Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/td/td13_826.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 28.4 KB | 689 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Dec 93 22:36:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 826

Inside This Issue:                        Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Yellow/White Pages Copyrighted? - No! - (Mark Voorhees via Danny Burstein)
    Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This? (John R. Levine)
    Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This? (David Leibold)
    Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Wire Types and Crosstalk (Gary Breuckman)
    Re: Telephone Company Rate Survey (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Cable and Phone Monopolies (Thomas Chen)
    Re: AT&T 9100 Phone Review (Bill Seward)
    Re: Phone Line Teaming (Tony Harminc)

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

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates and
redistribution/cross-posting of articles herein to news groups such as
those distributed via 'Usenet' is prohibited unless permission is ob-
tained in writing. This does not apply to *authorized* redistribution
lists and sites who have agreed to distribute the Digest. All cross-
postings or other redistributions must include the full Digest intact
and unedited.

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. You can reach us by snail mail
at Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or Fax at 1-708-329-0572.

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Yellow/White Pages Copyrighted? - No! -
Date: 18 Dec 1993 14:26:22 -0500


Passed along FYI to the list:

  From [e-mail]  Ukn Dec 18 13:52:16 1993
  Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1993 13:25:28 EST
  Sender: Computer-assisted Reporting & Research <[e-mail]>
  From: Mark Voorhees <[e-mail]>
  Subject: copy cats
  To: Multiple recipients of list CARR-L <[e-mail]>

  Re: copyright and yellow and white pages

Enough people asked for copies of these articles, I decided to make them
available for general consumption. I don't pretend to know whether
they would apply to duplicating the {Washington Post's} job listings
here.

Source: Information Law Alert

BELLSOUTH PLAYS TOUGH ON COPYRIGHTS (June 18, 1993)

   Two years after the Supreme Court limited copyright protection for
directories and databases, BellSouth Corp. is working harder than ever
to protect its flank.

   The company is vigorously defending its copyrights and trademarks
in at least six suits. "They are taking positions not being taken by
the other Bell operating companies," says Elliot Kaplan of Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, who is defending American Business
Information against a BellSouth suit.

   Many directory publishers stopped pursuing copycats in the wake of
the 1991 Supreme Court decision, Feist Publications Inc.  v. Rural
Telephone Co. The court ruled that a telephone book's copyright does
not prohibit a competitor from copying the white pages' underlying
facts.

   The directory served only 7,700 people in rural Kansas, but the
ripples from the ruling have been far reaching, throwing out a long
line of case law known as "sweat of the brow," which awarded
copyrights on the basis of hard work alone.

   SECOND LOOK

   The Feist case has not, however, dissuaded BellSouth, which some
observers say has more directory business to lose than other telephone
companies. After the Feist decision, BellSouth won an 11th Circuit
case upholding copyright protection for its yellow pages. The court
ruled that Donnelly Information Publishing, Inc., had violated
BellSouth's copyright by extracting key information for use in a
competing publication.

   Even that case is now up for grabs. It was briefed and argued
before the Feist decision, but decided afterward. After the issuance
of the Feist decision, Donnelly asked to submit new briefs addressing
the high-court ruling, but the circuit refused.

   The court is now taking a belated, second look. In November,
one-and-a-half years after the Feist decision, the circuit accepted
Donnelly's petition for an en banc hearing. Since the February
hearing, both sides have been eagerly awaiting the outcome.

   Anthony Askew of Atlanta's Jones & Askew remains confident that his
client, BellSouth, will prevail. The Feist decision confirmed
copyrights for compilations, Askew says, so long as there is a modicum
of originality in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the
facts. "We think there is a lot of creativity that goes in to the
creation of yellow pages," Askew says.

  PICTURE TAKING

   The yellow-page publisher exercises originality in its selection of
headings, placement of businesses under headings, and geographic
scope, according to Askew. In his brief, Askew likens the process to a
photographer snapping a picture of a moving train: "The changing
business population of a city is like the train moving past the
railroad crossing. The instant at which the photograph is taken is
like a directory close date. The camera takes a snapshot of the train
at that instant just as the directory represents a snapshot of the
business population at the time of publishing the directory. The type
of lenses on the camera is like the geographic scope of the
directory."

   Donnelly's lawyers decline to comment on the case. But their
briefs, prepared primarily by David Foster and Theodore Whitehouse of
Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, argue that Askew is simply dressing up
sweat of the brow in fancy clothing.

