TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Nov 93 03:10:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 763
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "Communications for Cooperating Systems" (Rob Slade)
Community Plan vs Circle Plan (was 65 per Line or 65*per Line) (R Topolski)
More Contact From Sprint (Chris Ambler)
Re: Received My Free Sprint Modem Today (Roy M. Silvernail)
DMS 100 CID vs. SMDI Revisited (Michael D. Corbett)
GTE Responds! (Was: Nationwide GTE 800 Outage November 5th) (R. McMillin)
Comdex Information Wanted (Mike Boeur)
Along the Delaware River (Carl Moore)
USA Providers of X.25 (J. R. Pendleton)
MCI Internet Service (David J. Cazier)
Common Carrier - Information Please (Thomas Freeman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 93 15:06 -0600
From: Rob Slade <
[email protected]>
Subject: Book Review: "Communications for Cooperating Systems" by Cypser
BKCMCOOP.RVW 931014
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Kelly Ford, Promotion/Publicity Coordinator
P.O. Box 520 26 Prince Andrew Place
Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8
416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948
or
Tiffany Moore, Publicity
[email protected]
1 Jacob Way
Reading, MA 01867-9984
800-527-5210 617-944-3700
5851 Guion Road
Indianapolis, IN 46254
800-447-2226
"Communications for Cooperating Systems", Cypser, 1991
The subtitle of this book is "OSI, SNA and TCP/IP," thus giving a
nice, neutral alphabetic ordering to the systems. In reality this is
"SNA with OSI and TCP/IP." The organization, examples and slant to
the material is all unmistakably IBM: not altogether surprising, given
that they sponsored the Systems Programming Series from which it
comes.
Regardless of the generalities given in the preface, the intent seems
to be to prove that SNA can "fit in" with OSI and TCP/IP. That it
does need not be surprising: both systems are quite flexible.
However, please do note the emphasis here. You *can* learn about OSI
and TCP/IP from this book, but it will be, as it were, through
IBM-coloured glasses. The structure of the book itself follows the
SNA/SAA (systems network/application architecture) model, with a
four-layer model which only fits the OSI (open systems
interconnection) seven-layer or TCP/IP (transmission control
protocol/internet protocol) five-layer model after some degree of
work.
Part one comprises an overview and introduction, with three chapters
listing the usual platitudes regarding the needs and desires for open
systems. Part two describes "Application - Services," which is "above
the top" of both the OSI and TCP/IP models, and has no parallel
structures other than application programs. Part three discusses the
"End-to-End Data-Exchange Facilities" which relates to the
applications layer on both OSI and TCP/IP diagrams. Part four talks
of "Transport Inter-Subnetwork Facilities" relevant to the
presentation and session layers of OSI (and subsumed within the
application layer in TCP/IP). Part five deals with
"Link/Subnetwork-Access Facilities" which comprise the bottom four
layers of both models. (Notable here is chapter seventeen which,
somewhat surprisingly, gives an excellent overview of local area
networks and all component parts.)
While the book is fair and accurate as far as it goes, the IBM bias is
deeply entrenched, mostly in terms of what is *not* covered. It is
instructive to note that neither OSI nor TCP/IP are defined in the
glossary (or anywhere else). As only one example, in discussions of
presentation, ASCII and EBCDIC are listed but not Unicode, and there
is no mention of MIME at all.
An attempt has been made to present the book as a possible course
text. "Exercises" are found at the end of each chapter. They are
simple queries taken from the bottom of the questioning taxonomy. To
answer all correctly you need only read the chapter and recognize a
few key words. The "technical references" are of use only if you work
within an SNA/SAA environment. The two bibliographies could have been
compiled by collating "Books in Print" with a periodical index.
There is a very definite need for this book. SNA/SAA, although by no
means an "open" system, has a large installed base, and one that is
still expanding. Those both inside the IBM camp and without have
requirements to "cooperate" with each other. This work serves as a
valuable guide not to the implementation of gateways, but to the IBM
mindset and jargon. Those on both sides will find it a helpful
introduction to "how the other half lives."
