCRIBE CPSR-ANNOUNCE Firstname Lastname

to listserv@cpsr.org. You may also receive the Alert by reading the
USENET newsgroup comp.org.cpsr.announce

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

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest
research center in Washington, DC.  It was established in 1994 to
focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the
National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the
Digital Telephony proposal, medical record privacy, and the sale of
consumer data.  EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional
Government and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. EPIC
publishes the EPIC Alert and EPIC Reports, pursues Freedom of
Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research on emerging
privacy issues. For more information email info@epic.org, or write
EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1
202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax).
 
The Fund for Constitutional Government is a non-profit organization
established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and constitutional
rights. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a national
membership organization of people concerned about the impact of
technology on society. For information contact: cpsr-info@cpsr.org

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

From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Caller ID; The Argument Continues
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 9:34:12 EDT


The New York Public Utility Committee Chairman Peter Bradford sent a
letter dated June 1 to Reed Hunt at the FCC challenging the CLID
decision.  Major points:

* Many states have had hearings on CLID, the FCC didn't, and the FCC
didn't appear to take into account the states' experience with it.
Claims that nobody will buy CLID if line blocking is available are
not borne out by experience, subscription rates are similar in states
with and without.

* If unlisted subscribers can't get line blocking, state regulators
are likely to reduce or eliminate the charge for an unlisted number,
since the privacy it provides will have been considerably reduced.

This last one could be interesting, since the amount of money telcos
are likely to make from CLID is dwarfed by what they make from unlisted 
numbers.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com

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

From: Lynne Gregg <lynne.gregg@mccaw.com>
Subject: Calling Number ID for Cellular Users
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 02:07:00 PDT


johng@ecs.comm.mot.com wrote:

> Caller ID service is among several services that have been available
> to analog subscribers on narrow band AMPS (NAMPS) systems since 1991.
> See the April 1991 issue of {Communications} magazine for more on NAMPS.

Not so!  Cellular services based on NAMPS do not deliver CPN.  They
rely upon the caller's willingness and inclination to key in their
telephone number.  These services can be a hassle for callers.


Regards,

Lynne

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

From: taranto@panix.com (James Taranto)
Subject: Cross-Country Caller ID
Date: 30 Jun 1994 01:04:26 GMT
Organization: The Bad Taranto


At 8:20 this evening, my phone in Brooklyn rang.  I glanced at my
Caller ID device and saw the number was unfamiliar, so I prepared
myself for a surprise.  I picked up the phone, and was indeed
surprised -- it was my friend Rich from California.  I looked more
carefully at the Caller ID readout: 310-843-XXXX.  It seems at least
some numbers are being transmitted across LATA boundaries via Caller
ID.

I experimented a bit, calling through various long-distance carriers
to my voice line.  Sprint, MCI, AT&T, and ITT did not pass Caller ID
data, even on an intra-LATA (intra-room, for that matter) call.  I
found one company that does, however.  "Wiltel" (I don't know the
spelling), whose access code is 10555.


Cheers,

James Taranto  taranto@panix.com

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

From: tym%infoage%sdnpk@sdnhq.undp.org
Date: 30 Jun 94 04:25:15 
Subject: SOS For Online Telecom Consultants


Dear Mr. Townson,

My organization is attempting to introduce advanced telecom facilities
in Pakistan for the first time.

We desperately require online consultants to assist in ushering the
Information Age into our country.

You are requested to post this message onto the appropriate BBS/s
because we have very limited connectivity for the time being.


Thank you,

Tayyab Yazdani.
CEO, INFOAGE
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
FAX:92-51-212796
EMAIL:TYM%INFOAGE%SDNPK%SDNHQ@NYGATE.UNDP.ORG

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

From: bwgti16v@telerama.lm.com (Brian Wicks)
Subject: Norstar Phone System for Sale
Date: 29 Jun 1994 11:47:15 -0400
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA


For Sale: Bell Atlantic Meridian Phone System Includes: 1 Norstar DR5
6 Line CPU/Software Unit 3 Black M7208 Programmable Multi-line Phones
This is a full featured, user programmable, expandable phone system.
It would be perfect for any small business or startup.  Purchased new
for $2660 4-19-94. Asking $1495.

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

From: shree@maple.cse.ucsc.edu (Shree N. Murthy)
Subject: DECT Standards
Date: 29 Jun 1994 15:52:10 GMT
Organization: UC Santa Cruz CIS/CE


I am looking for an on-line source for the DECT standards put out by
the European Telecomm Standards Institute (ETSI).  Any information on
an FTP site or CD-ROM vendor for these would be very much appreciated.


