telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (10/12/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>
TELECOM Digest Friday, 12 Oct 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 100
Today's Topics:
[Carl Moore (VLD: New Jersey dialing]
NSA breaking DES
AT&T Tariffs on modem lines
AT&T ISN Query
St. Mary's men make phone booth history
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 7:36:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA>
Subject: [Carl Moore (VLD: New Jersey dialing]
[You still have to dial 0-201-XXX-XXXX if you are within 201 and want
operator assistance in completing the call. Sigh. --JSol] **********
Yes; the instruction card I saw on pay phone (609-423) said 0+areacode
+number for all 0+ calls. That instruction is the same in NYC--but
the instruction cards I saw there (before 212/718 split) did single
out area 212.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Oct 1984 09:20-EDT
From: David.Anderson@CMU-CS-K.ARPA
Subject: NSA breaking DES
Wait a minute ...
The last I heard about the NSA's ability to crack DES was that they
could do it if they spent considerable funds and built a machine with
1 million custom processors to perform the decryption in parallel.
Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean they actually have,
or even hope to have, the capability.
On the other hand, if they are actually building such a machine ...
--david
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 1984 06:52:33-PDT
From: waters%viking.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Lester Waters)
Subject: AT&T Tariffs on modem lines
The following (LONG) article is forwarded from an article composed by
a system operator of our local computer bulletin board (CBBS/NW) as I
thought it would be of general interest to many people on the net.
***********************************
Well, it seems that Mother Bell is at it again. In light of the
impending break up, she has decided to "suddenly" implement a little
known 1965 tariff. This "Information Terminal Service" tariff would
seem to be another in the long line of efforts to minimize the
impending "losses" which the Bell Company sees coming as a result of
the impending government imposed breakup.
If you have not seen the number of messages on the local bulletin
board systems (which would be effectively forced out of operation
should this tariff go into effect), or the numerous articles that have
been going around in the trade papers lately, let me bring you up to
date.
This tariff imposes a monthly charge of approximately $50.00 on each
modem connected to a residential phone line ($38.00 in Oklahoma where
the tariff is currently in effect) and increases the charge for
touch-tone service by about $2.00 regardless of the frequency of use.
This would probably be substantially higher for a business line.
One of the more amusing reasons I have seen given for the sudden
implementation of this new charge was "Because of the expense of
providing 'Data Grade' lines for use with these devices". Funny, but
I don't remember requesting a "Data Grade" phone line. It even says
in the modem manual that the modem was designed for use on "Voice
Grade" phone lines. Does this mean that what we now consider a
standard phoine line (marginal though it may be at times) we should be
paying more for? And does it mean that a "Voice Grade" phone line
will be considerably worse?
This seems to me, not unlike a measure proposed a few years ago by an
Eastern senator which would have imposed a $50.00 yearly tax on all
computer terminals both in commercial and private use. When asked for
the reason for such a tax, he replied "because there are so many of
them that they need to be taxed".
Consider for a moment the possible effects of such a charge beyond the
obvious effects on the public bulletin board and remote access
systems. The possibilities are indeed frightening as this would not
only effect the no-charge systems such as CBBS/NW and the Beaverton
RCP/M (just to name 2) but the large commercial systems such as
Compuserve and The Source as well.
This tariff would seem to be a throwback to the days before the
landmark "Carterphone" decision which made it legal to connect
privately owned and produced equipment (that had been FCC approved) to
the phone network without the use of a phone company supplied DAA
(Direct Access Arrangement) device.
At that time, since the only people who could supply the DAA device
was the phone company, and since the DAA could not be purchased but
only rented from the phone company, the phone company was assured of
receiving their "cut".
At the time this tariff was instituted (judging from the date quoted
by phone company representatives) it might have been construed as an
attempt to prevent anyone else from getting into the business of
building modems. Since in 1965 about the only people building modems
were the Bell system itself so it would have received little
opposition.
Consider also some of the other new (or "revised" as the phone company
would rather refer to them) charges that will most likely be coming up
soon after the 1st of the year (the date of the Bell system breakup).
*Message Unit Billing:* This is the way that long distance calls are
billed. Only after the 1st of the year you will probably be billed in
this manner for local calls as well rather than the monthly flat rate
that most of us now pay.
*Answering Unit Billing:* An "unofficial" rumor that has surfaced from
some phone company representatives. Currently, only the phone that is
originating (making) the call is billed for time spent on the line.
Unser this method of billing, the answering unit would also be billed
for connect time.
Now consider some of the things that are already being billed...
*Network Access:* This is the basic charge for hooking up to the phone
network. It currently also covers your charges for local calling and
usually does not vary regardless of the number of local calls placed
in a month. The question now is; when the phone company begins
Message Unit Billing for local calls, will the Network Access Charges
be reduced or eliminated? Probably not.