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1993 BKCMCOOP.RVW 931014
Permission granted to distribute with unedited copies of the TELECOM
Digest and associated newsgroups/mailing lists.
DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters
Editor and/or reviewer
[email protected],
[email protected], Rob Slade at 1:153/733
DECUS Symposium '94, Vancouver, BC, Mar 1-3, 1994, contact:
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Robb Topolski)
Subject: Community Plan vs. Circle Plan (was 65 per Line or 65*per Line?)
Organization: KJ6YT
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 22:32:14 GMT
Paul Robinson (
[email protected]) wrote:
> [...] So then the clerk at the phone company told me that the number
> of phone calls that can be made on an account without being charged is
> 65 times the number of lines assigned to that account, e.g. for an
> account with three lines, there would be no message unit charge until
> the account used more than 190 calls.
> I have finished the testing I wanted to do and have one more thing to
> try so I called today to take Caller-ID off one line and put it on a
> different one. Now I am told the original story -- that each line has
> a limit of 65 calls whether or not the lines are billed to one party
> or separately billed -- e.g. if I use 66 on one line and 5 on the
> other, I will be charged for one message unit. The phone company clerk
> tells me that each line is individually metered and it doesn't matter
> whether the three lines are attached to one account or billed to three
> different accounts.
> I have gotten totally disgusted at this whipsaw effect. I explained
> to the clerk that I want her to get ahold of her supervisor and find
> the tariff schedule and mail me a copy of the tariff. I explained to
> her that if what she is telling me is correct, then I need to reset my
> phone service back the way I had it before.
> [...] I am going to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
I had a similar thing happen earlier this year. I called Pacific Bell
and asked them to sign me up for CALL BONUS COMMUNITY PLAN. For 16.50
+ $5 "installation", I got a discount of 30% to calls to a particular
CO and an ititial allowance of $33.00 against those calls. I remember
when I signed up, I explained that I was going to be making a lot of
calls and wanted the maximum discount I could get. I even investigated
getting a foreign exchange or doing some remote call-fowararding hopping.
I was assured this would be the cheapest.
My first telephone bill, with the discount, was 336.00. This prompted
Pac Bell to call me and offer to add CALL BONUS CIRCLE CALLING. $4.75
plus $5 "installation" bought me an additional 30% discount on these
calls and others made within a wide circle around my home.
My second telephone bill, with the double discount, was 507.24.
Looking over the bill, it seemed to me that the CALL BONUS CIRCLE PLAN
30% discount was applied only to calls made to CO's OTHER than the one
I had signed up for under the CALL BONUS COMMUNITY PLAN.
I called PacBell and spoke to a billing clerk who explained that the
two plans exclude each other, and that the tariff doesn't allow them
to combine the two. I finally did get to speak with a supervisor who
issued a one-time $210 credit for the errantly promised additional
discount, fees, and installation charges.
This was satisfactory, especially since I've learned that they are
protected from their own bad information. In California, if the
telephone company gives you information that contradicts the tariff,
the tariff (since it is a readily available public document) prevails.
And this is the way it has always been with Pacific Bell and me. I've
heard horror stories about GTE and the way they treat their customers.
Other than the occasional error (like this one), I am treated well.
And, in case you're wondering, my big telephone bill days are over. I'm
back to paying about $70 a month.
Robert M. Topolski <
[email protected]>
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Chris Ambler - Fubar)
Subject: More Contact From Sprint
Organization: The Phishtank
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 23:50:00 GMT
Another in the never ending saga of the Sprint Modem Offer gone Bad.
If you'll recall, in our last episode, I recalled how it was going,
and that I was waiting for word from the California Secretary of State
on Sprint's registered agent in this state.
The following is a recap of the events of today, as I did promise to
keep you all up to date. This is all to the best of my memory and my
notes, but I will state (and you will see why) that it is all my
opinions here.
I received a call this afternoon from a David Matson at Sprint. He
asked that I not post his phone number, so I am complying with that
request. He identified himself as a CSG with Sprint.
