Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_120.zip/TC15-120.TXT

Text File | 1995-03-12 | 28KB | 731 lines

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Feb 95 08:58:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 120

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert: Axe the Exon Bill! (ACLU Information)
    Re: MCI Slams Again (Jeff Jelinek)
    Re: MVIP? What Are We Talking About Here? (Greg Habstritt)
    Re: How To Keep Business Phone Calls Short? (Chris Mork)
    Re: Help Needed With Modems for Telephony API (
    Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Benjamin P.
Carter)
    Re: Fax Modems and Voice Lines (K. M. Peterson)
    Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Brendan Dowling)
    Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Jeremy Grigg)
    Re: What is Loop Start? (Travis Russell)
    Who Makes T-Coder or Other 2 to 1 T1 mux? (David Friedman)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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: ACLU Information <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:48:53 -0500
Subject: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert: Axe the Exon Bill!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although I commented on this topic
earlier this week and presented a lengthy commentary on the Exon
legislation, its worth mentioning again with a suggestion that you
take some stance *now* on this matter. If you did not read and
sign the petition circulated here earlier in the week, you might
want to go back and read it now, along with this similar message
sent by the ACLU.    PAT]

**ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT**

FIGHT ONLINE CENSORSHIP!

AXE THE EXON BILL!

The American Civil Liberties Union urges you to contact the members of
the
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and your own Senators to ask them to
oppose
the efforts to turn online communications into the most heavily censored
form of American media.

In a clumsy effort to purge sexual expression from the Internet and
other
online networks, the self-described "Communications Decency Act of 1995"
(S.314, introduced by Senator Exon on 2/2/95) would make ALL
telecommunications service providers liable for every message, file, or
other content carried on their networks.  Senator Exon is planning to
attach the bill to Senator Pressler's new telecommunications
legislation,
which is targeted for action in early March.

The Exon proposal would severely restrict the flow of online information
by
requiring service providers to act as private censors of e-mail
messages,
public forums, mailing lists, and archives to avoid criminal liability.
The ACLU believes that online users should be the only censors of the
content of the information they receive.

**The Exon proposal broadens existing law by subjecting service
providers, as well as the individuals who actually send messages, to
criminal liability for any "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent" message transmitted over their networks.**

If enacted into law, this vague and overly broad legislation could
have the following draconian effects:

* The Exon proposal would prohibit communications with sexual
content through private e-mail between consenting adults, and would
inhibit people from making comments that might or might not be
prohibited.

* Under the Exon proposal, service providers would pay up to
$100,000 or spend up to 2 years in jail for prohibited content
produced by subscribers on other networks, over which they had no
control.

* The Exon proposal would expand current restrictions on
telephone access by minors to dial-a-porn services to include online
access to indecent material, requiring service providers to purge
"indecent" material from public bulletin boards and discussion groups
to avoid accidental viewing by a minor.

In effect, online providers would be forced to offer to adults only
that content that is "suitable for minors."

S. 314 is nearly identical to an amendment Senator Exon successfully
attached to last year's Senate version of the telecommunications law
overhaul.  Last year's bill died for unrelated reasons, but the Senate
Commerce Committee is determined to pass new telecommunications
legislation this year that could easily include the Exon proposal.

The ACLU opposes the restrictions on speech imposed by this
legislation because they violate the First Amendment's guarantee of
free expression.  Forcing carriers to pre-screen content violates the
Constitution and threatens the free and robust expression that is the
promise of the Net.  The Constitution requires that any abridgement of
speech use the least restrictive means available -- the language of
the Exon proposal is clearly the most restrictive because it sweeps
broadly against a wide array of protected material involving sexual
expression.

Stop the information superhighway from becoming the most censored
segment of communications media!

ACT NOW:

Urge members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation:

*To oppose the Exon proposal, or any Senate or House variation.

*To drop the Exon proposal BEFORE it goes to the Senate floor.

*To hold full hearings on the Exon proposal and to review it thoroughly
before it goes to the Senate floor.

*To reject any effort to attach the Exon proposal to the Senate
telecommunications legislation.

THE EXON PROPOSAL COULD BE LAW WITHIN WEEKS IF WE DON'T ACT TODAY.

Send your letter by e-mail, fax, or snail mail to:

Senator Larry Pressler, S.D.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
SR-254 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-6125
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
e-mail: [e-mail]

To maximize the impact of your letter, you should also write to the
members of the Senate Commerce Committee and to your own Senators.

A sample letter is attached.

