Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_126.zip/TC15-126.TXT

Text File | 1995-03-12 | 34KB | 801 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Feb 95 20:36:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 126

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID Service For Equivalency Lines (Paul Chehowski)
    Correction on AT&T True Rewards Posting (Alan Kelman)
    Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (George Wang)
    Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Alan Larson)
    800 Numbers - Media and Real Estate Rebuttal (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Job Posting: Cellular Engineer (Scott Townley)
    Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Proposed For the Net (Robert
Levandowski)
    Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Proposed For the Net (Tom Ellis)

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: [e-mail] (Paul Chehowski)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Service For Equivalency Lines - First Line Only?
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 15:58:56 GMT
Organization: Sulis Computing


In a previous posting, I wrote:

> I'm working on an IVR system that is heavily dependent on Caller-ID to
> identify callers to the system.  We arranged to have our lines put in,
> and I was shocked to find out that if I wanted a single 1-800 number
> to access the system, I had to set up the two lines that we needed in
> the local office as equivalency lines, and that as equivalency lines I
> would only get caller id on the first line of the group.
> Unfortunately I could only talk to a local order taker, who couldn't
> explain to me technically why this is the case, and they were unable
> to suggest any work arounds and were unwilling to pass me on to anyone
> technical to discuss the issue.

Special thanks to Pat, TELECOM Digest Editor for his note on my post.
I called back my local carrier to follow his suggestion (multiple
1-800 numbers and local lines, with hunt groups for the 1-800
numbers), and was told that Caller ID on equivalency lines was no
problem (although the Caller ID on the second line is not guaranteed to
be 100% reliable).  It turns out that the person I talked to first
when placing my order was new (although she pretended to be very
experienced, telling me that she was the only one in the office that
could handle 1-800 numbers, which also turned out not to be true).

She put me on hold when taking my order, and claimed she was talking
to a technician about the issue of Caller ID for equivalency lines and
told me that the technician had also said that Caller ID was not
techically possible (she wouldn't allow me to directly talk to the
technician).  She also told me that there was no one else in the
office that I could talk to about the issue, and she was absolutely
certain it was unavailable.

End result is that thanks to Pat and a more experienced individual in
the
local carrier's office, I will shortly have Caller ID on my two lines.


Thanks again,

Paul Chehowski    [e-mail]
Sulis Computing   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, it is just as reliable on the
second, overflow line as it is on the first line, which is to say it
comes through accurately over 99 percent of the time. Bear in mind you
*do* have to have to display boxes (unless you use the trick I
described)
and you do need to pay for Caller ID on both lines.

I've found most of the enhanced custom calling features will work
perfectly
fine where roll over or hunt lines are concerned. That's because these
features are tested for *before* it gets to the point the CO has to look
for a second line. In other words a call comes in to your enhanced line
(meaning you have things like call screening, automatic callback, etc.)
to the main number. The CO says 'okay, he can have the ID of the Caller.
He wants us to screen for certain callers and deny them access. He wants
to be able to call them back automatically if desired.' All these things
get done, or evaluated, *then* the call is presented to your main line
and another piece of equipment says oops, that line is busy, we have to
give the calls to line two. If the call is supposed to be screened out,
it does not matter if in fact he would be shunted to line two. The
decision
to screen is made on what the caller dialed and what he anticipated
would
happen. Now if the caller actually dials your line two and you don't
have
screening on that line as well, then he *will* get through. If you have
screening on that line also but his call gets hunted on to line sixteen
or whatever, then he will get blocked.  With all the features, you have
to have them on the number the caller *dials*, not the number he
actually
winds up getting in on (or would have gotten through on if he were not
screened, etc). Therefore if you want a relatively decent level of
security and control over your phone lines, you keep all your roll over
numbers secret (preferably out of sequence and all over the exchange so
that guessing at them becomes difficult) and you load up your main
listed
number with all the enhanced features designed to give control of the
phone to the call recipient, like Caller ID, blocking, return last call,
etc. And contrary to what the rep said, Caller ID is reliable, even if
it takes an extra second while the switch hunts through your group of
lines and has to search all the way to line 38 or whatever. Caller ID
is not passed until it gets a clear path and the subscriber's phone
has run one time.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 22:24:54 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Alan Kelman)
Subject: Correction on AT&T True Rewards Posting


[e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote:

Error> Five frequent flyer miles on Delta, United, or (god forbid!  I
> don't want to die yet!) US Air for each 100 points is another option.

