Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/recent.single.issues/V15_#534

Internet Message Format | 1995-12-28 | 35KB

From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 28 18:10:40 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id SAA17506; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:10:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:10:40 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #534

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Dec 95 18:10:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 534

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Christopher Ambler)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Tim Shoppa)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Glenn Foote)
    Looking for Callback Switch Information (Gene Retske)
    Tools For Shopping Residential Long Distance Rates (Stuart Zimmerman)
    Anyone Know Who Unibridge is? (Steve Samler)
    811-xxxx in California (was Re: New York Suffolk County) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Telecom Questions (Carl Moore)
    Telephony Fraud (was Re: AT&T Card Fraud) (Mickey Ferguson)
    Novell Based Voice Mail ([e-mail])
    Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Eric Ewanco)
    Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Gary Breuckman)
    Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Joel B. Levin)
    Elegy For a Free Press (Joe Shea, The American Reporter)

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 including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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.

*************************************************************************
*   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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 16:32:22 GMT
Organization: Punknet Internet Cooperative


Our Moderator Said...

> When the caller later goes complaining to his state commission or
> the telco, or the Action Line column in his newspaper or this Digest
> or whatever, the IP can produce the pertinent twenty or thirty second
> segment of tape and say "here ... who is kidding who?  After all, it
> is the World's Oldest Profession." ...

People are paying for 800 calls to farmers?!

(C) Copyright, 1995 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet
Cooperative,  <http://www.punk.net/~chris> San Luis Obispo, California
Permission to redistribute electronically is granted for non-commercial use.
Fee for commercial redistribution is $100 per use.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, surely someone must have the
number 800-MOO-COWS. I wonder what they use it for?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shubu Mukherjee)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:01:29 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in response to [e-mail] (John R Levine):

[ITA charged about $100 to a phone from which someone called their 800
number.]

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is
>> being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to
>> the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is
>> concerned, it is reversed to the called party. .... But when
>> you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve
>> tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you
>> thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

All this discussion about 800 numbers is great, but let me make one
thing clear about this ^#%@$@^@& ITA dating service.

First, ITA claims that we specifically called them to establish the
service, which is ___absolutely___ false.

Second, anyone can call them and ask them to connect the service to a
___any___ number.  They do ___not___ verify whether the phone number
is in anyway connected to the caller establishing the service.  This
has two implications.  First, anyone can play a prank on you.  Second
(and the more serious one), is that anyone below 18 years can access
the dating service, which supposedly is meant only for adults.

This is a clear indication that ITA could be a scam.  Of course,
Channel 5 News, Atlanta, confirmed it.  Several people have sent me
mail saying that they had faced a similar problem with ITA, but
fortunately all of them got their money back.


Shubu Mukherjee        Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
[e-mail]      http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you *did* call their number. You
said so yourself. By the time calculations you included in your
original message you were connected how long?  The thing is, although
you can say you are calling from whatever number you like, the thing
about ANI -- Automatic Number Identification -- on 800 calls is that
it does not lie, nor can it be blocked with *67. Generally those
people go by the ANI of the calling number; they do not ask the
customer to pass or recite his number.  I still agree with your basic
premise: they are slime, but let's not get too self-righteous here;
we know you called them and how long you were on the line, the only
question seems to be if you clearly understood what the cost would
be. Apparently you were decieved ... a lot of people have been. That
is how those outfits stay in business.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:00:15 GMT
Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech


In article <[e-mail]>, John R Levine
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I thought we argued this to death a year ago -- the issue is that it's
> not reasonable to assume that someone who calls an 800 number is
> authorized to charge anything whatsoever to the line he's calling
> from.  It might be a PBX user, a COCOT, a dorm line, or any of a wide
> range of other "courtesy" users.