   Donnelly admits to copying names, addresses, and telephone numbers
from BellSouth's directory. It also says it copied the nature of a
company's business, but not the actual BellSouth headings -- something
that BellSouth disputes. The Feist decision, according to Foster and
Whitehouse's briefs, clearly permits the copying of all those
elements. Even if Donnelly had copied the headings themselves, that
too would be protected.

   BellSouth is trying to protect routine business decisions, such as
defining a geographic region for a directory, according to Donnelly
lawyers. The company "tries to disguise its sweat of the brow premise
by reliance upon a theory of its own invention," according to a
Donnelly brief.

   Under Donnelly's interpretation, it would be prohibited from
actually photocopying BellSouth's yellow pages -- but not much else.

  STAKING THE FUTURE

   If the circuit rules in Donnelly's favor, Bell South has its bases
covered. One of its suits -- against Southern Directories Co. --
alleges actual copying of display advertising. The suit also seeks
common-law trademark recognition of the "walking fingers" graphic.
Bell tried to register the walking fingers but was turned down by the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In a footnote, the board left open
the possibility that the walking fingers might warrant common law
protection. There's no harm in trying, as the saying goes.

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

   BYE BYE BAPCO; 11TH CIRCUIT KNOCKS OUT PROTECTION FOR YELLOW
PAGES (October 8, 1993)

   The 11th Circuit has ruled that the yellow pages deserve about as
much copyright protection as the white pages, which the Supreme Court
has said is not very much.

   And so BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Corp., which has
aggressively pursued copyright infringement cases, must move a marker
from the win to loss column.

   In 1991, BellSouth won a ruling in the 11th Circuit finding that
Donnelly Information Publishing, Inc., had violated its copyright.
Donnelly had copied information from BellSouth's Miami yellow pages in
order to develop sales leads to produce a competitive book (see June
18 issue).

   Between the time that case was briefed and decided, the Supreme
Court ruled in a different case that a company could copy the
underlying facts from the white pages of a competitor. In Feist
Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the high court
said compilations of facts deserved only "thin" protection -- and only
when the selection, arrangement, and coordination of facts was
original.

   The case threw out the so-called "sweat of the brow" line of cases
that rewarded hard work in the absence of creative expression. One of
the leading advocates had been Anthony Askew of Atlanta's Jones &
Askew, who represented BellSouth in this case.

   WHITE=YELLOW

   At the time, Donnelly's lawyers tried persuade the 11th Circuit to
take briefs on the yellow pages cases in light of the white-page
ruling. But the three-judge panel refused and ruled in BellSouth's
favor.

   One and a half years later, in November 1992, the court decided to
rehear the case en banc in light of the Feist ruling.

   And in September, it ruled, 7-1, that although the case "concerned
a directory of a different color," the Feist ruling should still
govern.

   BellSouth had tried to casts routine business decisions, such as
the geographic scope of the listing in a book, as acts of originality,
the court ruled.

   Even if Donnelly had copied the subject headings, which it denies
having done, there would not have been a copyright violation, the
court found. "BAPCO can claim no copyright in the idea of dividing
churches by denomination or attorneys by area of specialty," wrote
Judge Stanley Birch.

   FOLLOWING FEIST

   The decision "follows Feist -- pure and simple," says one lawyer
familiar with the case.

   Judge Joseph Hatchett, a member of the original panel, dissented on
the theory that Donnelly had actually copied original elements of the
pages.

   The majority opinion, he says, "transforms the multi-billion dollar
classified publishing industry from a business requiring the
production of a useful directory based on multiple layers of creative
decisionmaking, into a business requiring no more than a successful
race to a data processing agency to copy another publisher's copyrighted
work-product."

   BellSouth intends to ask the Supreme Court to hear this case, which
is highly unlikely given the unanimous finding in Feist.

·
(continued next message)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area # 700  EMAIL                   12-19-93 23:36      Message # -7041
From    : TELECOM Digest Moderator
To      : ELIOT GELWAN                                  PVT  RCVD
Subj    : TELECOM Digest V13 #826

 @FROM   :[e-mail]
· (Continued from last message)

    Three other copyright cases involving BellSouth had been stayed
pending resolution of the Donnelly case. Those cases involve companies
that compile mailing lists.