Majority Members of the Senate Commerce Committee

Senator Bob Packwood, Ore.
SR-259 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-3702
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Ted Stevens, Alaska
SH-522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-0201
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator John McCain, Ariz.
SR-111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-0303
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Conrad Burns, Mont.
SD-183 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-2603
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Slade Gorton, Wash.
SH-730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-4701
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
e-mail:  [e-mail]

Senator Trent Lott, Miss.
SR-487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-2403
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tex.
SH-703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-4303
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
e-mail:  [e-mail]

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
SR-174 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-1903
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator John Ashcroft, Mo.
SH-705 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-2504
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Minority Members of the Senate Commerce Committee

Senator Ernest F. Hollings, S.C.
SR-125 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-4002
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii
SH-772 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-1102
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Wendell H. Ford, Ky.
SR-173A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-1701
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
e-mail:  [e-mail]

Senator J. James Exon, Neb.
SH-528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-2702
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, W. Va.
SH-109 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-4802
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator John F. Kerry, Mass.
SR-421 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-2102
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator John B. Breaux, La
SH-516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-1803
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Richard H. Bryan, Nev.
SR-364 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-2804
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, N.D.
SH-713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-3405
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

You can also write or fax your own Senator at:

The Honorable ______________________
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senate directories including fax numbers may be found at:

gopher://ftp.senate.gov:70
gopher://una.hh.lib.umich.edu:70/0/socsci/polscilaw/uslegi


Additional information about the ACLU's position on this issue and
others affecting civil liberties online and elsewhere may be found at:

gopher:\\aclu.org:6601
OR request our FAQ at [e-mail]

          ---------cut here---------

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Senator _______:

I am writing to urge you to oppose the restrictions on speech that
would be imposed by the legislation introduced by Senator Exon, known
as the Communications Decency Act of 1995, S.314, introduced on
2/2/95.  The Exon proposal would severely restrict the flow of online
information by requiring service providers to act as private censors
of e-mail messages, public forums, mailing lists, and archives to
avoid criminal liability. I believe that online users should be the
only censors of the content of the messages they receive.

I urge you to:

*Oppose the Exon proposal, or any Senate or House variation.

*Drop the Exon proposal BEFORE it goes to the Senate floor.

*Hold full hearings on the Exon proposal and review it thoroughly before
it goes to the Senate floor.

*Reject any effort to attach the Exon proposal to the Senate
telecommunications legislation.

Sincerely,

[name]

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

ACLU Free Reading Room  |  American Civil Liberties Union
gopher://aclu.org:6601  | 132 W. 43rd Street, NY, NY 10036
mailto:[e-mail]|    "Eternal vigilance is the
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com  |         price of liberty"

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

From: Jeff Jelinek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Slams Again
Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 19:29:30 GMT


I seriously doubt that MCI intends to change an individual PIC for the
sole purpose of picking up some LD revenue for a month or so.  Big
deal.  Why would they risk the repercussions of an unauthorized PIC
change.  Of the hundreds of thousands of PIC changes that take place
each month, some of the customer service people will make a mistake.
I have not heard of this type of intentional action for many years.
Interesting.

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg Habstritt)
Subject: Re: MVIP? What Are We Talking About Here?
Date: 24 Feb 1995 22:17:25 GMT
Organization: Intellitech Communications Group


> Can anyone explain what the acronym "MVIP" stands for?  I heard this
in
> a discussion on IVR.

I'm trying to recall the exact wording for MVIP, and I can't find any
magazines near my desk with articles naming it.  However, I do believe
it stands for Multi Vendor Interface Protocol, or something to that
effect.  Bottom line is that it is a industry standard developed by
Natural Micro Systems, a voice processing hardware manufacturer
(competitor of Dialogic).  It is basically a standard that other
vendors can meet, in order to ensure that their equipment is
compatible with the NMS architecture.

Dialogic has a similar standard called SCSA, hence the big industry
battle between MVIP and SCSA (similar to MicroSoft's TAPI against

·
Novell's TSAPI).

Yup, that's what it is.  If you really want to know more, call NMS at
1-800-533-6120.


[e-mail]     Greg Habstritt
Intellitech Communications Inc.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Mork)
Subject: Re: How To Keep Business Phone Calls Short?
Date: 23 Feb 1995 10:57:03 -0500
Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877


Alan Boritz (drharry![e-mail]) wrote:

> A friend is having some difficulty getting his employees (less than
> ten, in a trucking business) to manage their telephone calls
reasonably.
> He doesn't want to create a hostile environment, but his inwats and
> outwats expense is getting out of hand.  Has anyone found voice
terminals
> with interval timers, or any other equipment features, to be helpful
> to accomplish that task?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Radio Shack *had* (and maybe still has)
such
> a thing along with other companies. It goes on the phone line and
after a
> pre-set period of time you hear a litle tone in the background. You
must
> then press a key on the phone to restart the timer.  After you have
done
> this often enough, you are supposed to take the hint I guess.   PAT]

Try getting account codes from the L-D provider. Each employee can only
call
with their own code and the records show up on the monthly bill. If
their
calls get out of hand, show them the bill and point out the length of
time(s)
on their code. Try setting a monthly limit per employee. By the way,
these
codes must be "validated",(i.e. they use a SPECIFIC number ... say the
last
four digits of their social security number).