I've given some of the suspicious looking 1-800 numbers a ring from a
PBX system that seems to be very well administered, and these calls
invariably result in a recorded message saying something to the effect
"This service cannot be accessed from the phone you are dialing from.
Please call <insert regular non-800 or non-900 nubmer here> to make
payment arrangements. <Click>"

Interestingly enough, I can't call the local Pizza Hut from this same
PBX, instead I have to find a "regular" phone line.  It sounds like
the call is never picked up at the other end.  Is this possibly
because valid Caller-ID information isn't going out?  I asked the
clerk at the local Pizza Hut this question and got nowhere ...


Tim ([e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone has seen to it where that
PBX is concerned the ANI and/or class of service message going
forth to the other end is quite explicit: 'do not mess with us at
this number'. Chances are the admin there not only got the PBX
listed with Billed Number Screening where the big three carriers
and local telcos are concerned, but also got the PBX and all
associated trunk lines, etc listed on the Integratel database and
any similar negative listings he could find out about ... which
is good where the IP is concerned also. Contrary to what some
people may think, the electronic houses of prostitution don't
want to waste their time month after month arguing with people
about their services either.

Any of those 'suspicious 800 numbers' you try to call from a pay
phone will get the same response: "go somewhere else to call us,
or call xxx-xxxx and tell us how you plan to pay for it."   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Foote)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: 28 Dec 1995 14:04:12 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet


Dave Keeny ([e-mail]) wrote:

> [e-mail] (PhoneRoom) wrote:

>> Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to
>> the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has
>> negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join
>> discussions in a more unbiased area.

>> Please Email [e-mail]

> Any book store of reasonable size will have books in their computing
> section that ...

<snip much good info and comment> ...

> Soliciting" sign.  It would be nice (and totally impractical I'm sure)
> to require telemarketers to have a unique exchange that could be
> blocked by entering a *xx code.

Not to throw gas into a warm area, but ...

There are many VALID issues in the telemarketing areas that could benefit
from a calm rational discussion on this forum.

First, the general term Telemarketing (as *I* am using it here),
involves ANY marketing activity taking place by telephone.  The pizza
I just ordered falls into that catagory.  So does the client who's
system I helped design who is involved in the daily activity of
calling drug stores and and receiving orders for controlled substances
in a seven state area.  So does the client who only hires PhD's as
solicitors ... they sell aerospace technology and maintaince equipment
to end users worldwide.  This kind of "telemarketer" is what keeps
industry running today.  Now ...

The other type: Like it or not, these companies are here to stay.  If
you don't believe me do a little research on related stocks; read the
comments (public records) surrounding the last effort to control that
segment of the industry.  If anyone (you, me, anyone) thinks that they
are going to go away ... well, I've got some nice swamp land <g>.

Both types of companies have technological needs, concerns, and
questions.  If we (the readers here, the moderator, whoever) are
seriously interested in the TeleCommunications Industry, we should be
adult enough to deal with those elements which are less than
desireable without resorting any type of censorship or name calling.
If we want to defeat the (bad?)  telemarketer, we should be willing to
discuss the technology that will allow us to do so, because I don't
think that we are going to get any help from the government or the
phone companies.

By the way, if anyone has knowledge of web sites that discuss ways to
defeat these calls *I* think that this would be a good place to get
that word out.

In the meantime, let us duscuss the technology, and issues; not the
personalties.


**  Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gene Retske)
Subject: Looking For Callback Switch Information
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:08:26 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.


We are preparing a series of magazine articles and a comprehensive
guide on callback and international resale switching technology.

If you have not received a package from us, and want to be considered
for inclusion, please email or fax us at the location below, and we
will send you a package.


Thank You,

SOLVOX Systems
[e-mail]
Fax [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:39 EST
From: Stuart Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tools for Shopping Residential Long Distance Rates


Now there is a central web site listing long distance rates and plans
available from the major long distance carriers for residential
service.

Fone Saver, LLC is celebrating the Grand Opening of its Web Site which
lists information about residential long distance services.  Free hot
dogs and balloons for the kids while they last <grin>!

