TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Feb 95 19:54:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 117

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Cell One/NY STOPS Billing Incompletes (Doug Reuben)
    Wireless Telephone Seminar (aleksndr@aol.com)
    Canadian Carrier Fonorola Gets TelRoute's Customers (Dave Leibold)
    BCE Involvement in Satellite Phone Services (Dave Leibold)
    Shiva LanRover/E Problem (Richard Bradley)
    V.35 Interface (Steve Bunning)
    Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Jeremy Schertzinger)
    Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Darryl Kipps)
    Re: March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Requesting Information About SDH (Bill Brasuell)
    Anon Servers, Child Porn and Scientologists (Clive D.W. Feather)
    Information on O. J. Simpson Case (Carl Moore)

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: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Cell One/NY STOPS Billing Incompletes
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:38:29 EST


In response to my constant whining (yeah, right...:) ), it seems that
Cell One/NY has stopped billing for incomplete calls over 40 seconds.

This is a VERY positive move, as it now makes CO/NY competitive in
almost every way with NYNEX/NY, if not unquestionably superior in
terms of coverage, automatic call delivery, and customer service.

Cell One/NY used to asses an airtime charge for any incomplete call
over 40 seconds. I've never been a big fan of such policies,
especially since they will result in charges when you try to hear a
referral for a changed number (e.g, "The number you have reached, 5 5
5 1 2 1 2, has been changed. The new number is..." etc.). If you
wanted to hear the new number a second time, which is a good idea
especially when calling from a carphone with all the distractions,
then you would go over the 40 second limit, and were assessed an
airtime charge.

One of the few reasons I use BAMS's B-side service (NYNEX in NYC) is
because they did not charge for incompletes, and there were cases in
which this saved some money.

In addition, CO/NY reiterated that they have eliminated daily roam
charges for roaming anywhere in the US or Canada (credit for which, I
will admit, must go to NYNEX since they instituted this policy first,
regardless of whether such an offering was was "planned" by CO/NY or
not). They also noted that monthly service charges will now be billed
AFTER the month is over, not before.

Overall, very good news indeed, and as a result I know that when I am
in NY I'll be using the A side a bit more often now that I don't have
to worry about incomplete calls!


Doug Reuben  *  dreuben@interpage.net   *  (500) 442-4CID / (203) 499 - 
5221
Interpage Network Services -- E-Mail/Telnet to Alpha or Numeric Pagers & 
Fax

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

From: aleksndr@aol.com (Aleksndr)
Subject: Wireless Telephone Seminar
Date: 21 Feb 1995 22:45:47 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: aleksndr@aol.com (Aleksndr)


Wireless Business Telephone Systems Seminar

An in-depth, educational seminar for telecommunications professionals
who need to understand the applications, benefits and limitations of
On-premises PCS, Wireless PBXs and In-Building Cellular systems.

1995 will witness the most fundamental change in business
communications since the introduction of the electromechanical
telephone system. Nearly every provider of PBX, Centrex, Key system,
Cellular and PCS systems and services is expected to offer a wireless
telephone system to address business user need for on-premises
wireless communications.

Incorporating In-Building Cellular, Unlicensed PCS and Wireless PBX,
these new wireless telephone systems will usher in the era of Personal
Communications Services and mark the end of traditional, fixed location, 
desktop telephone systems used by every business in the U.S.

The Wireless Business Telephone Systems 9195 seminar has been designed
to help both vendors and users make the right business decisions about
these new wireless telephone systems.  The two day Wireless Business
Telephone Systems 9195 seminars will be taught by Jerry Kaufman,
President of Alexander Resources. Mr. Kaufman is an internationally
recognized expert on wireless communications and the foremost
authority on wireless telephone systems. Alexander Resources is a
management and market research consulting firm specializing in
telecommunications.

Name of Seminar: Wireless Business Telephone Systems 9195

Seminar locations: Anaheim, Atlanta, Bellevue, Boca Raton, Boston, 
Chicago, 
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City,
Minneapolis, Orlando, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San 
Francisco, 
Scottsdale, St. Louis, Vancouver and Washington, D.C.