Hope this helps!

Chris Mork    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 13:10:53 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Modems for Telephony API


All modems support Microsoft's Telephony API, but only if they have a
suitable driver.  Modem manufacturers have been slow to provide these
drivers because Microsoft distributes a free generic modem driver with
the TAPI SDK, because Microsoft distributes the source code for a
rudimentary voice modem driver free (by ftp "ftp.microsoft.com" and
Compuserve "go winext"), and because Microsoft intends to provide a
generic modem driver (Unimodem) bundled with Windows 9x.

The problem with these Microsoft drivers is that they are limited,
since they do not properly support voice features.  Also the Unimodem
driver appears to be a "dial only" driver since it does not pass rings
back to the application.

Regular modems are actually poor candidates for TAPI, since they
provide meager call control features.  Best for telephony are boards
like the IBM Mwave, which allow for full duplex speaker phone, touch
tone recognition, Caller ID, handset state detection, control over the
handset connection to the line and software upgradability to features
such as VoiceView.  Somewhere between regular modems and Mwave type
cards in terms of telephony features are voice/fax/modems, which can
record and play sound from the line, but still provide poor status
sensing (like handset on/off hook), and which are intrinsically
unreliable for two reasons: 1. the burden of voice data through the
serial port and 2. the inclusion of status and control signals in-band
in the voice data stream.  The first of these deficiencies is
addressed by some modems, such as those based on chip sets by Sierra
and Cirrus that do their voice with DMA rather than through the serial
port.  Of course modems using this technique must be internal.

Plug: My company, AlgoRhythms Incorporated, has written several
service providers for various different hardwares, including a generic
modem driver that supports voice modems.  This driver is not currently
commercially available, though it will be bundled with our application
software "PhoneKits" when this is released.

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

From: [e-mail] (Benjamin P. Carter)
Subject: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 21:15:58 GMT


[e-mail] (danny burstein) writes:

> ... yes, indeed, central offices -do- keep track of the CNID of
> incoming calls.

> (Other posters in the group have suggested that typically 90 days are
> kept online, just like with outgoing smdr.)

If that is so, then when a customer has received obnoxious phone
calls, the telco could provide the incoming IDs for particular
conversations that have already taken place.  This would be much more
helpful than the ineffective services that are now being offered.

Some person at the telco would have to access a database to provide
the record of a past conversation.  They probably won't do this for
free unless the PUC decides that they should.  On the other hand, many
customers who have received obnoxious calls are highly motivated and
would probably be willing to pay enough to allow the telco to recover
the real cost of providing such a service.  The telco might even make
a profit.

This reasoning assumes that caller ID is not available (as, for
example, in California) or that the telco records make it possible to
identify a caller when caller ID fails to do so.  Also, I assume
everyone agrees that the privacy of the caller should not be a
consideration if a residential customer claims to be receiving
obnoxious calls.  The privacy of the callee is certainly more
important than that of the caller in this case, and arguably so in all
cases.


Ben Carter   internet address: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: Fax Modems and Voice Lines
Date: 22 Feb 1995 21:28:57 GMT
Organization: Vertech Pharmaceuticals Incorporated


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Randall C. Poe) writes:

> I have been trying to get a fax modem (internal, in a Mac Powerbook)
> to work at home, on a line shared with an answering machine and
> several voice sets (3).  The feature that doesn't work is one the
> manufacturer calls "Silent Answer", where it allows other devices to
> pick up the phone, then listens in for fax ("CNG"?) tones.  When it
> hears the fax tones, it is supposed to pick up the phone, causing the
> answering machine (for instance) to go offline.

> So my question: Assuming this is the problem, is there a quick,
> off-the-shelf (cheap) fix?

I was unable to get this working on a Supra FaxModem, spending about
20 hours and several email and telephone conversations with the
manufacturer.

The retailer informed me that many of their customers were similarly
unable to get it to work.  I went to a ZyXEL for desktop use; I do not
believe that they make a PB internal.