   In at least one of them, BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp.
v. EKI Inc. in federal court in Atlanta, BellSouth has asked that the
stay be continued.


voorhees reports
411 first street
brooklyn, ny 11215-2507
Mark Voorhees         1-718-369-0906 (voice)
[e-mail]  1-718-369-3250 (fax)

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

[e-mail] adds: all the usual disclaimers regarding liability,
intelligence, accuracy apply. spelling disclaimer is doubled.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 14:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


> Mobilnet. .. they are [apparently] offering a nationwide cellular service
> which eliminates the need for fiddling about with roaming codes etc.

There are about five different roaming systems in operation.  The
newer ones operate automatically.  My system (NYNEX Boston) belongs to
MobileReach which is supposed to deliver calls without my having to do
anything.  It runs at least from New Hampshire through Mass., R.I.,
Conn., downstate N.Y., down to northern NJ and probably farther.  I
don't know if it works; nobody's called me in the car yet when I was
down that way.

Based on the info in the {Cellular Roaming Guide}, it'll be a long time
before there's any sort of universal roaming, automatic or not, because
there are so many little carriers outside of large cities that don't
belong to any of the roaming networks.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 18:03:00 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mobilnet - Do They Know This?


I don't know the Mobilnet number, but a North American arrangement
called Mobilink may be reached at 1 800 995.4000. I don't know if this
Mobilink will be the same as Mobilnet (or maybe it's a competing
group). Bell Mobility (Ontario and Quebec, Canada) is part of the
Mobilink.


David Leibold

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 11:35:10 EST
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


"A. Padgett Peterson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The following announcemet appeared in my November Southern Bell
> bill:

> "Effective December 1, 1993, Southern Bell will begin blocking
> access by long distance companies to local calls. Under Florida
> law, local telephone calls must be handled by the local exchange
> telephone company only."

Apparently their system is allowing people to use a carrier to make
local calls.  This probably applies to someone dialing 10xxx plus
seven digits or 10xxx plus 1 and the ten digit number which is within
the same LATA.

> My concern is that I often go through my LDC to make a local call
> when at a pay phone and do not have change (it is less than the
> U$1.00-U$1.25  charged to make a collect local call). I called
> Southern Bell and was told that the ruling only affects residences
> but have not verified this as yet.

As long as you are either going through a 1-800 number or 950-xxxx
number, no matter what the local company does (unless they disable the
keypad on payphones or remove it) it should not affect your access.

Further, if you are using a company not in Florida, their rules
wouldn't apply anyway, since you make a 1-800 number call to some
place out of state, which is an interstate terminated call at the
switch operated by that company.  Their connection to the party you
want is a separate interstate call from their switch to the party you
are calling.


Paul Robinson - [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 07:35:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Local Telco Blocking Carriers


In Volume 13, Issue 814 [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno) writes:

> How do you circumvent the local company?  In PacBell territory, they
> will not allow you to select a long distance company on a local call.
> I can, however, use my long-distance calling card (AT&T, haven't tried
> with another company) for local calls.  These calls are billed by AT&T
> at PacBells rates and the bill reads "Local Calls Charged to Your AT&T
> Card."

This is true in NYTel land also.  However, I can use 1-800-CALL1-ATT
or 1-800-COLLECT (MCI) (1+ not required, yet).  The final option is
10698+0+XXX-YYYY also (698 translates to NYT) which will allow calls
to anywhere that NYT has a presence, including small portions of
Connecticut, Massachussetts and Pennsylvania plus the small local
calling area dialable from AC 212 in Northern NJ.

> If there is a way (besides the 1-800-CALLl-ATT method) to get AT&T for
> local calls, I would rather do this, as their rates are lower than
> those of Pacific Bell.

Have you tried 10288 + 0 + ... ?


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] (preferred)
                            [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 06:06:18 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: Wire Types and Crosstalk


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:

> On two-pair cable, I can't remember a time when the colors weren't
> red, green, black, yellow.

> Our house has cheapo flat cable (grrr!) that does a fairly efficient
> job presenting line 1 computer sound to line 2.  The computer room is
> near the telephone cable entry jack.  I was thinking I'd run another
> cable to the box and wire the computer in directly, and leave the
> other (two-line) phones to use the flat cable (for now).  My guess is
> that line 2 would cease to pickup the computer noise.  Is this a bad
> guess?

