A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-143.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 21.2 KB | 454 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:03:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 143

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GPO Access - WINDO Update (Taxpayer Assets Project via Mark Boolootian)
    Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan (Mark Boolootian)
    Re: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams (Todd Lesser)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Boolootian)
Subject: GPO Access - WINDO Update
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:40:59 -0800 (PST)


Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
February 28, 1993

               UPDATE ON WINDO/GATEWAY LEGISLATION

 From:    James Love <[e-mail]>
 Re:      GPO Access (Proposed legislation to replace GPO
          WINDO/Gateway bills)

          Note: the WINDO/GATEWAY bills from last Congress (HR
          2772; S. 2813) would have provided one-stop-shopping
          online access to federal databases and information
          systems through the Government Printing Office (GPO),
          priced at the incremental cost of dissemination for use
          in homes and offices, and free to 1,400 federal
          depository libraries).

Both the House and Senate are soon expected to introduce legislation
that would replace the GPO WINDO/GATEWAY bills that were considered in
the last Congress.  According to Congressional staff members, the bill
will be called "GPO Access."  The new name (which may change again)
was only one of many substantive and symbolic changes to the
legislation.

Since the bill is still undergoing revisions, may be possible (in the
next day or so) to provide comments to members of Congress before the
legislation is introduced.

The most important changes to the legislation concern the scope and
ambition of the program.  While we had expected Congressional
democrats to ask for an even broader public access bill than were
represented by the WINDO (HR 2772) and Gateway (S. 2813) bills, the
opposite has happened.  Despite the fact that the legislation is no
longer facing the threat of a Bush veto or an end of session
filibuster (which killed the bills last year), key supporters have
decided to opt for a decidedly scaled down bill, based upon last
year's HR 5983, which was largely written by the House republican
minority (with considerable input from the commercial data vendors,
through the Information Industry Association (IIA)).

The politics of the bill are complex and surprising.  The decision to
go with the scaled down version of the bill was cemented early this
year when representatives of the Washington Office of the American
Library Association (including ALA lobbyist Tom Sussman) meet with
Senator Ford and Representative Rose's staff to express their support
for a strategy based upon last year's HR 5983, the republican
minority's version of the bill that passed the House (but died in the
Senate) at the end of last year's session.  ALA's actions, which were
taken without consultation with other citizen groups supporting the
WINDO/GATEWAY legislation, immediately set a low standard for the
scope of this year's bill.

We were totally surprised by ALA's actions, as were many other groups,
since ALA had been a vigorous and effective proponent of the original
WINDO/GATEWAY bills.  ALA representatives are privately telling people
that while they still hope for broader access legislation, they are
backing the "compromise bill," which was publicly backed (but
privately opposed) last year by IIA, as necessary, to avoid a more
lengthy fight over the legislation.  If the negotiations with the
House and Senate republicans hold up, the new bill will be backed by
ranking Republicans on the Senate Rules and House Administration
Committees, and passed by Congress on fast track consent calendars.

We only obtained a draft of the legislation last week, and it is still
a "work in progress."  All changes must be approved by key Republican
members of Senate Rules and House Administration.

Gone from the WINDO/GATEWAY versions of the bill were any funding (S.
2813 would have provided $13 million over two years) to implement the
legislation, and any findings which set out the Congressional intent
regarding the need to provide citizens with broad access to most
federal information systems.  Also missing are any references to
making the online system available through the Internet or the NREN.


     WHAT THE GPO ACCESS BILL WILL DO (subject to further
     changes)

1.   Require the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide
     public online access to:

     -    the Federal Register
     -    the Congressional Record
     -    an electronic directory of Federal public information
               stored electronically,
     -    other appropriate publications distributed by the
               Superintendent of Documents, and
     -    information under the control of other federal
               departments or agencies, when requested by the
               department or agency.