Dates: February through August 1995
Presented by: Alexander Resources
Telephone: 800-948-8225
Fax: 602-948-1081
Contact: Carole Kaufman

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

From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold)
Date: 21 Feb 95 22:00:32 -0500
Subject: Canadian Carrier Fonorola Gets TelRoute's Customers


[from Bell News (Bell Canada), 20 Feb 95]

Fonorola scoops up TelRoute's customers.

TelRoute Communications, the alternative LD carrier with a bad
attitude toward Bell (it owed us $3.5 million at the time it filed
under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act on January 13 for protection
from us and other creditors), has signed over its 30,000 customer base
and switches to Fonorola, the Montreal-based LD reseller.

Fonorola did not pay a specific price; it will pay royalties based on
earnings derived from the customer base for the next 36 months.

Bell has converted TelRoute's customer base to Fonorola's network as
called for in the agreement approved by the Ontario Court on February
8.

In January, Fonorola acquired certain assets of Northquest Ventures,
including the customer base of LD reseller ITN Ltd. and other 
subsidiaries.


Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730
Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org

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

From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold)
Date: 21 Feb 95 22:01:14 -0500
Subject: BCE Involvement in Satellite Phone Services


[from Bell News (Bell Canada), 20 Feb 95]

BCE already a winner in satellite race.

BCE holds a stake in two of the three rival consortiums which won
licences from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to launch new
satellite systems that will offer worldwide, wireless phone services.

The three winners are: Motorola Satellite Communications Inc.,
Loral/Qualcomm L.P. of New York and San Diego, and TRW Inc. of
Cleveland.

Teleglobe, owned 24.4 per cent by BCE, is a partner in TRW's Odyssey
satellite program, and BCE Mobile Communications, owned 65 per cent
by BCE, is a partner in Motorola's Iridium satellite program.

The three consortiums each plan to spend several billion dollars to
launch large constellations of small satellites into low and medium
Earth orbit, hence the terms LEO and MEO.

LEO systems, like Iridium, will comprise a string of more than five
dozen satellites hovering 800 kilometres above Earth. MEO systems,
like Odyssey, will ring the planet with only 12 satellites, but at an
altitude of 10,000 kilometres.

Conventional communications satellites, much larger and costlier,
orbit 37,000 kilometres above the equator.


Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730
Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org

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

From: AirRich@ix.netcom.com (Richard Bradley)
Subject: Shiva LanRover/E Problem
Date: 23 Feb 1995 20:16:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I am having a problem with getting a Shiva LanRover /E to get a Dell
Latitude to accept dial-out. It has worked on every other computer at
my site but this one. If anyone has any expertise with this equipment
I would really appreicate their input.


Thanks in advance,

AirRich

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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:12:10 EST
From: Steve Bunning <sbunning@DGS.dgsys.com>
Subject: V.35 Interface


While reading the CCITT (ITU) Recommendation V.35, I began wondering
how this standard for a 48,000 Kbps Wideband Modem using 60-108 kHz
Group Band Circuits became the high speed equivilent of RS-232.

The V.35 standard does not mention the large 34-pin block connector
commonly used.  The signals in the standard are ground, TxD, RxD, RTS,
Ready for sending (CTS), DSR, RLSD, Tx Clock and Rx Clock.

DTR, RI, Terminal Timing, Local Loopback, Test Mode, Remote Loopback,
and Test Pattern are not included as part of the standard, but often
seen in vendor documentation for V.35.

Does anyone know how V.35 evolved from a modem standard to a de facto
physical interface standard?

