TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Mar 2000 16:43:22 EST    Volume 20 : Issue 10

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (David Chessler)
    Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (John Willkie)
    Re: Communication Tower (Linda Harris)
    Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (John David Galt)
    Re: NXX by NPA (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Will Roberts)
    Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Joe Machado)
    Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (No Spam)
    Re: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe (Steve Hayes)
    Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Justa Lurker)
    Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (The Old Bear)

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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated 
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        611 Poplar Street
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 805-545-5115
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe/unsubscribe:  subscriptions@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.


*   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.                                                 *


   In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 


Finally, 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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.

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.



Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 13:13:06 -0500
From: David Chessler <Chessler@capaccess.org>
Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress


TELECOM Digest Editor responded to dneiburg@bpr.org who quoted a news
source:

<<<snip>>>

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is purely up to Kevin where to go

> on this, and it appears he already went before Congress with his

> testimony, but I personally would have told them to leap off a very

> high bridge. The treatment he got from the government was very

> disgraceful and I personally would have given them no cooperation at

> all. If anything, I would have gone before Congress and publicly

> encouraged other hackers to continue their work.  PAT]


You assume that the Government is monolithic. It's not, and Congress 
is often at odds with the executive agencies that seek to enforce 
the laws that Congress botches up ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H writes. Mitnick 
may not need publicity among the cognizenti (I guess that's us), but
his career as a black-hat hacker is probably over. He's now 
repositioning himself as a "security consultant," quite possibly to
the CIS departments of the same government agencies and private 
companies (such as the New York Times) that tried so hard to put him
in jail. Moreover, he can do this without ever actually *touching* a
computer. (He may be high-paid enough to do what little actual 
computer work he must do by dictating to a typist, as Dick Stallman
did when he had carpel tunnel syndrome.)

Indeed, as reported in this story, Mitnick got the endorsement of his
persecutor: [sic]

> Los Angeles Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Painter, who won the

> conviction that put Mitnick away, said the testimony accurately

> portrayed the threat of "human engineering." "The best security

> system in the world isn't worth much if you can bypass it by getting

> security people and other people to give you information and he

> was very good at that," said Painter, who called Mitnick a "cyber-con

> man." 


That is surely good for Mitnick's future security business, giving 
lectures on "human engineering."

Kevin Mitnick knows *exactly* what he's doing, and he's playing those
Senators (and prosecutors) like a violin.



From: John Willkie <jmwillkie@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:45:14 -0800


Pat;

Just how could the "congress critters" (or even one of them) just
snapped their fingers to get Mitnick out of jail a year ago?  Last
time I checked, Congress had no power to overturn a court order, and
judgments are court orders, or to pass bills ex-post facto (after the
fact) or to pass bills of attainder (affecting one person.)


John Willkie


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They certainly can pass bills which
affect one person, although it is not done a lot. I think at the very
least, they might have held a hearing a year or two ago, placed Janet
Reno and a couple of her head honchos on a hot seat and asked her,
'Just why is Kevin Mitnick, a national hero in the estimation of many
in this country being held in prison unconstitutionally without any 
trial for four years?' When they finally got around to letting him
out of prison, he should have been allowed to walk freely, without
any restrictions whatsoever on his speech or actions. They could
have done a lot for him, but chose not to.  PAT]   



From: Linda Harris <tamworth@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Communication Tower
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:53:34 GMT


First of all, thank you to everyone that has responded to our query.
I will e-mail all concerned ASAP.

We are a farm, southwest of Pittsburgh PA, with an elevation Bench
Marker on our property of 1320ft above sea level.  The site for the
Tower is even higher than the Marker. From the intended site, you can
see for a radius of over 30 miles. Saying this, it does not affect any
property apart from our own.  We have road access already in place,
telephone cable and electricity. The site is a perfect spot for the
erection of a tower.

The tower company is offering us $5,000 per annum, with a 15% increase
every 5 years.  The lease will run for 55 years.

We feel that because we are farmers, and the way farming has declined over
the last few years, the tower company is taking advantage, thinking that we
will snap up their offer. Obviously they want to get the site for the best
possible price, we on the other hand feel that we should try and negotiate
to get a fair and more reasonable offer. After all this will affect the next
generation on the farm and possibly the one after that.

We have read and re read all the e-mails that we have received, and will
reply to them all, within the next day or so.

Please e-mail me if you have anything more to say since receiving more
details.