It appears, and this is my opinion, that Sprint has copies of all my
posts here to comp.dcom.telecom. Mr. Matson seemed to quote directly
from them, though he denied that he had them in front of him when I
asked. He was very concerned with the 'truth,' as he said, and
continually queried me on whether or not all items I have posted to
the net were absolutely true. (Hence, the "opinion" at the beginning
on this paragraph). He advised me that my previous posts did not
appear to be in opinion, but a statement of fact, to which he
questioned some of the facts.
During the initial call he was very vague, and seemed to be feeling me
out for information. When I told him what my grievance with Sprint
was, he asked me where I'd heard the information on the offer, and
made analogies to situations in an attempt to see if I agreed that
they were similar. When I mentioned that I had heard of the offer
from a friend, and called a Sprint customer service rep to get
details, he attempted to draw the conclusion that I had not heard the
original radio advertisement, and that that was a problem. I advised
him of what I had been counseled regarding public offers,
advertisements, and contracts. He made a bad joke about people who
think they are lawyers.
He asserted that he believed that I was recording the conversation.
He brought up the question as to whether or not I had been completely
truthful when I had said that I had sent off to the Secretary of State
for their registered agent, and sent mail to Sprint outlining my
problem with them. When I told him that I was under the impression
that I could not send that to anyone other than their registered
agent, and as such, I was waiting for a reply from the SOS office, he
implied that I had posted an untruth, and had better take pains not to
do that in the future.
When I queried him, at the end of our first call (there were two) as
to his name, the line went silent, and disconnected about two minutes
later. He called back shortly thereafter and asked if I had hung up. I
said no, and asked again for his name and phone number which he gave,
the phone number on the condition that I not post it to the net.
All in all, and again, in my opinion, I found the phone call in bad
taste, productiveless, and bordering on harassing. It did, however,
give me quite a bit to talk with counsel about. I seriously question
some of the things that he told me.
I'm being somewhat vague here, since it is apparent to me now that
Sprint is reading all posts on here. Greetings.
It is apparent to me, in my opinion, that Sprint is preparing to fight
this. I am prepared as well, and no amount of phone calls from Sprint
is going to convince me that they should be released from being
accountable for what they seem to think is an honest error, or an
error on my part.
And once again, lest they try to hang it over my head, this entire
post has come live and direct from the opinion of none other than
myself. Any facts contained herein are still a product of my opinion.
Is it obvious that I am bitter?
Again, anyone with anything to add, pointers to legal issues, a letter
stating that Sprint made you the same offer, or anything, please drop
me email!
++Christopher(); //
[email protected], home of the .plan of Doom!
Christopher J. Ambler, Author, FSUUCP 1.41, FSVMP 1.0,
[email protected]
[Moderator's Note: There have been many Sprint employees on the Digest
mailing list for years, and from time to time they send in articles as
well. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Received My Free Sprint Modem Today
From:
[email protected] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1993 22:20:57 CST
Organization: The Villa CyberSpace, executive headquarters
In comp.dcom.telecom,
[email protected] writes:
>
[email protected] (Rosella Bartonico) writes:
>> The Smart One Fax Modem from Best Data Products, Inc.
>> 9600/4800 bps send/receive fax
>> 2400/1200/300 bps data modem
>> with V.42bis and MNP error correction and data compression
> Interesting:
> This modem could indeed be represented as a 9600 data/fax modem.
> 9600 bps send fax and 9600 throughput max with v.42bis.
Yes, but the v.42/v.42bis/MNP is handled by a software driver, so it's
not actually _in_ the modem.
Roy M. Silvernail |+|
[email protected]
[Moderator's Note: My modem showed up via UPS on Monday, with the
letter enclosed about the disruptions in California. I spent a couple
hours Monday evening installing it and getting aquainted with it, and
I really like it. I tried both the fax and data aspects of it and
although it is 2400 on data, it seems to do a lot better at that
speed than the other external units I have which are much older. In
fact, I am now going to be making the Digest available by fax to any-
one who wants to receive it that way for the cost of the phone calls.