2.   Most users will pay user fees equal to the "incremental cost
     of dissemination of the information."  This is a very
     important feature that was included in the WINDO/GATEWAY
     legislation.  At present many federal agencies, including
     the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), make
     profits on electronic information products and services.
     Given the current federal government fiscal crisis, this
     strong limit on online prices is very welcome.

3.   The 1,400 member federal Depository Library Program will
     have free access to the system, just as they presently have
     free access to thousands of federal publications in paper
     and microfiche formats.  Issues to be resolved later are who
     will pay for Depository Library Program telecommunications
     costs, and whether or not GPO will use the online system to
     replace information products now provided in paper or
     microfiche formats.


     WHAT THE GPO ACCESS BILL DOESN'T DO

-    Provide any start-up or operational funding

-    Require GPO to provide online access through the Internet

-    The Gateway/WINDO bills would have given GPO broad authority
     to publish federal information online, but the new bill
     would restrict such authority to documents published by the
     Superintendent of Documents (A small subset of federal
     information stored electronically), or situations where the
     agency itself asked GPO to disseminate information stored in
     electronic formats.  This change gives agencies more
     discretion in deciding whether or not to allow GPO to
     provide online access to their databases, including those
     cases where agencies want to maintain control over databases
     for financial reasons (to make profits).

-    Language that would have explicitly allowed GPO to reimburse
     agencies for their costs in providing public access was
     eliminated in the new bill.  This is a potentially important
     issue, since many federal agencies will not work with GPO to
     provide public access to their own information systems,
     unless they are reimbursed for costs that they incur.

-    S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to publish an
     annual report on the operation of  the Gateway/WINDO and
     accept and consider *annual* comments from users on a wide
     range of issues.  The new bill only makes a general
     requirement that GPO "consult" with users and data vendors.
     The annual notice requirement that was eliminated was
     designed to give citizens more say in how the service
     evolves, by creating a dynamic public record of citizen
     views on topics such as the product line, prices, standards
     and the quality of the service.  Given the poor record of
     many federal agencies in dealing with rapidly changing
     technologies and addressing user concerns, this is an
     important omission.

-    The WINDO/GATEWAY bills would have required GPO to address
     standards issues, in order to simplify public access.  The
     new bill doesn't raise the issue of standards.

     OTHER POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Supporters of a quick passage of the scaled down GPO Access
legislation are concerned about a number of budget, turf and
organizational issues.  Examples are:

-    Congress is considering the elimination of the Joint
     Committee on Printing, which now has oversight of GPO.

-    There are proposals to break-up GPO or to transfer the
     entire agency to the Executive Branch, which would slow down
     action on the online program, and may reduce the federal
     support for the Federal Depository Library Program, or lead
     to a different (and higher) pricing policy.

-    The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) opposes an
     important role by GPO in the delivery of online services,
     since NTIS wants to provide these services at unconstrained
     prices.

It does not appear as though the Clinton/Gore Administration has had

much input on the GPO Access legislation, which is surprising since
Vice President Gore was the prime sponsor of the GPO Gateway to
Government (S. 2813) bill last year.  (Michael Nelson will reportedly
be moving from the Senate Commerce Committee to the White House to be
working on these and related information policy issues.)

Even the scaled down GPO Access bill will face opposition.  According
to House republicans, despite IIA's low key public pronouncements, the
vendor trade group "hates" the bill.  Opposition from NTIS is also
anticipated.

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT VIEW

We were baffled and disappointed the decision of ALA and Congress to
proceed with a scaled down version of last year's bills.  We had hoped
that the election of the Clinton/Gore administration and the growing
grass roots awareness of public access issues would lead to a
stronger, rather than a weaker, bill.  In our view, public
expectations are rapidly rising, and the burden is now on Congress and
the Administration to break with the past and take public access
seriously.  The GPO Access legislation provides incremental benefits
over the status quo, but less than might seem.

-    The statutory mandate to provide online services is useful,
     but public access proponents have always argued that GPO
     already has the authority to create the WINDO/GATEWAY under
     the current statutes.   In fact, GPO now offers hundreds of
     CD-ROM titles and the online GPO Federal Bulletin Board, a
     service that could (and should) be greatly expanded.