Correct> Five HUNDRED frequent flyer on Delta, United, or US Air for
> every 100 points.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I stand corrected. It was five miles per
point; one hundred points minimum. I think I made that error
unconciously
on purpose, that way I knew there would be an oppotunity to repeat the
message later. <grin>

In True Rewards, AT&T is giving a point for each dollar of long distance
calls you make over $25 per month. If your bill goes over $75 then you
get two points for each dollar spent.

       If you move, notify AT&T of your new address and
       phone number; you get 100 bonus points.

       If someone signs up for AT&T residence long distance
       service and gives you as the referral, you get 300 bonus
       points.

Points can be redeemed at any time when you have at least 100. They
can be redeemed for various things, but the one that interested me
most was:

       $5 credit toward your AT&T bill for every 100 points.
       (You get those 'pay to the order of the telephone company'
       credit slips to redeem with your phone bill.)

One thing AT&T stressed was that 'point pooling' is allowed, and
encouraged. All you have to do is tell them you want to transfer your
True Rewards points to someone else; they'll be happy to do it.
They said having two or three people sign up for AT&T residential
service (300 points each) along with transfer of points from people
who have collected them but are not interested in redeeming them
could 'result in someone having hundreds, or even thousands of points
in a very short time ...'

The thing which appeals to me is the credit on my local telco bill
and here is how YOU can help:  If you have been meaning to possibly
send a donation to the Digest but have not gotten around to it yet --
or maybe you just don't have the money to spare -- then you can use
this round-about way of helping instead.

If you intend at some point in the near future to sign up for AT&T
residential service, do it through this special phone number:

     Call 1-800-383-6158.  The representative will switch you
     to AT&T for free and enroll you in True Rewards.

     Give the representative REFERRAL NUMBER : BY-6195039315666.
     Tell the representative to apply the 300 bonus points to
     that account. Everytime someone switches to AT&T in this
     way, I get the points.  Got more than one line at your place?
     Feel like giving one of them to AT&T?

If you are not interested in participating in True Rewards but got a
statement recently from AT&T with your point balance shown you can
also help. Mine arrived by bulk mail today so I assume there are lots
of these in the mail now.  Do this:

      Call 1-800-869-9900. Tell the representative your True Rewards
      account number which is printed on the bottom of the statement
      they sent you. Tell the representative to transfer all of your
      points to my telephone number 708-329-0570.

As the points come in from new subscribers to AT&T who use my
referral number and as points come in from transfers out of accounts
where they are not wanted, I'll redeem them for credit on my always
high, frequently delinquent phone bill.  (I haven't gotten cut off
once yet this year, I'll have you know! Not only that, since I got my
last 'deferred payment plan' agreement finished a few months ago I am
eligible to stall by starting another one if absolutely necessary.)

If you do sign up using my referral number or transfer your unwanted
True Rewards points, please send me email and let me know so I have
an idea what's going on.

You have to call the two numbers shown above to do all this; the
regular representatives on the published numbers they use can't handle
it.

Thank you very much!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Editor                                    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (George Wang)
Subject: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery
Date: 28 Feb 1995 09:26:03 -0800
Organization: Hip-Hop BBS  Sunnyvale, California


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (DAVID
CHESSLER) writes:

>> My instructions for my xt-pak ni-cad batteries say to maintain long
>> lifetime, I should discharge them fully before recharging (all the
>> time, not just the first five times), so I've found I must stuff the
>> phone under the couch cushions overnight so it won't wake me up.

>> Maybe this is an opportunity for a third party product - a cell phone
>> silencer (sound proof box), or a battery drainer (something that just
>> puts a load on the battery until it drains completely).

> I've handled ordinary nicads by putting them in a flashlight, turning
> it on, and waiting for the light to go out.

