TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Jun 94 15:46:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 283

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Jonathan Haruni)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (John Adams)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Supak Lailert)
    Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club (Mark S. Brader)
    Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Does MCI Transmit CNID? (Darren Alex Griffiths)
    Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA (Really Cell One Features) (Dan Lanciani)
    Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted (Michael Covington)
    Re: Government Regulates Modem Redial Attempts (Jan Ceuleers)
    Re: Sources Wanted: Telemedicine and Telecommuting (Linda Garross)
    Re: Sources Wanted: Telemedicine and Telecommuting (rpkrpk@aol.com)
    Re: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phone in Emergency? (nx7u@aol.com)
    Re: Help - Telecommuting Information Needed (Peter M. Weiss)
    v.35 (T1) Board for Linux Available Soon (Joseph Kruckenberg)
    International Callback Services (Ed Swenson)
    Re: Call Waiting (Brett Frankenberger)
    Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? (Les Reeves)
    The Jargon File (was Re: 'Steaming Terminal') (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Last Laugh! Please Explain the Term 'Steaming Terminal' (A. Shapiro)
    How Many Readers Are There of This Digest? (Lynne Gregg)

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: jharuni@london.micrognosis.com (Jonathan Haruni)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 10 Jun 1994 15:54:50 GMT
Organization: Micrognosis, a division of CSK(UK)


Bob Maccione <bmaccion@promus.com> wrote:

> With all of the calling card fraud going on out there I'm curious as
> to why the card companies don't issue cards that can't be used for
> international calls.

In the UK, when you order a card from British Telecom you can request
one of three options:

  - unrestricted
  - International and operator-assisted calls barred
  - calls only to one preselected number

If you choose the third option, you don't even have to dial the number
when you use the card, and even if you don't choose the third option,
you get to attach one "quick dial" number to the card.

The third option is advertised as ideal for getting extra cards for
your kids, so that they will never have an excuse not to have phoned
home.  If you get multiple cards they can have different restrictions
and different quick-dial numbers.

And the PIN is not on the card.


Jon

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

From: jmadams@freenet.scri.fsu.edu (John Adams)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 10 Jun 1994 18:06:30 GMT
Organization: Tallahassee Free-Net


Sam Spens Clason (d92-sam@misfits.nada.kth.se) wrote:

> How big a part of all calling card frauds could be avoided if the PIN
> wasn't actually printed on the card?!

> So, stop printing the PIN on calling cards, that would not make them
> as easely used if stolen or just glimpsed at.

IMHO, not printing the PIN on the card wouldn't make a big difference.
Everyone I know has their card number memorized and does not carry
their card.

The problem, or angle, is that a crook can stand at one payphone and
simply watch what numbers you press on the keypad.  Perhaps this easy
tactic is the reason for the wave of "voice cards" (a la Sprint) where
you speak the name of a preprogrammed voice sample/digit sequence to
place a call?


John M. Adams  -*-  Vax Systems Manager, NADEP Pensacola FL
Inet:  jmadams@freenet.fsu.edu *or* adamsj@narfpns.navy.mil
Sysop of the Beachside - 1.904.492.2305 28.8k DS  (Fidonet)

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

From: lailert@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Supak Lailert "spk")
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 10 Jun 1994 08:45:28 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services


Sam Spens Clason (d92-sam@misfits.nada.kth.se) wrote:

> How big a part of all calling card frauds could be avoided if the PIN
> wasn't actually printed on the card?!

> So, stop printing the PIN on calling cards, that would not make them
> as easely used if stolen or just glimpsed at.

As I called MCI early this week to request for a new calling card,
they give me an option not to have the PIN printed on my card. Nice
move, MCI.


Supak Lailert -- MBA (Information System) Program, San Diego State University
lailert@ucssun1.sdsu.edu   lailert@aol.com

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

From: msb@sq.com
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 14:02:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club


>>> "Your provider of long distance service is Bell Canada. Thank you for
>>> choosing us. This is a recording... 416 11"

>> Not when I tried it just now from my home phone (416-488-XXXX).