-    The three products that the GPO Access bill refers to are
     already online or under development GPO.  GPO is now working
     on the development of a locator system and an online version
     of the Federal Register, and the Congressional Record is
     already online in the Congressional LEGIS system -- a system
     that is presently closed to the public, and which is not
     mentioned in the GPO Access bill.

-    The "incremental cost of dissemination" provision of the new
     bill is welcome, but GPO is already limited to prices that
     are 150 percent of dissemination costs.


Several suggestions to strengthen last year's bills were ignored.
Among them:

-    Expand the initial core products to include other online
     information systems that are already under the control of
     congress, such as the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)
     online database of campaign contributions, the House LEGIS
     system which provides online access to the full text of all
     bills before Congress, or the Library of Congress Scorpio
     system.

-    Create a special office of electronic dissemination in GPO.
     At present, GPO's electronic products and services are
     managed by Judy Russell, who is capable, but who is also
     responsible for managing the primarily paper and microfiche
     based federal Depository Library Program, a time consuming
     and complicated job.  We believe that GPO's electronic
     dissemination program is important enough to warrant its own
     director, whose career would depend upon the success of the
     electronic dissemination program.


The GPO Access bills will be considered by the following Congressional
Committees:

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration  202/224-6352
     Chair, Senator Wendell Ford
     Ranking Minority, Senator Ted Stevens

House Committee on House Administration 202/225-225-2061
     Chair, Representative Charlie Rose
     Ranking Minority, Representative Bill Thomas


James Love                 v.   215/658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project    f.   215/649-4066
12 Church Road       internet  [e-mail]
Ardmore, PA  19003

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Boolootian)
Subject: Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:36:32 -0800 (PST)


> Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy, preferably from the net,
> of the "printed' technology policy referred to in the address?

The technology policy referred to by Clinton and Gore when speaking
with employees of SGI is available via anonymous ftp from
wiretap.spies.com as file /Clinton/prez/tech.22feb93.2.  This site
apparently provides an archive of much of what the White House Press
Service releases.

While I don't feel compelled to air my political leanings in this
forum, I would like to make a single comment in response to Robert
McMillin's following statement:

> If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have
> held their applause.  I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace.
> We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption
> of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a
> "information super highway".

When you consider the success of the Internet and the fact that the
government was (and still is, to a degree) responsible for a part of
its funding, I can't see any reason for wanting to keep the U.S. out
of cyberspace.  The cost to the govt (i.e. the taxpayers) is dwarfed
by the benefit to the country (i.e. the taxpayers).


Mark Boolootian        [e-mail]        [phone]
Disclaimer:  booloo speaks for booloo and no other.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (Todd Lesser)
Reply-To: Todd Lesser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams


Frank Carey of Bell Labs wrote:

> I spoke to the Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) in
> Washington this morning.  They have been trying to interest the FCC in
> the problem of consumers getting billed for calling 800 numbers that
> somehow turn into 900 numbers or, by some other means, cause a charge

I think it is time to stop all the rumors and accusations.  First, it
is the legislators and telephone companies fault that there is this
type of billing going on. Interactive 900 numbers came to be in 1987
when Telesphere set up 900 numbers in Chicago.  At that time, even
though there had been 976 numbers for years and problems associated
with them, the telephone companies refused to offer blocking to people
who requested it. I personally feel that sex lines or any other type
of communication that don't violate the constitution should be
allowed.

At the same time, I feel that the telephone companies, being a
monopoly and a public utility, should be required to offer blocking to
people who don't want to have their children or anyone else dial
certain numbers from their phone.  Not until there was a widespread
outcry did blocking and other consumer safeguards come into place.
Close to that same time, the Helms amendment passed which basically
killed 900 phone sex.  Instead of just enforcing the safeguards, the
legislators decided to restrict people's access to information.  The
information providers just tried new ways to bill their callers.
Granted there were and are plenty of scams with 900 numbers, but you
don't get rid of the baby with the bath water.  Remember, not too long
ago, T.V. stations stopped accepting 800 numbers in advertisements
because they felt that, "ALL" companies that had 800 numbers ran mail
order scams.