Yours Faithfully,

Linda Harris



From: John David Galt@acm.org
Organization: Association for Computing Machinery
Subject: Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 02:36:44 GMT


Scot E. Wilcoxon wrote:

> Of course, Intuit doesn't mind knowing every time you read email which

> they sent to you.  Look at Intuit HTML email with ID codes in URLs.


I've seen such code used in both e-mail spam and newsgroup postings, and
Netscape Communicator automatically executes it upon viewing the message.
(Communicator has settings to turn off Java and JavaScript in messages, but
not HTML.  The only reliable way to avoid connecting to the web site in such
cases is to download your messages, unplug your PC from the network, then
read the messages.)  I have complained to Netscape, was brushed off, and
even wrote the problem up in comp.risks.  I don't know if MSIE or other
Internet software has the same vulnerability.

Combine this with a malicious web page, and it will give the lie to the old
saw that you can't get a computer virus merely by reading a message.  Maybe
after this happens and hurts enough people, Netscape will do something.


John David Galt



From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: NXX by NPA
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 18:00:00 PST
Organization: Shadownet


dold@email.rahul.net writes:

> Robert M. Bryant <rmbryant@att.com> wrote:

>> Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State??


>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say 

>> the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. 

>> And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date.  PAT]


> Not several CDs, only one.

> http://www.trainfo.com/tra/catalog.htm


> The LERG is about $700, and contains _all_ the data.

> The V&H Terminating Point listing has NPA-NXX, city, V&H, about $250.

> "City" might not be what you think it is, though.


Better yet, you can visit www.nanpa.com and down load the available and
utilized NPA-NXX combos for regions. I'm in oregon so I grab
WNAVAIL.ZIP and WNUTLZD.ZIP. (W for Western, N for northern). 

Here's a sample of WNAVAIL.TXT:
State NPA-NXX File Updated 02/29/2000
CO 719-200 
CO 719-201 
CO 719-202 

Here's a sample of WNUTLZD.TXT:
State NPA-NXX OCN Company                                            RateCenter      Switch          EffectiveDate   File Updated 02/29/2000
CO 303-200 7378  TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP - CO                 DENVER          AURRCOBUDS0      
CO 303-201 6584  THE WESTLINK COMPANY                               DENVER          WMNSCODFCM1      
CO 303-202 9636  US WEST COMMUNICATIONS - MOUNTAIN BELL             DENVER          LKWDCOMADS0      

There are 6 or 7 regions. Alas, Canada isn't included in any of them. I
think the Caribbean is included in one of them.

If anyone knows of a free source for similar tables for Canada, I'd be
interested. I'd also be interested in finding out why NANPA *doesn't*
include Canadian info beyond areacodes! Last time I looked Canada *was*
part of the "North American Numbering Plan Area".


Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort



From: wroberts@arctos.com (Will Roberts)
Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:20:16 -0500
Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos


Bill Horne <bhorne.nouce@banet.net> writes:

> Ed Ellersa wrote:


>> I see from The Washington Post that Bell Atlantic has now started shafting

>> some of its customers in the same way that BellSouth is shafting me --

>> namely, by using digital loop carrier systems to provide a poor imitation of

>> a phone line, one which unnecessarily distorts the signal and therefore

>> blocks the use of V.90 modem connections.


> If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone

> line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be.


> To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the signal"

> is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would spend

> hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install, insure,

> and support a DLC system which requires more (and more expensive)

> maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same services, and

> costs more to run.


It seems that there are two issues concerning the use of subscriber 
loop carrier arrangements: v.90 modems and xDSL capabilities.

I more or less agree with Bill Horne concerning xDSL -- you just 
can't make copper pairs appear out of nowhere.  The incumbent telco 
is not in the business building copper plant anymore (unless, of 
course, the incumbent telco sees xDSL as a line of business it 
wants to be in.)

But the v.90 modem problems are just plain lazy engineering even 
if not a conspiracy.  (or maybe a little bit of both)

There have been discussions about DLC in this forum on several 
occassions.  If properly implemented, it shouldn't matter where 
the analog-to-digital conversion happens: at the CO or in a 
vault near the subcribers' homes.

As I understand the issue from past discussions here, the 
problems arise when these digital carrier arrangements are 
improperly configured -- or when somebody uses them at *both* 
ends, converting back to analog before presenting the loop 
to the CO switch.  If the ILEC wanted to accommodate v.90 
modem traffic (and those nasty long duration calls which 
internet junkies and VPN-using telecommmuters make), the 
very well could.

The thing that amazes me most, however, is the difficulty that 
the ILECs seem to have in understanding that CLECs are not 
going to go away and that if they stopped digging in their 
heels they could make their wholesale business very profitable 
indeed.