Thank you,

Timothy A. Gonsalves, Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Madras - 600 036, India
     (91) (44) 235-1365 x 3512          E-mail: tag@iitm.ernet.in
FAX: (91) (44) 235-2120

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

From: c32dvj@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Donald V Johnson)
Subject: ANSI and Bellcore Telecom Specs Wanted
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:51:06 GMT

A friend of mine -- his name is Dave -- is looking for on line
documentation for ANSI and Bellcore telecom specs. If anyone knows of
any sites with such documentation please email him at:

scheer@lts.sel.alcatel.de

You may also e-mail to me and I will forward to him, but direct is
obviously preferred. Since I do not regurlarly read this newsgroup, I
will not see any followup postings, so please e-mail.


Thank you,

Donald V. Johnson
Delco Electronics Corp.
c32dvj@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
The REAL Don Johnson (not some actor who stole my name!)

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

From: jrefling@rosslare.ece.uci.edu (John Refling)
Subject: KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How?
Date: 29 Jun 1994 23:22:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine


Here's the situation:

+-----+              +---------+               +-----------+
|  PC | - phone----> | UNIX BOX| -- INTERNET-->| UNIX BOX  |
+-----+              +---------+               +-----------+

Now, after you dial the first unix box over the phone and are logged
in, you telnet to the second unix box.  On the second unix box, you
start kermit to server mode.  Then you escape back to the pc and try
to transfer files and the whole thing dies.

I can sort of see why things won't work -- maybe the boxes get
confused over where thier input is coming from ... then again it's not
a problem normally.

Is there a way to get this to work?

Thanks in advance.

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

From: mcampbe8@mason1.gmu.edu (Matthew B Campbell)
Subject: Telex Information - Good Sources Wanted
Date: 30 Jun 1994 13:08:39 GMT
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA


Hello,

I am working on a project that involves controlling Telex lines within
a larger network control system.  I know a little about Telex, but I
really need to know what to listen for on each side ("marks", and
"spaces", etc.), what these things look like psysically (80v burst =
"mark"?), and possibly information on what type of devices would be
ideal for listening to the Telex channels, as well as controlling the
"make or break" for each call.

Any help, or references would be great!


Matt Campbell   Senior Engineer
Synergistic Technologies, Inc.

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

From: mckeever@vax2.cstp.umkc.edu (Brian McKeever)
Subject: IEEE Infocom '95 Announcement
Date: 29 Jun 1994 15:17:20 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City, CSTP
Reply-To: mckeever@vax2.cstp.umkc.edu


    IEEE INFOCOM'95
    The Conference on Computer Communications
 
                Bringing Information to People
            April 2-6, 1995     Boston, MASS., USA
 
                      CALL FOR PAPERS
 
          Fourteenth Annual Joint Conference of the
         IEEE Computer and Communications Societies
 
  Sponsored by the Computer Communications Technical Committees of the
  Societies.
 
    Authors are invited to submit full papers on recent advances in computer
    communications. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
 
    Gigabit Networks                 Congestion Control
    Internetworking (LAN/WAN)        Switch Architectures
    ATM                              Wireless Networks
    Video Communications             Protocols for High-Speed Networks
    Personal Communication Systems   Network Management
    Protocol Design and Analysis     Distributed Network Algorithms
    Network Design and Planning      Computer Security and Privacy
    Photonic Switching               Lightwave Networks
    Broadband ISDN                   Network Reliability
    Routing and Flow Control         Multimedia Protocols
    Scheduling                       Testbeds and Measurements
    Network Standards                Multimedia Terminals and Systems
    Traffic Management               Multiple Access
    Signaling and Control            Network Restoration
 
                                 SCHEDULE
 
    Full Paper (6 Copies, Double Sided Preferred) - August 1, 1994
              Notification of Acceptance - November 1, 1994
                    Camera Ready Copy - January 13, 1995
                      Conference - April 4-6, 1995
                       Tutorials - April 2-3, 1995

General Chair: Jeffary M. Jaffe
Technical Chairs: Aurel Lazar and Khosrow Sohraby
 
Submit six double-spaced, double sided copies of the manuscript to:
Prof. Khosrow Sohraby, Technical Program Co-Chair, IEEE INFOCOM '95
CSTP, University of Missouri-Kansas City
5100 Rockhill Rd., Kansas City, MO 64110
Email: infocom@cstp.umkc.edu,  Telephone: (816) 235-2361
Fax: (816) 235-5159 (FAXED SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED)
 
            PLEASE INCLUDE KEYWORDS AT THE END OF THE ABSTRACT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #303
******************************