> Bizarre.  Works fine from my home number (416 486-).  I think there
> are two DMS100s in the 50 Eglinton building; perhaps 488 and 486
> are not on the same one. ...

Or they're still experimenting somehow or other and we just tried it at
different times.

> Do you subscribe to a non-Bell LD service that perhaps has already
> PIC'd you ?

No.

However, my office (416-239-XXXX) has LD service from Fonarola.  We
dial local or operator-assisted calls with 9, and Fonarola calls with
81.  9-1 produces a busy signal, so I can't try 9-1-700-555-4141.
9-0-700-5554 produces the "must dial 1 or 0 message" you mentioned.
And 81-1-700 or 81-700 (the 1 is optional on normal calls through them
for us) is intercepted at *that* point and produces:

 Fonarola.  4 1 6 10 3.  We're sorry, you're call cannot be
 completed as dialed. Please dial the number with the area code
 first.  This is a recording.

We dial international calls with 81-011-, so 81-0 works, but 81-07
apparently puts the system into an error state, just giving rapid
clicking on the line.

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

From: Wes.Leatherock@tranquil.nova.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 10 Jun 94 10:18:07 -0600
Subject: Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing
Organization: Fidonet: The Tranquility Grille 


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you say is true, but you must
> remember that the recipient has the right to refuse the collect
> shipment or telegram or whatever. If Federal Express shows up at my
> door with a package I did not order and it was sent collect, do you
> think I am going to pay for it? I just tell the man to take it back
> wherever it came from; then when the recipient gets it back he *has* to
> pay, even for the non-delivery since he caused the freight company to
> carry the package both ways, etc......]

        This called up a memory of when I used to have need to read
freight tariffs and the phrase in the tariff that covers this on
returned shipments:

        "...earning freight both ways."


Wes Leatherock  wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com
wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, and a lot of the freight companies
are adamant about this point: "we hauled it one way; we hauled it
back; that's two trips, so you pay twice ..." although most will settle
for being paid once.   PAT]

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

From: dag@ossi.com (Darren Alex Griffiths)
Subject: Re: Does MCI Transmit CNID?
Date: 10 Jun 1994 12:01:30 -0700
Organization: Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions, Inc.


glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts) writes:

> I get CNID from Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, from people who, in
> those locations use WilTel as their long distance carrier. I am in
> Northern Illinois. (Remember, California is not even a caller-id
> state). Also, *67 before the number, does not block it from appearing
> on my box.

This is really annoying; it seems that if Caller-ID is not allowed in
California then long distance companies should be prohibited from
sending it out of state.  Unfortunately I don't believe it's that
easy, first the CPUC did allow some form of Caller-ID, the LECs just
decided that the restrictions were to strict for them to do a decent
business.  Also it's unclear whether inter-state calls can be
regulated by the CPUC.

The different restrictions for each state are quite confusing, does
anyone know if the recent FCC rulings will simplify this, and more
importantly will they overrule the CPUC rulings allowing those of us
who live in California to finally get Caller-ID?


Cheers,

Alex Griffiths    Senior Software Engineer
Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions, Inc.
dag@ossi.com   408-456-7815

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

From: ddl@das.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani)
Subject: Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA (really Cell One features)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 22:28:08 EDT


 From atlas@newshost.pictel.com Tue Jun  7 23:13:33 1994:

> It's ironic that call waiting, call forwarding, three-way calling, and
> voice mail ("Call Answering" in NyNex-speak) are all available free
> (except for airtime charges) from Cellular One in this area.

Ironic?  Are you kidding?  They love for you to use these services.
They cost nothing to provide and let them rack up air time charges
(two for one with call waiting or three-way; one for nothing with
forwarding) for channel capacity that is never actually in use.