If the 'carrier hotels' that are spring up can make money 
renting space to various service providers, why aren't the 
ILEC's building or leasing vault space in subdivisions or 
city blocks where they can terminate short subscriber 
copper loops and lease rack space and fiber backhaul to 
wherever.  Nobody's going to build competing last mile 
facilities if the ILECs maintain their advanatage as 
efficient producers and progressive stewards of that 
portion of their plant.

Somehow, however, I think that the ILECs are so focused 
on long distance services -- ironically an increasingly 
competitive market with decreasing margins and under the 
sword of Damocles caleld internet telephony -- that they 
cannot figure out the long-term profit opportunities 
imbedded in their local plant, engineering expertise, 
relationships with local government, and remaining craft 
workers. 



From: Joe Machado <jmachado@webzone.net>
Subject: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 00:15:43 -0600


It may have started with Eniac, the big beast that would perform
calculations quicker than a human could, supposedly. Soon, the need
arose for more computing power and a smaller footprint. IBM and folks
provided the solutions but still more power and a smaller footprint
was needed, especially one where people could easily use the
beast. Gates and Jobs provided the footprint and solution, later
Compaq and IBM, and soon we were computing on the desktop as well as
the data center.

My old Kaypro 10, with its CPM operating system could perhaps be
considered an early form of mobile computing; just latch the keyboard
on and take the whole thing to another location. Wonderful stuff!
Laptops later came and got better screens, video, and power. Now we
could really compute anywhere! The trend continued and motherboards
got smaller as did 'mainframes', while also gaining in computing
power.

These communication resources were not sufficient, we also needed to
speak to one another no matter where we were. Portable phones provided
the answer ( no pun intended ) and it looks as if just about everyone
in modern civilization today has a cell phone. However, if you could
speak using a cellular telephone, and surf using the laptop, why not
have the information one gets while surfing on the telephone? Sure,
there was the matter of different screen sizes and amount of content,
but WAP fixed all that. Now, you can speak on the cell phone, surf the
net, receive and send emails and messages, and more, all on the same
unit, the cellular telephone. You can also speak through your computer
with someone else far away, and for free ...  oh no! That is just free
stuff, not WAP ). Wonderful opportunities, very interesting, and great
fun!!!

Excuse me, but is miniaturization going on? Yes, the world is
shrinking due to the convergence of technologies and the accessibility
we realize by using them, but, is not the technology also shrinking?
It seems that what we are trying to do is exert ourselves into the
many possibilities available not just as we knew them with a telephone
and a computer, but also our realizations due to maturation of the Web
with our participation in it, and all by using one single device. (
BTW, where is my cellular Cisco Pix on a chip?  Also, can other people
hear and see what I am doing? And, am I frying my brain or ear drum
with this new gizmo? ). All the things we can do with multiple devices
we can now do ( just about ) with one small handheld unit that can fit
in a pocket on our clothes.

This technology is cool, interesting, useful, and at many times
necessary.  It is also affordable for many. The technology really
works and virtually anywhere, thanks to the big boys, including the
Satellite folks! Hopefully everyone will be able to partake of these
many options.

My question is when are we going to stop using screens? Instead of
screens an image could be projected using Red, Green, and Blue from a
transmitter in glasses, or from a pendant, or from a wristwatch, or
some other such device that does not use a screen to deliver the
content. We could also use holographic projections and project the
image into 3d space, again, in color. Why can't we look at a web page
projected in front of us in space in a size that is relevant, complete
with sound and all the content? Why can't we enter a web site and move
around in it? Going to the grocery store
 ahem...) might really be fun, especially if other people were also in the
site at the same time. Why can't we see the scene or image and engage in 3d
communication with others from a chip planted in our brain? Why can't we
think and realize the intent? Will we have to discuss the collective
unconscious and how to not just materialize it but also use it? Do we need a
chip in our brain? Would I not prefer being in my own home with my family
instead of with the world in 3d virtual space?

So how do we do a holographic projection that can fill a room? What
kind of power source would be required for a set of glasses to deliver
a 2 foot by 2 foot image in front of our faces? What technology would
be required?  Interesting issues and they are pressing. I think some
grandchildren today will provide the answers, hopefully sooner than we
are ready for them to.  The way they would relate with each other
would still be as we know it today, an age thing, but their
communication would be more meaningful, complete, sharing, and indeed
diverse, as well as dimensional. Why? Because they have bridged time
and space and now share the world through common experiences ( can the
new Cisco PIX prevent my daughter from being with that guy? ).