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

From: jeremyps@eskimo.com (Jeremy Schertzinger)
Subject: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 19:10:16 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Mountain Dew?  Mountain Dew???  Do you
> remember that obnoxious commercial on television a few years ago where
> the ignorant hillbilly stands up and shouts, "Yah hoo!!!  Moun-tain 
Dew!"
> I can't believe anyone would be addicted to that.  Really?    PAT]

Yes, Mountain Dew, er, Diet Mountain Dew.  btw, it has ~54 milligrams
of caffeine per 12 oz. can.  This lady was downing 16 oz. bottles
regularly.  (I'd say a case per day :)

I don't like the stuff, myself, I'll stick to espresso coffee.  btw,
don't you think Mountain Dew looks like urine?  :-)


Jeremy Schertzinger                          
http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/
            jeremyps@eskimo.com               jeremys@scn.org
    Seattle Community Network Teens Moderator  telnet: scn.org  "go 
teens"
Shorecrest High School Webmaster  
http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/shorecrest/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Complaint: Come on! Did you *have* to add that
final comment?  Maybe there should be a newsgroup devoted to addicts of
Mountain Dew and Diet Mountain Dew. 'alt.people.who.drink.things.that.
resemble.urine'. They could do all their postings via anon.penet.fi so
that their shame would not have to be known publicly. Maybe there could
be some sort of 12 Step program to help them get over their addiction.  
PAT]

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

Date: 21 Feb 95 00:43:23 EST
From: Darryl Kipps <72623.456@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID


In V15 #107 Pat comments:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Mountain Dew?  Mountain Dew???  Do you
> remember that obnoxious commercial on television a few years ago where
> the ignorant hillbilly stands up and shouts, "Yah hoo!!!  Moun-tain 
Dew!"
> I can't believe anyone would be addicted to that.  Really?    PAT]

   Believe it.  Mountain Dew has the highest caffiene content of any
carbonated beverage on the market, except Jolt.  And since there are
no cola beans (where caffiene naturally occurs) used, it is all added.
But, wrong forum.  (Interesting to watch these threads ravel, isn't
it?)

   BTW, don't feel bad about the smoking, we all gotta go sometime,
may as well be happy.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well its only the wrong forum because the
Mountain Dew addicts have not yet presented their Call For Discussion 
and
Call For Voting on Usenet yet. When they do, they'll get their own 
group.
Regards smoking, my rationale is if I were to quit today, and then 
twenty
years from now die from lung cancer anyway, I'd be mad as hell about it
and feel that I got cheated; better not take any chances. :)  I started
smoking when I was 13 years old because a one of my teachers in school
smoked. I'd see that package of cigarettes in his shirt pocket and watch
him smoking -- not in school of course, but when we went on field trips 
or when I went to his home to see him (I was always a teacher's pet, all
through elementary and high school) -- and it occurred to me it must be
the thing to do. After all, Arthur Erickson was very sophisticated and
intelligent, and I wanted to be sophisticated and intelligent also. He
taught the current events class (in those days many high schools named
the course 'Modern Problems'), was the Debate Team Coach, played the
piano and organ marvelously, had some great, and sometimes very unkind
remarks about President Eisenhower, and subscriptions to {Atlantic
Monthly}, {Harper's Magazine} and the {Christian Science Monitor}. He
smoked a pack or more daily, and it didn't seem to hurt him any. Now,
forty years later I do it out of habit. I can't imagine *not* being
addicted. Unlike some smokers, or the tobacco companies, I don't make
any pretense of it being a 'choice', yet on the other hand, I don't
really want to quit.  PAT]   

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

From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: Re: March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC
Date: 20 Feb 1995 22:37:22 -0500
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


Pat, you raise valid questions.  I appreciate the opportunity to
reply.

producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer) wrote:

> March 7 at Bellcore in Washington DC, 2101 L St. NW, 
> 6th floor. 

> Ad Hoc State Department group on Numbering Issues. 

> Starts at 9 am.  

> Anyone can attend.

> All 800 number users are urged to attend, and be vocal! 