At this site, you can view the key rates and calling plans (interstate
and international) for the nation's four largest providers of
residential long distance.  Visit the site: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver

Feedback, corrections, and additions from the Digest's readers would be
appreciated.


Stuart Zimmerman   Fone Saver, LLC
"Helping Consumers Save on Long Distance"
[e-mail]   800-313-6631

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:50:11 EST
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anyone Know Who Unibridge is?


I understand that they are associated with PCS.  A marketing group of
some sort that is charged with promoting PCS.  Anyone have an address
or a phone?


Steve Samler
Editor, Communications
Individual, Inc.
617 273 6060 x323

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 07:16:13 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject:  811-xxxx in California (was Re: New York Suffolk County)


It was noted that 811-xxxx for the telephone company in California (I
don't know which tel.co., either PacBell or GTE?) translated to some
other number based on where you were calling from.  Those number
translations had to be made public for those who needed to call (from
their offices?) about their account from outside of that particular
service area.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:12:16 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Questions


I remembered 14049889664 as giving a busy signal when called via AT&T
without the leading 10732.  So I tried it again, and got the same
result after I had to substitute area code 770 for 404.

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

From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephony Fraud (was Re: AT&T Card Fraud)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:27:31 +0000
Organization: Stac


This reminds me of back when I was working in Santa Clara, CA.  We had
a whole bunch of stuff stolen from various places on site, and it all
went unsolved for several months.  One of the stolen items happened to
be a cellular phone (of which there really weren't all that many of
them back then!).  Our company had reported the phone stolen, so the
phone company indicated that on their records but DIDN'T deactivate
the phone.

The phone company watched the calls being made, and started to notice
a pattern, with one number in particular being called several times.
They then looked in their records, and working with the our internal
security officials, noticed that the last name was the same as an
employee of the external security company with which we had
contracted.  They took that to the police and got a search warrant of
the security officer's home and found many of the stolen items!  It
turns out that the security officer had been calling his brother to
brag about his "winnings".  Talk about stupid!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's an old trick which still works
well. If you want to catch mice, you leave a bit of food in the
mousetrap, right?  Back in the days (early 1980's) when access to
MCI and Sprint had to be done via local seven digit numbers followed
by 'access codes' (which got increasingly longer as the carriers tried
to shake the phreaks off their systems) one common technique of the
carriers' security departments was to deliberatly go on phreak BBS
lines and post a lot of bogus, worthless codes along with one or two
closely monitored good, active codes. Then they would sit back and
watch the fun as the phreaks took the bait and started using those
codes to make calls. Even AT&T security guys would call up the phreak
boards and post a few calling card numbers now and then just to watch
the excitement as the guys would try out the new codes to see how
they worked. Plenty of audit trails in place naturally, with all the
evidence nicely available for the US Attorney's office to review at
a later time.

And what carrier is it in California which seems to make most of its
profits *not* from the legal use of its system but via the fines and
punishment imposed on the *illegal* use of its authorization codes?  I
seem to remember John Higdon -- or it may have been someone else --
telling us about that bunch a few years ago.  They charged very
reasonable rates for lawful use of their network but had some tariff
in place calling for payment of thousands of dollars per call on calls
which were made 'without prior authorization'.  They then deliberatly
left things wide open so that even a brand new baby phreakling could
figure out how to get in. Once someone wandered in, the trap would
catch them and they would get some humongous, hellish bill for
thousands of dollars for the calls they made. Anyone with knowledge
of this care to repeat the story for our newer readers?    PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Eagle Consultants)
Subject: Novell Based Voice Mail
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:08:37 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.


I was looking to become an agent for a Novell based Voicemail
software.  I sent one of my employees for training and he left my
company.

Now I am stuck with three copies of the voice mail software.  I would
like to unload it with covering my cost: $3,000.

Anyone interested?

The software is great.  You can view your messages off the LAN, chose
the messages you wish to read, program you voicemail in Windows, set
your pager to beep you, forward your messages with email, use a text
to voice and voice to text reader etc.