I have always subscribed to forwarding and three-way since I might
possibly want to use them on rare occasions.  I never subscribed to
call waiting since, among other reasons, I hate it. :) Just last week
I received a notice from Cellular One saying that I would now have
this popular service at no charge!  Whether I wanted it or not.  The
wording of the notice would cause anyone who didn't know otherwise to
assume that they were changing from an extra-cost option to a free
feature.  In fact, they were changing from a free option to a
mandatory (or at least default -- I haven't called yet to see if I can
have it disabled) setting.


Dan Lanciani   ddl@harvard.*

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

From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted
Date: 10 Jun 1994 03:31:34 GMT
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens


I can only speak for present-day radio telegraphy, but 20 words per
minute is considered the minimum professional speed, and a network of
experienced operators could probably do twice that.  Remember that
both operators have to be equally fast for the system to work.


Michael A. Covington, Assc Rsch Scientist, Artificial Intelligence Center
The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7415 USA  mcovingt@ai.uga.edu

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

Date: Fri, 13 May 94 10:49:06 PST
From: Jan.Ceuleers@f857.n292.z2.fidonet.org (Jan Ceuleers)
Subject: Government Regulates Modem Redial Attempts


I quote John Harris:

> My understanding is that the Canadian requirement (CS-03) is
> 10 redial attempts, the American (FCC Part 68) requirement
> is 15 redial attempts; and the harmonized requirement coming
> out of the Free Trade Agreement will be two redial attempts.

In Belgium, the limit is three unsuccessful redials (that's four
attempts in all) within a period of one hour. This limit must be
enforced by auto-dialing devices (modems, fax machines etc.) for them
to be approved for use in this country.

This rule is apparently intended to protect the network from unprofitable 
traffic, not to protect the public from misprogrammed auto-dialers (the 
point being that it's perfectly legal for a fax machine to continuously 
try to deliver a fax every 15 minutes for days on end).


Jan
Origin: Experimenter Board, Antwerp, Belgium (2:292/857)
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!2!292!857!Jan.Ceuleers
Internet: Jan.Ceuleers@f857.n292.z2.fidonet.org

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

From: lgarross@halcyon.com (Linda Garross)
Subject: Re: Sources Wanted: Telemedicine and Telecommuting
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 05:13:53 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


In article <telecom14.280.13@eecs.nwu.edu> teleconxiv@aol.com
(TeleConXIV) writes:

> We're looking for people currently using desktop video conferencing or
> collaborative computing systems for telemedicine or telecommuting.

You might want to post this message to sci.med.telemedicine, too.


Linda Garross                      Voice: 206-788-8389
Garross & Associates               Fax:   206-788-6479
Government Contracts Consultants   Email: lgarross@halcyon.com

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

From: rkprkp@aol.com
Subject: Re: Sources Wanted: Telemedicine and Telecommuting
Date: 9 Jun 1994 14:23:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


I met a guy at Austin Radialogical Associates @ 512/795-5100 who said
they're doing remote image transfer for X-ray, etc.  They are planning
to move toward ISDN services in the near future to speed it up even
more.  Don't have a good contact but it's a start.

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

From: nx7u@aol.com
Subject: Re: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phone in Emergency?
Date: 10 Jun 1994 01:43:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <telecom14.280.12@eecs.nwu.edu>, shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn
Gordhamer) writes:

> Can any cellular phone be used for calls to Emergency even if they
> are not registered?

They can on our system.  I would think everyone else's too. Unfortunately, 
the penalty for finding out by experiment is quite high ...