> Protect your 800 numbers!  International Freephone is on the agenda.
> Keep an ear/eye open for 888 as well -

> If *your* business were 1 800 FLOWERS, would you want 011 800
> FLOWERS (proposed International Freephone) and 1 888 FLOWERS (proposed
> new add-on toll-free exchange) alienating and confusing *your*
> customers, and running up your telecom bills with wrong calls that
> generate no sales?  Protect your advertising and branding investments
> in your 800 numbers.  Protect your brands and trademarks.

> Protect your business interests.  If you don't, no one will. 

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only thing is, the telephone-using 
> *public* has to be to some extent responsible for knowing what and 
where 
> they are dialing.

Actually, the public has the *legal right* to be protected, that they


are calling who they think they're calling.

That is the function of trademarks - to protect the consumer.  

Beyond which, these are now corporate-owned products, services 
and brands - not "phone numbers."  

That's why MCI trademarked 1 800 COLLECT and 1 800 CALL INFO.  

While certainly still a gray area, 800 portability, local portability
issues, 500 "your's for life" numbers and the recent FCC "wish list"
musing to auction 800 vanities, all point toward the trend in user
proprietary rights, and away from telco control.

Telco's complete the calls and bill for that service, but it is
monopolistic, anti-competitive and anti-business to attempt to control
the brands, media and products -- except of course, their own, as in
the MCI illustration above.

> {Chicago Tribune} columnist Mike Royko has complained several times
> in the past about how his internal centrex number at the newspaper is
> the same as a very commonly used number by AT&T for customer service,
> minus the 1-800 on the front. Idiots galore trying to complain to AT&T
> about something or other -- after all these years -- still do not
> understand they must dial 1-800 first, so if they are in area 312 they
> get his private unlisted centrex number instead. And you know what he
> wants? He wants AT&T to change *their number* -- so that *he* won't
> get their calls. How do you accomodate idiots and fools short of
> stopping the world and letting everyone get off?

This is not an applicable scenario.  Mr. Royko's internal centrex
number is not infringing on any trademark.  And while I'm sure it's
quite annoying to him, since his is not an 800 number, he is not stuck
with charges for misdialed calls to AT&T's 800 number.

However, both 011 800 COLLECT and 1 888 COLLECT would likely be used,
or attempted to be used (or leveraged) as advertised toll-free numbers, 
specifically to capitalize on the brand equity and recognition that
MCI has vested in the COLLECT brand.

And, the businesss that inadvertently have similarly spelled or numbered 
888 numbers would incur huge misdial bills.  Large corporate users could 
absorb this loss.  Given the popularity of this number, most smaller
businesses could not.

> Do you propose that when the 800 number supply is exhausted we just
> quit having any more?

Given the real estate, media and brand value in 800 numbers, as clearly 
lead by the carriers themselves (800 COLLECT, 800 PICK ATT, 800 THE
MOST, etc.), I propose (among many other viable proposals I've seen),
that:

(a) 800 numbers be used only for commercial business purposes, with
another toll-free XXX assigned for residential use with no brand
ramifications;

(b) that beepers and other products be similarly removed to again
another toll-free XXX, with no brand interest.

These two moves could significantly replenish the supply rather
quickly, and should be considered by all interested parties.

I'll also go out on a limb here and say that the impression of an 800
shortage is *quite* exacerbated by the carriers' grossly inefficient
method of allocating toll-free numbers, and their practice of hoarding
800 numbers.

> Do you propose that international commerce and trade be handicapped
> by having no uniform way to dial around the world with the charges
> reversed to the called party automatically?

Absolutely not.  Without repeating the entire international freephone 
thread 
that's run thru TELECOM Digest, we've seen many worthy alternatives 
suggested
that would fill this need -- without compromising U.S. brands owned by
U.S. companies, *or* European brands owned by European companies.

These alternatives would provide better protection for consumers'
interests as well.

> You use FLOWERS as an example, and apparently would restrict the use
> of 356-9377 where any other 'toll-free' numbering scheme is concerned
> because the Americans got it first and want to protect their brand
> name. That is all well and good, but 1-800-FLOWERS is not the same as
> 011-800-FLOWERS or 1-888-FLOWERS.