There is a trick to have the phone discharge itself without using any
"peripherals". Just go into the "menu" and scroll until you see a
message that is fairly long so that the maximum number of LED lights
are on. I believe "Silent Keypad" is a long message. The phone will
automatically "bank" in this mode without going into standby.  This
will drain the battery quite well until it starts beeping low battery
and turns off. You may then have to repeat the process.

As to a previous message about re-programming the low battery voltage
...
there is no USER-modifiable way of changing this. Whatever article you
saw must have been talking about an old Motorola phone.  When I say
old it must be several years old and has since been discontinued.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ry Jones)
writes:

> Patrick Wolfe ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> My instructions for my xt-pak ni-cad batteries say to maintain long
>> lifetime, I should discharge them fully before recharging (all the
>> time, not just the first five times), so I've found I must stuff the
>> phone under the couch cushions overnight so it won't wake me up.

> Buy some Ni-MH battery packs. My fat pack lasts about 12-18 hours. I
> bought a trickle charger for my car and use the battery conditioner at
> work. It discharges and recharges in a few hours. And, I think if you
> turn the volume of the ringer down, it might affect everything else. I
> don't recall.

The trickle car charger does not first discharge your battery. You might
want to discharge it using the trick I mentioned in my previous post.


George C. Wang    Email: [e-mail]
Alternate: [e-mail]
Finger for public encryption key.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 11:54:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
wrote:

> With a cellular battery of peculiar voltage and conformation, just
> build a small battery-drainer on a scrap of pegboard, using a
> flashlight bulb of appropriate size.

  Doing this is a good way for the first cell to hit zero to be pushed
negative as the other cells continue to discharge.  This is about the
worst thing you can do to the cell, and will ensure its shorter life.

  The phone knows how low to take the battery.  Trust it.

  If you don't want to do that, use the intellicharger and don't leave
it on trickle.  Not overcharging the battery will be the best move
towards keeping the battery away from voltage depression, and get good
service.


Alan

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

From: [e-mail] (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: 800 Numbers - Media and Real Estate Rebuttal
Date: 28 Feb 1995 15:52:48 -0500
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


[e-mail] (Al Varney) wrote:

>I probably shouldn't open my mouth, but....

> In article <3iltb5$[e-mail]>, Judith Oppenheimer
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> It's clear, that by employment and occupation, the policy shapers
>> and decision makers regarding all telephone numbering plans focus on
>> the mechanical and engineering aspects of telecom.  Valid aspects, to
>> be sure.  But limited.

> Limited perhaps more by International and FCC agreements on the
> PROPER administration of the number space.

Not necessarily proper.  Just traditional, based on outdated practices
that studiously ignore the convergence aspects of telecom.

> Are you suggesting that telephone companies wouldn't LOVE to receive
> revenue from the act of assigning numbers?

<grin> Not I!  The carriers *are* active numbers marketers.  They buy
them all the time, and receive revenue by such acts as MCI's
"acquiring" 1 800 HARVEYS for Harveys Casino.  This helps get them the
account, and then delivers higher volume call completion (revenue),
because the *media* element of the phone number is powerful stuff.

However, they want license to buy and sell, but let no one else in the
marketplace.  That's simply not fair.  It's anti-competitively,
monopolistic, unrealistic and impractical.

>> These people are employed by the real estate moguls of telecom -
>> the carriers.  For whom this mechanical and engineering (operational)
>> focus preserves their territorial exclusivity.

> Interesting psychological perspective, from someone interested in
> creating assets from thin air, applying for TM/SM/copyright protection
> and then demanding that the CONCEPT is more important in commerce than
> costs associated with the infrastructure.

Don't flatter me, I didn't create it, I'm just a fascinated and
enthusiastic observer of a marketplace creating itself.

But, as a marketer, I take issue with your "assets are thin air"
suggestion.

A brand is an asset.  It is only valuable because of the desire of the
consumer, and the perception of the stock holder.  The price of coke,
and its stock value, has a hell of a lot more to do with the cost of
advertising awareness, and maintaining desire, than the cost of the
water, syrup and bottle.

·

> Do you also claim copyright on license plates with FLOWERS or "TCBY
> 1" and thus preclude the un-licensed use of them?  How about license
> plates that are the "telephone number equivalent" of such? -- 3569377
> (FLOWERS), for example.