The green-red-black-yellow cable IS the reason you can hear the
computer on line 2.  There could be other reasons too, like leakage
from one line to the other in some equipment, but crosstalk between
lines is one of the reasons that most new installations are going to
PAIRED cable.  There can also be noise pickup from external sources
with non-paired cable, and it's not good for high-frequency signals
(T1, 10BaseT, etc).  The G-R-B-Y cable is NOT paired, the four wires
are just strung down the cable without twisting them.  If you put the
computer on a separate cable be sure to also not put that line on the
existing cables, you will still have the crosstalk, or replace the
wiring.

The correspondence between the old and new wires is ...

 pair 1 tip green white with blue stripe
  ring red blue with white stripe
 pair 2 tip black white with orange stripe
  ring yellow orange with white stripe
 pair 3 tip  white with green stripe
  ring  green with white stripe
 pair 4 tip  white with brown stripe
  ring  brown with white stripe

Larger cables are grouped with five pairs to a group. The groups are
white, red, black, yellow, violet and the pairs blue, orange, green,
brown, slate within each group.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 11:52:33 EST
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Rate Survey
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


"Hansel E. Lee Jr." <[e-mail]>, writes:

> I am conducting a rate survey of long distance companies.
> Currently I have contacted:

> All Net   AT&T    Cable & Wireless  MCI  Metromedia/ITT
> Opticom   Sprint  US Long Distance

> If you know the name and customer service number to any other long
> distance companies...

The largest local company is:

Mid Atlantic Telecom
of Washington DC     800 937 6891

I used to use their Voice mail service until the price went up.  Very
good, but I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it.

Another national company is:

  Wiltel             800 324 2222

Here are some ones listed locally who have 1-800 numbers:

  Eastern Telecom    800 448 1301
  EMI Communications 800 456 2001
  LCI International (Also calls itself Long Distance Service, Inc)
                     800 296 0220 / 24 Hr Cust Svc 800 296 7828

  Here are a few local ones:

  Executive Telecard, Rockville:       301 770 2029
  Long Distance Alternatives, Potomac  301 948 2813
  Long Distance Direct, Landover       301 925 8939
  Metrocomm Long Distance, McLean      703 506 6850
  U S Wats, Beltsville                 301 595 3055


Paul Robinson - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Chen)
Subject: Re: Cable and Phone Monopolies
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 23:48:45 GMT

·
(continued next message)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area # 700  EMAIL                   12-19-93 23:36      Message # -7040
From    : TELECOM Digest Moderator
To      : ELIOT GELWAN                                  PVT  RCVD
Subj    : TELECOM Digest V13 #826

 @FROM   :[e-mail]
· (Continued from last message)
Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (The
CyberMonk) writes:

> Perhaps this is a stupid question (it would not be the first time),
> but *why* don't they simply allow competition for local cable access?
> I read somewhere that in the few communities (in the US) that have
> more than one local cable operator that there are more channels,
> better service, and lover prices than elsewhere.

> [Moderator's Note: Cable companies don't want competition any more
> than the local telco wants competition. Like telco, the cable companies
> have friends in high places.

On top of that, many local governments receive revenue from cable
companies that they don't really want to see true compeitition that
would drive the price down and thus reducing their take.


tom

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 13:59:32 EST
From: Bill Seward <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 9100 Phone Review


[e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer) wrote:

>>    out of range notification;

> You mention that you lose sylables at 300 feet, what sort of 'alert'
> does it offer other than the obvious loss of transmission?  Does it
> hang-up when out-of-range?

It has an audible tone for out of range, either on or off hook.  If
you are on the phone and walk out of range, you have about 30 seconds
to move back in range, or it will hang up.

>> I have tested it for range with the following results: I can get about
>> 250 feet from the base with no noticable signal degredation on either
>> end.  I can get about 300 feet with acceptable degredation (the
>> occassional lost syllable).  At 375, I lose about every other syllable.
>> All of these distances are witworld.

> Here, again, I see this as poor.  The Tropez has been tested by a
> friend, in the middle of Chicago, with good trans) in any direction,
> using built-in antennas in a single-story building (frame or brick).

> A friend at a local Radio Shack has tested their phone from INSIDE a
> building (also steel-framed) and could make and receive calls there
> with no noticable interference.

I'm not an EE wizard -- maybe mine is defective.  However, I do know
that battery charge/condition, overhead power lines, and a lot of
other arcane things will have an effect such as a 110v line in the
wall.  If anyone else has a 9100 and has substantially surpassed my
distances, I'd like to know.