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The way to do this would be to install the
phone in your car *but not rely on it for emergency purposes*  until after
a test or two had been made. DO NOT call 911 (or *999 or the zero operator
as the case may be in your community) just to test the phone. Wait until
in the course of your driving around that you spot something minor which
does not affect you personally; maybe a fender-bender on the expressway
or a stop and go light out of order or a railroad crossing gate stuck
in the down position. Then see if you can call that in successfully. In
other words have a reason -- even a minor one -- before contacting 911.
If it works, then you know you are all set. If it does not, then junk
the phone when you get back home.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 14:54:23 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Help - Telecommuting Information Needed
Organization: Penn State University


Check the notebook archives of FLEXWORK on the listserv@psuhmc.hmc.psu.
edu.  At the moment, you MUST be a subscriber (which is opened to
anyone) to fetch/search the notebook archives.
 
For those of you who join, you may e-mail the following to that LISTSERV:
 
/* --------------------- clip and save ---------------- */
//ListSrch JOB Echo=no
Database Search DD=Rules OUTLIM=3000 f=mail
//Rules DD *
s proposal in flexwork
index
print
/*
//  EOJ
/* --------------------- clip and save ---------------- */
 

Pete-Weiss@psu.edu       "Are you an infomaniac?"         +1 814 863 1843
31 Shields Bldg. -- Penn State Univ -- University Park, PA 16802-1202 USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That word is starting to make the rounds
and with the expected ramifications. On the Compuserve CB Simulator (or
Stimulator as it is sometimes known) I was logged in the other day using
just 'Pat' as my handle. Although a convenient, gender-neutral handle, it
does prompt a lot of the 'are you m/f how old?' questions. Some guy who
simply assumed I was 'f' and (hopefully) not that old propositioned me
to go into chat with him. I told him I'd be glad to go into chat with
him since I was an infomaniac and never could get 'enough'. His response
was " ... my last girlfriend was the same way ...". I never did respond
directly to his implied assertion about my gender until a few minutes
later when he asked me directly, and I told him I was an 'm' in the f/m
question. "Hey, you are not playing by the rules around here!," he typed
back angrily to me as he broke the connection.  Infomaniac indeed!  PAT]

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

From: kruckenb@sal.cs.utah.edu (Joseph Kruckenberg)
Subject: v.35 (T1) Board for Linux Available Soon
Date: 9 Jun 1994 15:49:14 GMT
Organization: University of Utah


A company called SDL develops a single- and dual-port v.35 interface
board for the PC, which supports bit rates up to 1.44MB (T1 speeds).
Currently they are only supporting UnixWare, SCO Unix, and BSDI Unix.
They expressed great interest in supporting Linux, and I am currently
negotiating with them to help write the drivers (see my post to
comp.os.linux.development on v.35 Driver Development).

SDL would like to get an idea of how many people would be interested
in this board for use on Linux machines. I would also be very
interested in this information, to help me find potential testers for
the driver I'm working on, and just out of personal curiosity. The
prices are $540 for the single-port, and $585 for the dual-port. If
you would consider buying either of these within the next year or two
(after the driver is available), please send me email
(kruckenb@sal.cs.utah.edu) telling me which one and how many, and
approximately how soon you'd buy them. I'll pass the votes on to SDL,
and summarize them to comp.os.linux.misc.

If you'd like more information on SDL's products, you may send mail to
sdl@world.std.com, or FTP to ftp.sdl.com. Files are in the pub/sdl/N1
(single-port) and pub/sdl/N2 (dual-port) directories.


Pete Kruckenberg    kruckenb@sal.cs.utah.edu

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

From: edswen@netcom.com (Ed Swenson)
Subject: International Callback Services
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 20:12:15 GMT


I had a friend ask me recently about a service I think I've seen
discussed here before -- international callback services that take
advantage of lower rates when calling from the US.  I think the way
they usually work is that one subscribes, calls a number in the US
from anywhere in the world, enters a code and waits for a callback.
They then receive a callback, and after entering a code, receive a
dial tone and can call and be charged US rates.

As I've said, I'm pretty sure I've seen this type of service mentioned
here before, but didn't save the discussion. I'm mainly interested in
finding out how to subscribe, who offers such services, how they work,
what they charge, etc. They are legal, right? Although I'm sure some
PTT's don't like them too much ;-). Email is ok, or a pointer to an
old telecom digest. I can summarize if there is interest.