Hopefully they would not forget us, but we are history moving forward.

In the meantime, why can't we work at projecting a web page or a
NetMeeting type interaction inside a car windshield instead of the
speedometer?



From: No Spam <be76@usa.net>
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:44:25 +1000
Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct


I prefer a piece of shareware called cookie pal. Best $15 dollars I
have spent. It remembers who I want to give cookies to, who I don't
want to give cookies to. It can even get down to a host in a
particular domain. For the intrusive sites, it just accepts all
cookies, doesn't put them anywhere though ...

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:54:54 -0500, Ryan Shook <rjshook@uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, it was written:

>

>> I've set my Netscape cookies.txt file to read-only as was suggested

>> here some time ago and this works ok.  But the IE 4.72...  that I

>> sometimes use has a folder that contains these cookies. (NT's

>> windows\profiles\username\cookies folder with files named

>> username@domain.txt <mailto:username@domain.txt> ) I've tried to set

>> this folder to read-only but that permission gets changed back.  Is

>> there any way to make it stick?

>

>There are several possibilities to get around doubleclick.net.


> 1) most computers have some sort of hosts file where the TCP/IP drivers try

> to lookup domain names there before consulting with a DNS. Insert the

> major doubleclick servers and set their IP address to 127.0.0.1. This

> makes your browser think that you are doubleclick.net and try to retrieve

> the banner from your computer which it obviously won't provide. The gotcha

> is that with IE5 you get sent to "this page can't be loaded" far too

> often, there is something fancy going on where doubleclick seems to be

> executing a script or something.


> 2) because 1) is flawed I found another solution. in IE5 there are security

> zones set. Tools | Internet Options | Security. You can add domains to a

> security zone. By default most everything is considered in the internet

> domain. Instead ad *.doubleclick.net to the restricted sites list. I have

> *.doubleclick.net and *.ads.*. Then go through the list of rights given to

> restricted sites and make sure they can't play with cookies. I believe it

> is set that way by default.


> The trouble with solutions that completely turn off cookies (you can do

> that in the above mentinoed "internet domain" is that they are truly

> useful and sometimes necessary. By the nature of the web it is not really

> connection based. You make and break hundreds of connections as you surf

> instead of making a connection when you start at a website and break the

> connection when you go elsewhere. For this reason it is difficult for web

> servers to have a sense of state. Cookies allow a sense of state. They

> allow a server to recognize you and serve content appropriately based on

> information they saved in their databases. This is used by banks,

> airlines, car companies that let you "build" a car online, and yahoo

> finance so it can remember your customizations and many other groups who

> use the technology properly. Unfortunately it is hard to control abuses.


> The "security domain" settings in IE4 & 5 are tricky, I'm still trying to

> find a combination that lets me get what I want productively from websites

> while not letting me become too much of a statistic.




From: Steve Hayes <stevehayes@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe
Date: Sun,  5 Mar 2000 12:15:57 +0000


Hi Pat and everyone,

In TELECOM Digest V20 issue 4, Monty Solomon forwarded an article by
Suzanne Daley about concerns with potential commercial espionage via
the Echelon network. This network is run by the U.S. with various
English speaking allies including Britain and intercepts all sorts of
telephone, fax and e-mail traffic. Supposedly the network is used to
gather intelligence about terrorists and drug traffickers (and, when
it was dreamt up, about our Cold War adversaries of course). However,
it is obvious to anyone that it can also intercept commercially
sensitive information and this is what most concerned the French
government when it kicked off the furor.

In V20 issue 5, W.D.A. Geary pointed out that it is a bit rich of the
French to complain about this in view of their long record of
commercial espionage. This is quite true but the U.S. has an equally
sordid record and I'm sure that Britain wouldn't fare any better if
the facts were all known. If someone warns you not to leave your front
door unlocked, you should listen even more carefully if you know that
they are a burglar -- after all who would know more about the dangers.

There is a story about the well known novelist and politician Jeffrey
Archer which non-British readers may not have heard. Some years ago, a
friend of Archer made a nice profit on some Anglia TV shares which he
bought (or did Archer buy them in his name?) just before a takeover
bid was announced. Archer's wife was a director of Anglia TV and the
authorities suspected insider trading. Even if Mrs. Archer had kept
quiet about the bid, she had been sent faxes about it which must have
been hanging out of the Archers' fax machine until she collected
them. Even in a case like that, the authorities could not prove
anything and the case was dropped. Archer has since come unstuck over
a completely unrelated scandal from his past.