To pick a nit:  a mile is 5280 feet.  So could you friend talk in some
distances an actual 1/2 mile (2640')

>> but the handset is designed so that it is not really cradleable in
>> the crook of your neck.  Physically, it resembles a cellular handset
>> in dimensions -- and I suspect they are not cradleable for a reason.

> What reason would that be, Bill?  It seems to me that the phone should
> be as ergonomic (sp) as possible, No?

Let's put it this way -- have you seen how most people drive, with
maybe half the care they should use?  And have you ever seen people
driving, talking on their cell phone, and driving worse than the
average idiot with a license?  (I have -- regularly.)  Now can you
imagine ne, head tilted over (skewing their view) and driving?  No
thank you.

It is thought that cradling a phone is a cause of nerve pinches in the
neck area.  So what is better -- a design that attempts to force you
incorrect or dangerous use?


Bill Seward     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 00:02:56 GMT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Line Teaming


Kentucky Resources Council <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I want to use a standard telco line to connect to my local schools --
> they will soon have local internet connections (a big deal in the
> boonies!).  What I really want is a means to team a second phone
> numner onto the standard number. The second number needs a different
> ring cadence so I can discriminate between the two numbers -- now
> comes the fun part: I want to enable the second number from 4:30 pm to
> 7:30; that way we can publish the second number and not endure data
> calls during the school day.  Anyone who can help me enable such a
> system would be a minor hero in my book -- thanks for reading this.

[Moderator's Note suggests using Radio Shack distinctive ringing box.]

Another approach would be to have call forwarding installed on one
only of the two distinctive ringing numbers on the line.  During the
hours you don't want data calls, you forward that number somewhere
that won't bother anyone -- say a trunk or payphone that doesn't accept
incoming calls.  A data caller outside approved hours reaches a
recording "the number you have reached is not equipped to receive
incoming calls".  On the way out the door at 4:30, you unforward the
number, turn on the modem, and data calls are answered.

Problems:

- voice calls (on the non-data number) will be answered by the modem
  after hours.  But maybe no one calls there after the school day?

- Forwarding and unforwarding is fiddly and more error prone than
  turning a modem on and off.  If the phone on that line has programmable
  buttons you could set it up to do the forward.  Or the modem could
  do it.

- Call forwarding is an ongoing monthly cost.  But you don't have to
  pay for a distinctive ringing box.  Make the tradeoff -- it depends on
  rates in your area.

- Call forwarding may not be offered on just one of the numbers on a line
  by your telco.  Here (Bell Canada territory) forwarding can apply to
  the first ("main") number, and any of the other numbers, but not to
  secondary number(s) alone.  But of course what you think of as the
  main number can be what you tell Telco is secondary -- the only difference
  is the ringing cadence.

Probably the distinctive ring box is the overall best solution -- this is
just an attempt at lateral thinking ...


Tony Harminc


[Moderator's Note: The difficulty in forwarding the phone to 'some
other phone which does not have incoming service' is that most inter-
cepts these days do tell you the number you reached or attempted to
reach. The caller would get a message saying, "The number you dialed,
xxx-xxxx is not in service for incoming calls". This would lead to
much confusion by people who somehow thought *they* had dialed it
incorrectly and there would be people calling the operator to ask
why when they dial one number they know is good they are getting
connected to a totally different number, etc. What our correspondent
must do is make this as transparent as possible to the users; they
should not have to get involved asking questions about why the phone
rings one place sometimes and another place other times, etc.  All the
user needs to deal with is that the phone will be answered by modem
after a certain time of day and will ring unanswered at other times.

Quite some time ago, I used to know a number which was on a centrex
system and it (that line) was quite restricted. It could only call
other extensions (no outgoing calls via dialing 9) and it could not
get incoming calls except from other extensions. When you dialed the
number from elsewhere, the intercept was one I have never received
before or since: "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx cannot be reached
from outside the customer's premises." In other words, the customer
can call himself, and that's it! :) A few times, I forwarded my line
to it just for laughs, and when invariably someone trying to reach me
would ask the operator to intervene and 'see what is wrong with his
line', that recording would even baffle the IBT operators. To avoid
confusion then, don't get other numbers or other people involved. I
don't see why though our correspondent simply does not get a second
independent line rather than try to work with distinctive ringing. It
would make things so much simpler.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #826
******************************

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253