Ed


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The legality of the callback services
is a gray-area. Maybe, maybe not. In any event, what Telepassport
started several others have come to imitate with various degress of
success. Now in addition to several callback service providers, the
international telcos have caught on (or perhaps they found out that
telephone users caught on) and they reduced thier rates to the point
that the difference between their rates and the callback rates are
very marginal.  The latest addition to this is one  I discussed here
the other day without mentioning this aspect of their service. The
Call America/My Line people also offer international callback service
using your personal 800 number. You dial into your 800 number (they
will also give you a local AC 805 number in San Luis Obispo if needed
and you cannot reach the 800 number) and ask for a callback anywhere
in the world. When you get the callback you then dial wherever you
want to call. 

By the way, I signed up for My Line and I must say that for $8.50
er month and 25 cents per minute of usage (when receiving a call) or
15 cents per minute when administering my account at the switch,
it is a pretty good deal. Some come cheaper; some are more expensive
but none except Cable and Wireless offer user programmable call
forwarding, a very desirable feature with an 800 number. If you did
not see my earlier message on this, contact betterly@callamer.com
for details.     PAT]

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

From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 17:44:15 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes Carl, this is quite true. Any of the
> service codes which can be prepended to the dialing string will produce
> the stutter tone, such as *70 or *67 for ID blocking, etc. I've found 
> you can dial straight through them without any pause at all.  PAT]

Depends on the switch ... Of the two major digital switches (DMS and
5ESS), one of the two (and I can't recall which one) allows you to
dial through the stutter dial tone and the other does not ...


Brett  (brettf@netcom.com)

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

From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves)
Subject: Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient?
Date: 10 Jun 1994 10:32:57 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


<discussion of ANI and the operator deleted>.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whenever I zero plus anything (although
> like you, my zero plus 800 fails to complete) 

Hasn't it always been this way?  

I thought 0+ was not allowed for 800 service by tariff.


Les     lreeves@crl.com       Atlanta,GA      404.874.7806


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think that is true. The reason is,
there is not supposed to be operator assistance on 800 calls. Strictly
speaking, when we require assistance with dialing a call, we are to
zero plus the number and wait for operator intervention. Since no
tariff allows the operator to handle 800, therefore no 0+800.  PAT]

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

From: Andrew C. Green <ACG@dlogics.com>
Subject: The Jargon File
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 10:31:58 CDT


Our Moderator Notes:

> And I believe that when you do this, many times you *just think* the
> ANI is not getting passed when in fact the operator bubbles or forces
> it into the network without specifically telling you that is what she
> is doing.

I *think* I know what you mean by bubbling operators (they probably
work at steaming terminals), but you don't come right out and explain
the term anywhere.

I'm sure that this industry, like any other, is absolutely awash in
clever jargon, but I have yet to see a good compilation of it, such as
the little "Buzzwords" feature in {Newsweek} magazine which spotlights
the strange, funny and (usually) behind-the-scenes slang of a
different industry each week.

I'm not referring to terminology that has official meaning but just
looks strange; I'm know that's covered in the Telecom Archives. I'm
thinking of the jargon we use as a polite label for obnoxious truths,
and funny language that just, well, appears one day from nowhere. I
believe we can compile a good list of the bizarre verbal shorthands we
use these days.


Andrew C. Green    Datalogics, Inc.  Internet: acg@dlogics.com
441 W. Huron       Chicago, IL  60610-3498

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

From: ARTHUR%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM
Date: 10 Jun 94 13:42   
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Please Explain the Term 'Steaming Terminal'

I think I can top the story of the melted terminal, although it's
straying a bit from telephony.  A few years ago my wife overwatered a
plant which resided on top of the television (not my idea), a unit
with a large sloping back with ventilation slits.  Oddly enough, a few
seconds later, the expected effluvium of smoke and odor was wafting
from the television.  So she did what any sane, thinking person would
do under like circumstances: she called the cable company!  Happily,
the poor soul at the other end suggested that she Rapidly Unplug The
Television, Please!  