Please send me an answer directly:


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ewanco)
Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator'
Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:11:56 -0500
Organization: Xyplex Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Moynihan) writes:

> I need a little help defining some equipment for an application.

> The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that
> will:

> a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or;

> b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is
> a  voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user-
> directed assistance.

I see a problem here.  Originating data modems of the modern sort will
not speak unless spoken to; they do not present their originating
carrier until they hear an answer carrier.  If they never hear an
answer carrier first, they will hang up and report a failure.  This is
in contrast with dumb faxes, which will sit there merrily chirping
even if there is nothing at the other end.

This means that in order to detect a V.34 (or below) carrier, you
first have to offer one, which, if it is a voice call, is going to
probably induce rapid connection termination. :-)


Eric Ewanco  [e-mail]
Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
Littleton, Mass.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator'
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:10:50 GMT


The problem is that ORIGINATING modems do not send any carrier -- so
you would have to direct all calls to a modem for a few seconds of
answer tone before you could tell if it was a modem calling or a voice
caller. Most voice callers would probably hang up on you if they were
not aware that this was to be expected.  The V.34 answer sequence is
quite a mess of tones and 'noise' - and if the caller is using a 2400
modem it won't respond for quite a distance into the sequence.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest
Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:05:06 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@bovine.
ati.com> writes:

> My question is simple: in more than two decades of the Internet, why has
> pornography suddenly become a matter of overwhelming concern to
> legislators?

    [snip]

> As a fairly active participant on the Internet, I have yet to see any of
> this dreaded pornography. But then I have not gone looking for it, either.
> Makes me wonder about those who rail against it so hard.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is, quite simply, because of the
> large number of people who have just begun to discover the Internet.
> In the past, the use was so limited relative to the large number of
> people around; now with millions and millions of new users coming on
> board this was bound to happen. Was it me to made the analogy to
> CB radio a couple years ago?  I hate to say "I told you so,"  but
> I did tell you so.    PAT]

It's a pretty bad analogy, though.  If you turn on the CB radio you
hear tremendous noise.  On internet, you only get what you ask for (or
look for) plus-or-minus some occasional junk mail or some such.  John
just said that he has turned on his "Internet-CB" and not heard this
dreaded cacophony.  Neither have I.

The main problem seems to be that those who go looking for it can find
it.  Either those are people looking for something to raise an alarm
over, or those who actually want to see it.  The bluenoses can go jump
in a lake as far as I am concerned.  The fraction of the second group
who are under age is the only set of users for whom such alarms might
be justified, and home and parental control is the answer, not
government regulation.


/J


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right, but the more people
there are involved, the more bluenoses there will be. The reason you
do not hear the traditional cacophony is because the transmission
methods differ. On the radio, everyone spoke (or cursed, or heckled
or harassed) at the same time. For several years in the 1980's here,
the 11 meter (CB radio) band was constant heterodyne. Just squeals
and hisses and the occassional person a thousand miles away running
enough power that he came bleating out through your radio above all
the noise. From the 1960's when a relatively few number of people
were involved in CB -- most of whom were also amateur radio operators
with intelligence -- to the middle 1970's things were fine. Because
the airwaves were so clear we *could* talk all over the midwest using
two or three watts of power. It was incredible, it was the people's
answer to unlimited free speech. When I keyed that microphone I knew
I would be heard clearly all over the Chicago area.

Then between about 1975 and 1980 or so, *millions* of people bought CB
radios and got on the air. Most of these people had no interest
whatsoever in the gentlemen's agreements which had evolved over the
decade before. For instance, there were informal rules about using
upper or lower sideband on certain channels and AM transmissions on
other channels. There were informal rules about using certain channels
for motorists on the expressway, and certain channels for teenagers.
There were federally mandated rules on other aspects of CB.

      (does any of this sound familiar, anyone?)