*Extended Area Service:* This is the charge for connecting to other
"local" exchanges that are not part of your phone company's operating
area. An example would be a GTE customer in Beaverton who is calling
a Bell system customer in Portland. While this is considered a local
call, you are billed for the ability to connect to the Portland
system.
*Regulated Lease:* This is the rental charge you pay on any phone
company equipment that you have in your home (the only simple, honest
charge that I can find on the bill).
*Other Charges:* This is not meant to be a vague category, but this is
what it says on the bill. I have no idea what it covers.
These combined with things like Federal Excise taxes, 911 Emergency
taxes, late payment charges, and others (which are all billed
separately) make for quite a phone bill. And we have not even
considered long distance charges...
The really curious part of all this is that even the phone company
does not seem to know just how they want to implement this new charge.
In Oklahoma, it seems to be a surcharge just as described in the 1965
tariff. However in Seattle the word is that they intend to bill any
line that has a modem on it as a business line. Confused? Me too!
It would appear that the phone company is selecting random areas to
implement these new charges as test cases. Perhaps to see which
variation of the surcharge receives the least resistance after which
they would start to impose the charge on a nationwide basis.
Personally, I don't believe for a second that the "breakup" of the
Bell system will prevent the system from at least "recommending"
procedures for the network at large. All in the interest of reducing
losses of course, while the newly "independent" companies regain
control of their separate operations.
Well, I fear that this article has rambled far enough for one session.
If you would like more information on how the battle is going, I will
conclude with names, addresses, and phone numbers of the organizations
that have formed to contest these new and questionable charges. I
will also attempt to update you as new news becomes available. I will
also be attending a meeting of the Seattle based Telecommunications
Users Group (TUG) coming up on 10/15/83 at which the sloe topic of the
meeting will be the charges that I have discussed here. I hope to
bring back news (hopefully good) from that meeting. Representatives
from the Bell system, as well as from numerous modem and computer
manufacturers are expected to attend. I have also suggested that
CompuServe and The Source be contacted so that they might also be
represented.
Seattle contacts:
Telecommunications User's Group (TUG)
Brian Sullivan or Glenn Gorman (206)
746-0145 (206) 763-7733
Oklahoma contacts:
Oklahoma Modem User's Group
911 West Imhoff Rd., #634
Norman, OK. 73069 Robert Braver, President
24 hour hot line (recorded message updated daily)
(405) 360-7462
Periodic updates will also be available on CBBS/NW (503) 646-5510 or
(503) 284-5260 as further information becomes available to us.
Downloaded from USENET
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 13:29:07 EDT
From: dca-pgs <dca-pgs@DDN1.ARPA>
Subject: AT&T ISN Query
I'm trying to get a good handle on what ISN is. A typical ad decribes
some but not much.
Typical ad:
"We'll Make You A Star."
"...The network brings together the star topology, a Packet Controller
with a centralized transmission bus, and a collision-free network
access protocol, making it truly unique in local networks. ... ISN
even provides centralized control and administration; and, because all
interfaces are housed in a central cabinet, security is high. ...
Moreover, you're always assured of fast response time because of the
shortness of the net's centralised transmission bus. ... "
---------------------------------------------------------
So; apparently this is a logical token ring. Is AT&T making this a
co-packaged offering with PBX products, to run on in-place wire plant?
This would add to its appeal, but the add didn't say. Is anyone "out
there" installing or using ISN? All info & war stories appreciated.
Best,
-Pat Sullivam (try "Sullivan", I went to a going-away
luncheon and now can't spell my name!)
------------------------------
Date: 8-Oct-84 23:03 PDT
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems Div. - McDnD
From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: St. Mary's men make phone booth history
TO NATURAL-DISASTERS: I send this to break the L O N G silence this
distribution list has had.
Times Tribune (Monday, Oct. 8, 1984)
Moraga, Ca.
At St. Mary's College, it's thumbs down for goldfish swallowing,
thumbs up for stuffing people into phone booths.
On Saturday, 24 students at the tiny school crammed themselves into
a Pacific Bell phone booth, breaking the 1959 national record by
one small body.
That body belonged to 5-foot-2, 120 pound Irwan Kamdani, a senior
who moved here from Indonesia four years ago.
"I don't know if we have anything like that there," he said. But
this was great."
In less than 10 minutes, the booth was scientifically packed with
24 aching, contorted men in a contemporary recreation of the stunt
staged on a spring night in 1959 in response to losing a basketball
championship.
Sure, nobody could breathe. And yes, it hurt to be on the bottom
of a human pile. But the final word: it was fun.
"Swallowing goldfish," said Mike Wilson, number 19 in the pile,
"now that's stupid."
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************