I came home to hear the sad story, and started removing the ridiculous
number of screws holding the back onto the set as she insisted that
nary a drop had spilled from the plant in question.  I was amazed how
much water flowed out once the back was off the set.  Amazingly, after
drying out for a day or two, the set was as good as ever and lasted a
few more years, finally being replaced at age 19.


Art Shapiro

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

From: Lynne Gregg <lynne.gregg@mccaw.com>
Subject: How Many Readers Are There of This Digest? 
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 12:32:00 PDT


Patrick,

Just curious.  Can you tell me HOW MANY individuals subscribe to
TELECOM Digest?


Thanks,

Lynne Gregg


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *Subscribers* and  *readers* are two
different things of course. And *individuals* who subscribe directly
versus people whose names are on mailing lists served elsewhere are
also to be considered.  On any given day, the direct mailing list
which I service from here has about 2000 names. There will be four
or five additions daily and three or four deletions daily, leaving
a net increase on average of one or two new subscribers each day or
about 40-50 new subscribers per month. I remember well when the list
had only about 300 names several years ago. Now of those 2000 or so
names, about 80-90 percent are individuals with the remaining 10-20
percent being 'exploder addresses' or 'expansion addresses' if you
are familiar with the term. That is, I send one copy to those addresses
and they in turn 'explode' on reciept and redistribute the Digest to
names under their control. My best estimate is there are about 1000
more individuals serviced from the 200-300 'exploder addresses' on my
main list. Some have five or ten names, some have just two or three.

My single biggest drop off point on the mailing list is mcimail.com
where I (yesterday) delivered the Digest to 78 names. ATT Mail is
another point with multiple subsribers.  America OnLine and GEnie
have several names each on my list. Compuserve gets serviced in two
ways: there are about a dozen names on my list who prefer to get the
Digest via email, but in addition a copy goes to a special address
there where it is put out on display in Library #1 of the TELECOM
forum for people who use that forum or special interest group on
Compuserve. There are about fifty 'independent' BBS's which have
internet links for email -- but not the newsgroups -- which are on
the mailing list and they put their copies of the Digest up however
they wish in file areas for use by readers.  I don't really have
any idea how many people read the Digest through those services.

Then of course there is Usenet, and the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup.
Several thousand people *read* the Digest via Usenet who are not
actually *subscribers* via the mailing list or through a BBS which
is subscribed via the mailing list. Over all, I believe there are
about 3000 direct or indirect subscribers and about 15,000 additional
readers. For several years the old PC Pursuit system distributed
the Digest automatically to its subscribers via their bulletin board
called the Net Exchange as well. The Telecom Archives gets about
a dozen email inquiries each day and about two dozen ftp/gopher
visitors. I receive about 100-150 pieces of editorial mail on any 
given day and another 50-75 pieces of administrative mail. Since
autoreplies are generated on all mail I receive, therefore I send
out 150-200 autoreplies most days. If three issues of the Digest
are produced (I have done six or seven in a day, and once did ten
in a single day) then there will be about 6000 copies mailed plus
the administrivia mails and the autoreplies, etc.  I think I am
the largest user of sendmail at Northwestern, and bless them for
tolerating me as long as they have.  <grin>

No one is required to pay anything for it. The ITU in Geneva,
Switzerland assists me with a monthly grant, and like public radio
I rely upon the generosity of Digest reader/subscribers to help out
in ways they feel are appropriate. When I began my work with this
journal, perhaps an hour or two every other day was required to 
keep it going; now it requires about five hours per day if the
maintainence of the Archives is included. That's my problem of
course, no one else's. I guess I am a victim of my own success. Have
a nice weekend one and all!     PAT]  

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #283
******************************