I think this was a great offer from Sprint, even if there has been
various misunderstandings about exactly what was offered. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 17:30:02 -0800
From: Michael D. Corbett <
[email protected]>
Subject: DMS 100 CID vs. SMDI Revisited
Hello again,
About two months ago, I posted a note to this Digest asking about
Caller ID, and how that would affect an SMDI data link. Briefly, when
CID is activated, it appears that the information is reformatted into
a valid SMDI data link packet, and sent in _addition_ to the SMDI
packets.
A few kind souls responded to me and indicated it was a software
switch, and the CO could disable the CID packets being sent to the
SMDI link. Initially this seemed to work, but as more CO's enable
this feature, certain CO's claim "It CAN'T be done!", while others
seem to have no problem. The particular switch in question is a DMS
100. Is there anyone that can point me in a particular direction to
find documentation explaining just how a CO tech would go about
disabling this feature?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Mike Corbett Internet:
[email protected]
Applied Voice Technology Voice: +1 206 820 6000
P.O. Box 97025 Fax: +1 206 820 4040
Kirkland WA 98083 I speak only for myself, not AVT!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 20:51 PST
From:
[email protected] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: GTE Responds! (was Nationwide GTE 800 Outage November 5th)
I had received only one reply to my earlier query about trouble
accessing 800 numbers out of the Redondo Beach, CA exchange, an area
serviced by GTE. That reply said that GTE had experienced no outage,
at least, not a nationwide one.
That would have ended the story there, except for a tidbit that
arrived in today's e-mail. Gery Sommer, a GTE employee, responded to
my query on the Digest, saying that during the process of "upgrading
switch software ... [a] glitch prevented customers in the Los Angeles
basin from reaching 800 numbers. The glitch occurred at approximately
11 a.m. Thursday ... [and was fixed by] 1:15 p.m. Thursday."
While this doesn't excuse problematic software swaps (why weren't they
doing this in the middle of the night?), I have to say that after many
years of decidedly inferior service from GTE (as opposed to Pac*Bell),
this is a refreshing change. What impressed me further were his
comments that GTE is experimenting with various computer networks --
including the Internet -- as a tool for resolving problems with the
GTE network. Hopefully, this is a sign that the days of bad service
are over, or at least, are starting to end.
Robert L. McMillin | Surf City Software |
[email protected] | Dude!
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Mike Boeur)
Subject: Comdex Information Wanted
Date: 16 Nov 93 03:52:43 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Hi there. Can anyone please tell me how long Comdex goes on for this week?
Also, does anyone know:
1. Is Spectrum Information Technologies exhibiting at Comdex?
2. Is John Sculley (New president) speaking at any events associated with
Comdex in Las Vegas this week?
Please e-mail your responses to
[email protected]. If you have
any faxable information, please fax to Michael Boeur at the Science
Council of BC, FAX (604) 438-6564. Thanks a million. Much appreciated.
[Moderator's Note: In an issue of the Digest on Monday, I printed a
very detailed article outlining AT&T's participation in the show. PAT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 16:31:12 EST
From: Carl Moore <
[email protected]>
Subject: Along the Delaware River
I recall 215-297 Carversville along the Delaware River and including
Point Pleasant, where I went on a tubing outing in July. Apparently
the next exchange north along Pennsylvania route 32 (which parallels
the Delaware River) is 215-294 (Uhlerstown), which is on a list I have
received for the 610 area (297 is not). Exchanges across the river
are 609-397 Lambertville and 908-996 Frenchtown. So 215, 610, 609,
and 908 will meet or almost meet at a corner.
(Next exchange SOUTH along the river from Carversville is 215-862 New
Hope, the town which is across from the town of Lambertville.)
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (J. R. Pendleton)
Subject: USA Providers of X.25
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 22:48:17 GMT
I have been working on a project that uses dedicated phone lines to
have data communications between small (PC) computers and big (Sierra)
computers. The data thruput requirements are not high and tends to
occur in bursts. A 2400 baud modem handles the traffic just fine.