Trademarks protect the consumer.  License plates are not consumer-
soliciting,
product/service delivering devices.  Phones are.

>> So the ITU, INC. and other participants in these processes, are by
>> design quite removed from the multi-disciplinary,
>  ^^^^^^
>          (and by laws/treaties/etc.)

>> non-telecom market realities of 800 numbers.

Yes.

>> 800 numbers have solid media characteristics.  They contain content
>> and attract targeted audiences.

> Very few 800 numbers have much content -- it's only the assignment
> of alphabetic and alphanumeric equivalencies to them that is argued.
> You can copyright 800 FLOWERS but not the equivalent dialed number ...

Why don't we let the media and copyright/trademark legal folks map out
all the possibilities, and ramifications.

That's the point -- that they and other involved disciplines are not
involved in the processes of creating standards and policies.  They
should be.

>> 800 COLLECT attracts collect callers.  800 FLOWERS attracts flower
buyers.  Etc.  This raises very interesting questions regarding
foreign ownership of U.S. media, and is just one of
                          ^^^^^
>                             (numbers are media??)

Yop.  I say yes.  You say no.  I'd like to hear some more opinions,
and see some studies on this so that all businesses are best served.
This is asking so much?

>> the issues that should be studied regarding the proposed
>> International Freephone service.

> OK -- but you have to admit that MCI, while assigned (but not
> advertising that relationship ) 800 COLLECT, does not TODAY own the
> number 8002655328.

Don't tell them that.  And, btw, don't tell their customers either.
I've talked to too many corporate 800 users who've been assured by MCI
and others that they own their numbers. But it's a "trust us, we'll
take care of you" thing.

Would you like to buy a bridge?

> Nor can there be a trademark TODAY on such a number.  Would you
> change that?  Can I have the number "7"?

>> I've asked some my associates in both telecom and marketing to
>> address this issue.  This, from the president of a reseller company,
>> who discusses the real estate characteristics of 800 numbers.

>> "Why should 800 telephone numbers not be traded in the open market?
>> Portability opened the door.  It is time to complete the ownership
>> issue.  There will be ample supply of 800 numbers if current holders
>> can sell numbers.

> BUT they didn't buy the numbers in the beginning -- isn't this a
> give-away of property they never OWNED and agreed when they received
> the numbers that they didn't own?  Who owns the NUMBERS???  (Not the
> trademarked alphanumeric strings -- I know who owns them.)  >

OK, I'll bite.  Who owns the numbers?  See, you raise good questions
too.  Shouldn't they be addressed, by *all* interested parties?

>> ....  In the early days of America's development, land was given
>> freely to anyone who would care for it and develop it, whereafter,
the
>> land became their property.

> So you are advocating for the future that unassigned 800 numbers be
> sold or licensed, and that all current ASSIGNEES be granted free
> ownership of their current numbers?

What's free?  They've been investing advertising and services in those
numbers, paying maintenance and usage fees to the carriers, etc.
What's free?

> A sort of squatters' right's seizure of the property, isn't it?  Why
> should the industry and the FCC give away something of value?

First of all, they already have.  Second of all, you asked above who
owns the numbers, implying that no one does.  Are you now saying that
the "industry" and the FCC own the numbers?  Are you further
acknowledging
that they *are* of value?

Well, you know what, you're right.  They are.  They weren't when they
were assigned, though.  The value was vested in them by their users.

> Have you run this by Newt?

Not lately.

> 800 numbers are no different.

> I disagree -- the analogy is incorrect.  800-AlphaStrings are not
> like land, they are more like radio frequencies.  Do you suggest
> similar grandfathered ownership of radio frequencies (WLS FM 94.7
> would now OWN that frequency, rather than license it)?  How about
> automobile license plate alphanumeric strings?  User-IDs on AOL?  All
> government-assigned identifiers such as Social Security numbers?

Domain names do indeed have trademark ramifications, and are
recognized as brand-identifiers.  Social Security numbers, of course,
are not.

>> So, now there's media and real estate.

> Try my analogy instead, and see where it leads.  LICENSE AUCTIONS
> for telephone numbers!  Finally, a stable income source for funding of
> telecom standards work.  To be consistent, Internet addresses,
> Ethernet addresses, vanity street addresses, etc. should also be
> licensed and auctioned ...