Second, 800 numbers don't mysteriously turn into 900 numbers.  Patrick
mentioned it in the last post.  Companies who run some audiotex
services have an 800 number.  People call it -- the company gets their
ANI. Sometimes they call you back collect; other times they just
process the call. They then take that ANI and make a billing record.
They then submit the record to the telephone company directly or to a
third party company like Integretel who has agreements with the
telephone companies.

When these companies create a billing record with the ANI, they can
create it anyway they want. For example: a collect call, a direct
dialed call to a 900 number, an operator assisted call from
619-626-1234 to 202-321-5555 (Even if you are calling from Chicago
instead of San Diego and have never heard of either of these numbers
and all you did was call an 800 number.)

Third, a lot of these examples of people getting 400 dollar bills when
they are not home could be a computer/human error. *But* just as many
people who did make the call and don't want to admit it to their wife
girlfriend, or mother.  The example of calls from a previous post
could have been the neighbor who used the phone while feeding the cat
while the homeowners were out of town.  Everytime somebody does a
charge back for a 900 telephone call, the excuse 99% of the time is
either I didn't know there was a charge for the call, even though by
law you a required to say it at the being of the recording and allow
people to hang up and not be charged, or they deny all knowledge and
say they didn't make the call even though they called every single day
for a month at all times of day and night.

Instead of giving people a free ride who call the services and don't
pay, why doesn't the legislators just crack down on the 1% of the

information providers who don't give people what they thought they
were paying for, enforce the consumer safeguards, and stop worrying
about content and let people do what they want on the phone in the
privacy of their own homes.

I am off the soap box.

TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Oh, sure.  All the gay and other sexually oriented
> adult papers run ads for those things, giving an 800 number and empha-
> sizing 'no credit cards needed; not a 900 number'. So how do they
> bill you?  They call you back collect then send the charges through
> Integretel on a billing tape to your local telco. Integretel keeps its
> own database of payphone numbers and cranky customers; they don't
> bother to consult the same one AT&T/Sprint/MCI/local telcos use for
> 'billed number screening' but they will add you to their own database
> for this purpose on request.  Sign up today!  800-736-7500.   PAT]

The database they subscribe to is call LIDB.


Todd Lesser     Info Connections
[phone] Voice    [phone] Fax
<[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!todd>

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 22:20:42 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill


[e-mail] (John Higdon) wrote:

>> [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are
>> no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The
>> call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells
>> the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and
>> the call is released to go on its way.  PAT]

> Well, then, I guess the system out here is damn near perfect. I have
> not been asked for my number one single time in over thirty-five
> years.  And I certainly make my share of long distance calls. Also, if
> this were EVER done anymore, it would certainly take a lot of steam
> out of AT&T's remarkably arrogant attitude about never making
> mistakes. If the accounting is EVER based upon what a caller tells an
> operator, all bets are off for dependable accuracy in billing.

You just weren't trying, John!  One of my earliest "playing with the
phone" discoveries in the 1960s was that it was possible to cause an
ANI failure (this was SxS into a 4A crossbar) by flashing just after
finishing dialing.  Actually something slightly longer than a flash
but shorter than a hangup was needed -- just about one second of
on-hook.  The call would then go to ONI, and it was possible to have
interesting chats with the operator (who at that time *was* on a
dedicated ONI board).  I got pretty good at forcing ANI failures -- I
could do it about nine times out of ten, and the clicks (or rather
absence of clicks) would indicate failure (that is success).

I was about to add a sentence with a :-) saying that of course I never
used ANI failure to the financial disadvantage of Bell, but I realize
that the smilie is not necessary -- I really never did allow a call to
complete using a false number given to the ONI operator.


Tony Harminc

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #143
******************************