The point is that if even a case like this is inconclusive, what are
the chances of detection - let alone prosecution - if similar
information was leaked after it was intercepted by a network like
Echelon. The spying agencies (especially the CIA) have long records of
partnership with criminals (e.g. drug traffickers) where they could
further the agencies' other goals. On top of that, information is
passed to politicians who are rarely adverse to a bit of "you scratch
my back and I'll scratch yours" (see the current French Elf Oil
scandals). Then of course, low level personnel in the agencies may
seize their own opportunities. As an old cynic, I suspect that it's
private gain rather than the desire to catch terrorists which explains
the willingness of governments to fund systems like Echelon.

The French have now warned their European partners and companies as
well as everyone else that no e-mail, phone call or fax is safe from
prying eyes (unless strong encryption is used). I don't think we need
be paranoid about the insignificant details of our everyday lives but
no-one should send unprotected information which would be worthy of
exploitation by someone else. I think that the French have done us all
a great service and only wish that my country was not being used so
blatantly as part of this network.


Steve Hayes
South Wales, U.K.



Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:26:50 -0700
From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker)
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Please post to CDT)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:25:53 GMT
Organization: WinStar GoodNet, Inc.


It was Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:54:44 -0600, and Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com
wrote in comp.dcom.telecom:

> Personally, I agree that ``calling party pays'' in the United States 

> would raise the price of calling mobile phones to the point of pain. 


The point of pain would at least be on the person who decided to make
that call.  Cellular Caller ID would help, but I carry a cell phone so
that certain people can always reach me.  I don't want to pay for
calls from just anyone, so my number remains private.  And the cell
company loses business because those calls are never made.

I believe that caller pays would lead to an increase of cell phone
usage, sharing the infrastructure costs out over more minutes of
actual use, and lowering the overall rate paid per minute to the point
where calling a cell would cost the calling party a reasonable rate.
I would be willing to give out that number more (since I don't have to
pay for it) and, just as it is in caller party pays countries, usage
goes up.

> There is little restraint to imposing fees on non-customers. Witness 

> the explosion of non-customer automatic teller machines fees. In the 

> USA, it is now common to pay about $1.50 to use another bank's ATM. 

> Even though most ATMs were deployed before these fees were permitted.


If I use a 'foreign ATM' I am in a sense a customer of that
institution.  They pay to maintain the location, stock the machine,
and network to the national system.  I realize that they would spend
that money for their own customers only, to a certain extent, but
there is cost involved, and some banks have chosen to charge fees
instead of eating them.  (I also get to pay to talk to a teller at my
bank, where I AM a customer.  Fees are getting out of hand.)

Foreign ATM fees have been around for years, and I dispute your claim
that 'most ATMs' were deployed before fees.  Too many "ATM Inside" gas
station and mall locations popping up over the past few years.

I'd like to see some real numbers from the US on the Caller Pays
issue.  Cincinatti would be a good place to start as they have had a
mix of caller pays and cellphone pays prefixes for many years.  The
foreign trends look good, but it would be nice to see NANP numbers.


JL



From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear)
Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:46:44 -0500
Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos


hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) writes:

> Jeremy Greene <celloboy@DIESPAMearthlink.net> wrote:


>> How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to

>> use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires!


> And then you can wait weeks while they dig it all up to find a problem,

> broken wire lines are real easy to spot, repair, replace.


> Check out some of the various New York City area blackout stories.


> I seem to remember that buried utilties cost three times more to

> install and have less that 1/2 the life of pole lines.


> Also the locals have a harder time killing themselves when digging

> fence post holes.


San Francisco, and many California communities, have been working to
place overhead wiring underground for several decades.  One serious
drawback to overhead wires is that they tend to suffer damage in large
earthquakes when the spacing between the tops of the poles oscillates
wildly.  Obviously, maintaining emergency communications is a issue.
But even more is the risk imposed by fallen power lines and poles
which can and do become debris blocking streets and preventing access
by emergency vehicles.

Poles don't go away after an undergrounding project, however.  They 
are still needed in some form to support street lights and traffic 
signals.  However, by not being yoked together at the top, these 
posts can be designed to vibrate like a diving board stood on end.

As for the locals "killing themselves when digging fence post holes," 
I'd be surprised if the number of such incidents is even significant 
compared with the number of people who drive into utility poles or 
are injured when someone else shears off a power pole and it falls 
onto someone or something.



End of  TELECOM Digest V20 #10

• Crazy Atheist Libertarian
• Government Snitch?????
• David Dorn
• Fat Blond Guy
• Crazy Atheist