It has been suggested that 800 numbers be registered to their owners
like real estate, with the FCC profiting from transactions.  I'm sure
there are many other viable suggestions yet to be voiced.

Again -- I'd like to hear them.

>> Clearly, the single-disciplinary operational standard approach
>> cannot possibly address the characteristics, nor the ramifications,
of
>> media and real estate market necessities.

> I agree -- would you agree to drop any private interest/ownership
> rights in any existing numbers, and come to work for ATIS as the
> Number Marketing Committee chairperson?

Would I agree to abandon my clients -- mostly smaller users who don't
have much financial clout with carriers -- and their interests?  No.

Re ATIS, are you offering me a job?  <g>

> Or do you just want existing users to suddenly become owners --
> without any reimbursement of the current administration, thereby
> reaping a windfall asset AND enhancing the value of businesses that
> profit from the "Telephone Number as a Brand Name" concept?

That is the reseller model, isn't it?  It's legal, entrepreneurial,
and it keeps America working, and Americans employed.

> Al Varney -- speaking only for myself, not any of the
> myriad sub-units of AT&T.

> [I am not one of the "policy shapers and decision makers" to which
> Judith Oppenheimer refers in the opening paragraph.  I AM interested
> in fairness of number assignment and the avoidance of unnecessary
> infrastructure costs (including FCC and industry forum/administrative
> costs) that are un-reimbursed by the companies benefiting from
> required infrastructure changes.]

Al, here you've lost me.  Who's going to pay for 888, if that mess
passes?  Who's going to pay for international freephone?  Who's going
to reimburse business for misdials, the substantial cost of new
advertising and consumer education, etc.?

Who is looking out for the companies that will be shafted by these
unnecessary and cumbersom infrastructure changes?

Huh?


J. Oppenheimer, [e-mail]  Interactive CallBrand(TM)

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Townley)
Subject: Job Posting: Cellular Engineer
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 15:06:20 MST
Organization: Primenet


All qualified and interested candidates are invited to submit resumes
for the following Field Engineering position in Tucson, AZ.

Please reply via USMail to:
Field Engineer
USWest New Vector
1250 W. Guadalupe
Gilbert, AZ 85233

-or-
FAX your resume to [phone]

-or-
e-mail your resume (MSWord or ASCII format) to [e-mail].

   --begin description--

Field Engineer-

US West Cellular, a progressive leader in the cellular communications
industry, has an immediate opening for a Field Engineer in the Tucson
area.

The position will be responsible for RF system design, cellular system
optimization and planning, cell site equipment procurement and new
site evaluation and support.  On a regional basis, this position will
provide cellular systems design support to meet quality and cost
objectives.  Requires a BSEE or equivalent education, 1-2 years RF
system design experience, knowledge of general telephony concepts and
basic understanding of RF propagation characteristics, testing and
verification, directional/tilted antenna applications and the PSTN
network.  Excellent organization and communication skills and the
ability to work in a winning team environment essential.  Experience
in the cellular industry desirable.

    -- end description --

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Levandowski)
Subject: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Proposed For the 'Net'
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 04:00:40 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.
Padgett Peterson) writes:

>> And yes, that child pornography: truly the pedophiles have a field
day
>> on the commercial services; after all on CIS/AOL/IRC you are whoever
you
>> say you are; who is to say otherwise?  At least on Internet's own
version
>> of chat (Internet Relay Chat or IRC) anomynity is relatively more
difficult
>> to pull off; your username@site is there for people to see.

> Now if I were more mercenary, I could see a value of being able to
trace
> any message to its source. It is certainly doable and not very
difficult,
> just an "unexplored territory" at the moment. However I do think that
> Internet Caller-ID would be a better solution to the problem than the
> "thought police" since censorship does nothing to stop those who are
rude,
> only society/culture can do that.

The problem is, how can you do this in a reliable way?  It's not easy
to fake Caller-ID, especially if the phone company and/or your CNID
box is smart (i.e., won't fall for fake tones sent after the true
ones).  This is because the CNID information is generated by the phone
company; most people don't have the skill or opportunity to convince
the switch that the line they're using doesn't REALLY have the phone
number it thinks it does ...