My advice is to purchase an inexpensive desktop modem for home use.
ZyXELs offer "distinctive ring" decoding, which is an alternative to
"Silent Answer" requiring "Ringmate" or some other type of distinctive
ring service from your local telco.  ZyXELs, however, are _not_
inexpensive; if you don't want to go this route call Hello Direct
(1-800-HI-HELLO), and order a box from them that will do this
discrimination externally and allow you to use any modem you wish.


K. M. Peterson <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Brendan Dowling)
Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC
Date: 23 Feb 1995 12:20:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Lundgren) writes:

> I would like to see him get the same treatment that the guy in the
'got
> milk?' commercial gets.

> How long are his arms?  Three feet or so?  Put a PC with a modem on a
> table outside his cell, about a meter or so away from the bars.  Of
> course, there would be absolutely nothing in the cell to let him
> extend his reach.

> He would be saying, "Is this what Hell is like?"

There are laws against "cruel and unusual punishment".


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know whether you guys are joking
or not ... PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grigg)
Subject: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted
Date: 24 Feb 1995 01:03:13 GMT
Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia


Although Telstra is 100% owned by the Government, some elements are less
controlled. For example, the yellow pages commercial directories are
owned in a consortium with a publisher and several carriers including
Bell Canada. And the carrier's pay TV ventures are being run via 50-50
consortia with Microsoft (on-line services) and News Corporation
(content). The only analysis on the carrier comes from Moody's which
regularly evaluates its credit worthiness. Prospects for the company are
good, even though the market will be liberalised in 1997. Although there
will be unlimited competition, dominant carriers who control bottlenecks
will be forced to offer "commercially-sustainable" tariffs based on
network costs. This gives Telstra an incentive to keep its overheads
low.

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

From: [e-mail] (Travis Russell)
Subject: Re: What is Loop Start?
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:30:10 +0000
Organization: Travis Russell
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Travis Russell)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (RJ
WELSH)
writes:

> These terms are most certainly NOT relative to T1 lines!!!  Ther refer
> to analog telephone line "start" signals that indicate to the CO
> (central office) that an off-hook condition exists and dial tone
> services are required.

> Loop start means that both battery and ground leads are present and
> that ground, therefore, is supplied by the CO.  Ground start means
that
> a local (local to the off-hook instrument) ground is used and
represents
> a "single-lead" subscriber line.

Loop start is commonly used for residential POTS. Uses -48V return to
the C.O..

> Ground start lines were and are not often used since the ground
> resistance between the subscriber and the CO is unpredictable at best
> and conductor pairs (rather than single copper wires) have been in use
> for a long time now.

Ground start IS used today for PBX trunks. Loop start does not work
well on PBX because of glare problems, so ground start is used again.
To use laymens terms, instead of relying on ring generator to indicate
an incoming call (which is intermittent), the C.O. sends ground on the
tip side of the line (which is steady, not intermittent).

> Wink start indicates a reversal of battery and ground, typically for
> less than 500 milliseconds, and is used for TRUNK, not LINE
signalling.

Wink start is used for DID LINES. Also used with TIE lines between
PBXs.

By the way, the definition of a trunk vs. line? A trunk connects two
switches together. A line connects a "telephone" with a switch.
Semantics ...

> I won't waste bandwith correcting misconceptions about T1: buy a
> little book and read it.

T-1 channel banks are tyipcally optioned for one of the above
signaling methods, because they are connected to an analog PBX! The
trunk (or line) card coming from the PBX is terminated at a channel
bank. The channel bank muxes 24 circuits out to one T-1. The channel
bank must use the same signaling as the line card in the PBX, hence
the original misconception that these are used for T-1 signaling.

Hope this clears up signaling ...


Travis Russell  [e-mail]
Author of "Signaling System #7"   McGraw-Hill, 1995

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

From: [e-mail] (David Friedman)
Subject: Who Makes T-Coder or Other 2 to 1 T1 mux?
Date: 24 Feb 1995 14:39:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I have heard of a T-Coder which provides 2 T1 framed outputs from 1
T1.  When used for voice applications quality is fine.  Who makes this
unit or some type of similar simple mux?

We have an application where a client wants to do some simple,
inexpensive drop and insert (wants to split a small number of channels
of a T1 and pass them to our equipment which has a direct T1 interface
and channel bank the rest).  Rather than getting into expensive custom
designed drop and insert set up, I thought a T-coder would be fine
since most traffic is voice anyway.

Any advice or products would be appreciated.


David Friedman, Buffalo Audiotex, Inc. White Plains, New York, USA
[e-mail]    Voice: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
Computer Telephone Integration - Voice Processing & Switching
Open Arch. Call Center Apps. & Int'l Callback & Calling Card Sys.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #120
******************************