 From a trademark standpoint, our legal experts say it is potentially
indeed the same.

As a practical matter, a 1 800 FLOWERS competitor using 011 800 FLOWERS 
domestically as well as internationally would cause grievous damage to
1 800 FLOWERS.  Imagine how much more adversely this would affect
smaller businesses.

> Needless to say, its not the same as any local area code plus
> 356-9377, and yet day after day that number gets calls for FLOWERS by
> people who forgot the 1-800.

Those callers have not been mislead by false advertising that they are
calling 1 800 FLOWERS.  Nor is the user of 356-9377 getting billed for
those misdials.

> There is a practical limit to how much can be done to idiot-proof
> the phone network.

We are all for exploring the practical limits.  But as long as "phone
numbers" are treated only as mechanical conduits, no realistic market
driven exploration can take place.

The brand, product, and media realities need to be addressed.

This can only happen when users (both end users and services industry
users), as well as brand, marketing, advertising, trademark and other
experts are actively involved in the standards processes.

> Well that would put us right back where we are now, with an
> increasingly limited supply of available numbers.

As I've noted above, we are *told* that the supply is dwindling.  That
does not make it so, nor necessary.

> Or are you suggesting that only the 'big' 800 users get that
> protection, and the rest of us with 800 numbers can live with the
> nuisance that the corporate clients you represent don't wish to
> tolerate, i.e.  'customer confusion' and having to pay for calls which
> generated no business, etc?

Actually, I'm mostly involved with and interested in small business
and entrepreneurial interests.

While happily acquainted with a good many corporate users, once
they're informed and involved, they and their deep pockets can take
care of themselves.

It is *exactly* the smaller business user that will be crushed by the
damage these new standards will cause.

> You may not recall, but the same kind of arguments you are
> presenting here came up twenty or more years ago as AT&T began major
> expansions of 800 service as it was configured back then. Relatively
> few companies had 800 service in the early 1970's, and those who did
> often times had words made out of the four digit suffixes. Then AT&T
> opened up a bunch of new prefixes and changed the configuration on
> some already being used and suddenly the same words showed up attached
> to other 800 prefixes in other parts of the country. "If I have
> 800-xxx-FOOD you can't let him have 800-yyy-FOOD; too many people will
> get us confused."  That's life, sorry. You need to educate your
> customers *how* to place the call, what more can I say?

Pat, business has evolved since then, and portability solved that
problem.  As you know, even if you use your 800 number only locally,
you have the option to expand nationally and to Canada.  There are
good reasons for that.

Those good reason do not stop at our borders.  

Thanks for the chance to clarify some of my thoughts.   


Judith  Oppenheimer,  Producer@Pipeline.com
Interactive CallBrand(TM)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  If I understand correctly then, small
800 users like myself would be forced off that code in order that
the numbers could be freed up for business customers. People with
pagers and messaging services on 800 would be required to give up
their 800 number for the same reason; so that business users would
not have to be inconvenienced.  I've a better idea: Let's take 888
and have all business users of 800 move there; you can have the whole
thing, and it should last you for several years.   <grin>  

And you say your legal experts are claiming that 1-800-FLOWERS and
011-800-FLOWERS and 1-888-FLOWERS all amount to the same thing from
'a trademark standpoint'.  That's like McDonald's trying to claim
they have the exclusive right to use "Mc<anything>" in advertising.
They do try it occassionally, but sometimes get beaten up. I could see
where they might have a better chance where fast food is concerned,
however. Generally you can always find a lawyer to say whatever you
want. I agree that portability is largely eliminating the old rule
of telco which was 'the subscriber has no property rights in his number'
but even so, in the three examples given above, the only part in
common is the word 'flowers'; that's only seven out of eleven (or
thirteen) digits, in other words 54 to 64 percent of the total
expression. Can you claim to control any and all uses of the word
'flowers' where it appears in a phone number?  Suppose for example
I got 1-708-FLOWERS and advertised it that way. Its a perfectly
legitimate number when stated as 1-708-356-9377 (or presumably
as some other word made from those letter combinations), but as
soon as I advertised FLOWERS your lawyers would get after me, I suppose
because even though the final seven digits make up only about half
of the total expression, they are the 'significant' or 'meaningful'
part. 