On the other hand, how difficult is it to convince IRC you're not who it
thinks you are?  If you're a UNIX user,

 setenv IRCNAME [e-mail]

and Bingo!  Pat gets some irate email.  (Or at least I think he does,
'cause I can't find a header with his address to verify it.  It's late.
:)

Some UNIX systems run a program called "identd," which will supposedly
verify such information, which is perhaps even closer to Caller ID.
But identd is just another program; there's a version of identd out
there that will spew forth whatever identity you desire, if you're
unscrupulous to install it on your machine.  The technical knowledge
required to install such a program is, in my opinion, several orders
of magnitude smaller than that required to hack the phone system.

If you're running IRC from a personal computer, it's even more
trivial.  Most such programs offer a setting where you can supply
whatever you want as your "real name."  The same goes for electronic
mail programs.

It's as if it were relatively easy for people to purchase their own
exchanges that could generate Caller ID and send it forth -- you could
send any number you wanted and it'd be difficult for the called party
to figure it out.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm wholly against any form of net
censorship; free speech is too important.  The risk here is that
promoting an "Internet Caller ID" as a safety feature that reliably
identifies the calling party is far too premature.  Perhaps when PGP
or something similar becomes widespread and as easy to use as plugging
in a Caller ID box ...


Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
[e-mail]     [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 14:19:27 -0500
From: Tom Ellis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Proposed For the 'Net'
Organization: Reynolds+Reynolds, Dayton, Ohio


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> I guess I am a person who believes the United States in particular and
> the world in general was a lot better place when the thing known as
'shame'
> played a prominent part in our lives; when there were things we just
did
> not let hang out for everyone else to see and talk about.  We no
longer
> have any shame, and this is reflected in among other things, this
online
> culture of ours. I think younger folks, the kids today who have been
in the
> world only a decade or two have gotten morally and ethically cheated
as a
> result of this loss of 'shame'. I won't push that, its just how I
think.

When I was younger -- growing up in Chicago, as a matter of fact -- I
was sure I would never grow up in a way that would be known as being
"old-fashioned".  When I was 13 and buying Elvis records, and in my
20's protesting the Vietnam war, I just couldn't understand the "old-
fashioneds", who "just didn't get it".

Then I realized, as I was reading and agreeing with the paragraph
above, how old-fashioned I must seem to be when I insist that life was
better with well-enforced unwritten rules about public discourse and
activity.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problems started in the USA when we
decided to get rid of religion. Now I quite agree that religion has a
lot
of excesses which are not good, and further that no one religion is
going
to suit everyone. A good many people were quite annoyed by some of the
excesses of the primary religion in the United States.

I do not think the people who worked hard to accomplish separation of
church and state over the past two decades or so are orges or devils.
I think they were well meaning people who wanted to see the Constitution
of the United States enforced better than it had been.  The trouble is,
constitution or no constitution, religion is what was holding together
the social fabric in this country. Yes, there were lots of things wrong
when religion was the dominant thing here, but I am not sure those
things
were 'more wrong' than the things we see wrong today. And anyway, must
it be one end of the spectrum or the other?

I beleive the folks who worked hard to get religion out of the schools
and government offices assumed that even without religion present,
people
would continue to behave in a moral and ethical way. The trouble is,
a great many did not. Religion was a powerful sword hanging over their
head
and for all its excesses and bad points, my gosh did it promote for the
most part a sense of civility among us. When religion was abolished,
nothing took its place, and that is the problem. Now we just have a
void.
I don't care if it was your religion or my religion or whosever's
religion, *any* religion provided a bit more to grasp on to, a bit more
to live for, and a sense of right and wrong than the void we live in
today.

I never could understand what people have against religion anyway.
After all, it is whatever you want it to be. I think they mistakenly
say 'religion = excesses of the Christian Right Wing', and that is
wrong.  They should have started their own religion instead, rather
than getting it tossed out of our public institutions entirely. There
need to be those goals and standards we set for ourselves, and religion
forces us to make those settings; to recognize those goals and
standards.
Of course telling people to start their own religion is unrealistic.
Very
few people can (or choose to) use their brains that well, or accept the
discipline in their lives that would result.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #126
******************************