(We are running Burroughs Poll-select and SNA via SDLC)
The cost of dedicating a string of copper between two geographically
distant computers is prohibitive. Our group has been discussing the
possibilities of reducing line costs by using X.25 networks. We
suspect that if the billing is done by volume, we can get a big win by
converting to packet. I understand there are X.25 providers in
europe. But what about the United States?
If anyone has any insight on existing USA based X.25 public networks I
would be grateful. Information on costs and any experience with the
above protocols on packet (yes, I know, synchronous methods on
packet ...) would really be appreciated.
I will be happy to summarize for the group if requested.
Many thanks in advance from a bunch of X.25 idiots.
Jerry Pendleton
[email protected] Voice: (510)889-8158
Jerald R. Pendleton Amateur: KC6RTO
Castro Valley, Ca. Party: Republican
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (David J. Cazier)
Subject: MCI Internet Service
Date: 15 Nov 1993 23:16:54 GMT
Organization: Software Technology Branch, Johnson Space Center, NASA
Reply-To:
[email protected]
While I don't want to focus on MCI, I reference MCI as an example to
pose my question. I have a friend living in Grants Pass, Oregon, who
wishes to connect to Internet but currently has to call long distance
to gain access to a univeristy account for e-mail access. MCI offers
something similar via an 800 number but you have to pay $0.50 for the
first K of data and then $0.29 for each K thereafter ... this may be
about the best deal one can get from a site like Grants Pass ... but
it would seem that the Northwest Bell system would offer some type of
inexpensive Eugene, OR, line so he could access Internet via the
University there.
Is anyone aware of inexpensive services like this that interface with
Internet? Or other means to legally access Internet e-mail?
[Moderator's Note: If all he wants to do is get email, there are lots
of ways to get that. If he wants real-time live interconnection to use
things like IRC, Telnet, FTP and etc then that is a different matter.
If all he wants is email access, then MCI Mail offers that, as does
Sprint Mail and ATT Mail. Is that all he wants? PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Thomas Freeman)
Subject: Common Carrier - Information Please
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 23:25:11 GMT
I have had e-mail with a couple of people since I originally posted
this message.
At the end of this message is a section of a message that I sent to
Mike Godwin of EFF, and his reply.
I found the files: computer.bbs.and.the.law and sysops.legal.liability
in the telecom-archives directory at lcs.mit.edu to be relevant to
what I was really interest in.
My expanded query:
>> What I'm actually interested in is knowing more about the liability
>> involved in running a BBS system. Since posting that query I have
>> read two summaries about such liability in the telecom archives on
>> the machine lcs.mit.edu. If you do know of a good source of information
>> on any of these issues I would certainly appreciate a pointer.
>> One person as asked me to share whatever I find out, and I may post
>> a follow-up to the newsgroup if there seems to be more interest.
The reply:
> The short answer is, you can't become a common carrier, and you don't want
> to be one. A common carrier gets exempt from liability, but only as a
> trade for regulation, and for a commitment to carry all traffic from all
> people. No BBS I've ever heard of wants to run that way -- they at least
> want to be able to prune off-topic postings, sanction disruptive users,
> and preserve the character of the system.
[Moderator's Note: I would disagree with Mike Godwin on the 'commitment
to carry all traffic from all people'. Common carriers can have
qualifications required to use the system, along with regulations and
rules pertaining to its use. The bus company is a common carrier, but
if the bus goes to Detroit and you want to go to Chicago, you have to
find another bus; you can't force them to take you. Neither is a
common carrier obliged to serve customers who are disruptive to the
other customers or who pose a security risk. How this relates to a BBS
is simply that a BBS can define its purpose and intentions; then it
must accept all users equally without favor or discrimination who
desire to also share the same purpose and intentions. If my BBS is
clearly devoted to discussions about classical music and social
issues, I need not take users who want to discuss acid rock and the
Chicago White Sox. I can be a common carrier and still regulate my
user's behavior in a reasonable, non-discriminatory way to all
*qualified* users. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V13 #763
******************************
******************************************************************************
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