Now why couldn't they do the same thing with 011-800 or 1-888?  When
someone with one of those tries to advertise as FLOWERS in the USA (or
wherever your trademark rights extend) then you pounce on them for it.
They can use it in Europe or Asia if they want, but they can't phrase
it in that way in the USA, where they would have to be 011-800-356-9377. 
If your lawyers tried to claim that by using it as FLOWERS in Asia I
was causing grevious damage to your USA-based business, my response
would be to require you to produce records for the past few years
showing how much or little of your business came from Asia using your
toll-free number.  PAT]

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

From: brasuell_bill@tandem.com (Bill Brasuell)
Subject: Re: Requesting Information About SDH
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 04:41:01 GMT


In article <telecom15.109.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, wgan@netcom.com (willy gan) 
wrote:

> I'd often seen the words SDH or SDH compatible equipment advertised in
> data communication magazines. Can anyone explain or give me examples
> of what SDH stands for?

SDH is Synchronous Digital Hierarchy and carries STM-n signals much like
SONET carries STS-n. STM is Synchronous Transport Module.

      STM-1    155.52Mbps       (OC3)
      STM-4    622.08Mbps       (OC12)
      STM-16  2.48832Gbps       (OC48)
      STM-64  9.95352Gbps       (OC192)

   An STS-1 Frame matches an STS3cFrame


Bill Brasuell    Tandem Computers 

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

Subject: Anon Servers, Child Porn and Scientologists
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:45:36 GMT
From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@sco.COM>


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The comments by Helsingius sort of
> confirm what I said here the other day where remailers are concerned:
> they do have records of who says what, and will keep them for use as
> necessary.

Pat: Julf has to keep the records, and keep them online, because he
allows email to be sent *to* anonymous addresses.


Clive D.W. Feather     | Santa Cruz Operation    
clive@sco.com          | Croxley Centre          
Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford   
Fax:   +44 1923 813818 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom  <== NOTE: NEW FAX 
NUMBER

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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 18:03:38 EST
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Information on O. J. Simpson Case


In the {Baltimore Sun}, it says to call (for the latest info on the
Simpson trial) "Sundial" at (410) 783-1800 and punch in 6139.  (Other
numbers in area 410 are also available for the Sundial service:
268-7736 in Anne Arundel county; 848-0338 in Carroll county; 836-5028
in Harford county.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually I was thinking if they pay me
enough, I might pre-empt all regular programming in this newsgroup and
provide exclusive OJ trial coverage instead. That whole thing is a joke;
I bet it goes on for another year. What a travesty of justice!  I don't 
care if OJ is guilty or innocent. What other person ever on trial in 
this
country has gotten his posterior kissed the way OJ has?  Did you know 
that in the jail where he is being held, all the other prisoners have
lost their visiting rights on weekends; that's so that Mr. OJ doesn't
have to have riff-raff around him when *his* friends come to visit and
his attornies. The jail employees are being extremely unfair to all the
other inmates while they suck-up to OJ. Someone should tell him, hey
you are just a prisoner here, just scum like all the others ... he 
should
not be getting any more or less privileges than anyone else in that 
jail.
I wonder if/when he is found guilty if they will have to purchase some
elegant resort and turn it into a prison where they keep him?  I mean,
how could they put him in San Quentin with the other murderers?  Would
his attornies permit that?

And Judge Ito sits there and plays the role of straight man in this
comedy routine. The whole thing is a good example of how the rich and
famous and their high priced attornies get one brand of justice in the
USA while the rest of us get something totally different.  If it was
anyone else at all, this trial would have been over with weeks or
months ago; probably finished the day it started or a couple hours after
it started.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #117
******************************

    