Most had no idea how their radio operated and no interest in learning
about the technical aspects. All they knew was they could turn it on
and use it. They had no idea *how* it worked, or *why* it worked, or
*how and why* the simple agreements some of us obeyed came to be in
existence. All they knew was, they bought their equipment at Radio
Shack the day before and they were entitled to use it the same as
everyone else. So what if you did not want to hear them ... you would
respond, "I bought my radio at 'the Shack' also, and I don't want to
listen to you, and I was having a conversation on this channel first
so would you please go somewhere else to talk ..." Their answer would
be something inane like, "My radio has sideband on all forty channels
and I guess that means it is legal to talk on sideband here." Well
yes indeed it was legal, but we who had been around awhile had agree-
ments which went beyond legal and included courtesy.

       (does any of this sound familiar, anyone? Your computer
       receives six thousand newsgroups, and you bought your
       computer at Radio Shack so it must be legal for you to
       post on all six thousand news groups, right?)

The old-time CB'ers would get disgusted and debate these things over
and over ...'they ought to make the new guys pass a written test
before they get to take the radio out of the store ... they ought
to measure their IQ level and demand a minimum level of 85 before
letting them buy a radio ...' Guys worked to develop filters and
other ways of screening out the nonsense. The flame wars (yes,
we had flame wars on CB) went on and on for days. When people got
angry enough they would get in their car and go tracking down the
signal of their radio enemy. After some digging and investigation
they'd find out where the trouble-maker was broadcasting from.

       (any of this sound familiar at all, anyone?)

By 1980 CB here in Chicago and most major cities was just solid
heterodyne; thousands of people talking at once with the speaker
on the radio just hiss, static and noise. The old-timers who
knew how got more power to use; they rationalized it saying it
is 'the only way to cut through the mud out there tonight'. Of
course the racists, antisemitics, Bible preachers, and crackpot
fringe got through okay since they had been running high powered
radios all along. The Nazi people would go on the air and say
something perfectly awful about black people, and use at least
two thousand watts of effective radiated power to say it aimed at
the south side of Chicago. 'The brothers' would hear the message
as it blasted out of the speaker on their radio and their response
would be to turn their own linear amplifiers on and do a little
preaching of their own disrupting communications all over the
city for the rest of the night.

You may think the current Secret Service/FBI agents are pretty
agressive when they come to your home investigating computer crime.
Well let me tell you, the Federal Communications Commission had some
hard-nosed street investigators also ... not a bunch to bother with
formalities, they'd get a belly-full of the heterodyne and triangulate
in on the worst offenders and kick your door down walking right in.
Like cybercops today, the radiocops grabbed everything they could find
that slightly looked like radio equipment to use as 'evidence' against
you. If you ever got it back (only if the court ordered its return)
then it would always be all busted up. Everytime the radiocops had a
raid somewhere, the word would soon be out on the airwaves about it
and everyone else would know about it in a few hours. They would then
hide their illegal equipment in the event the radiocops came for them
next. To save themselves, the CB'ers would tattle on each other to the
radiocops: "have you checked out so-and-so yet?" ...

   (does any of this sound familiar at all, anyone?)

And I hate to disappoint Senator Exon and others, but vicarious
pedophelia did not start when Compuserve invented 'CB Simulator'
chat rooms back in 1981. The guys who are into that were doing it
on the radio back in the 1970's; chatting with young boys who had
just installed a new CB radio, and arranging to meet them to 'help
them with their new equipment' ... quite obviously the conversations
could not be as open as they are in private chat rooms, but there
were quite a few cases of kids going to meet older guys, etc. They
were vague about the meeting place; never any actual street address
was given out over the air, just 'on the corner of Oak and Polk at
ten' ... a newspaper columnist wrote in the {Chicago Tribune} around
1980 that 'intelligent child molestors know how to use their CB
radio to pick up kids' ... and to his way of thinking (and, I might
add, a few politicians at the time) this was a good reason why
the radios should be banned or highly regulated. Naturally the CB'ers
responded by going off on tangents about Free Speech and the First
Amendment and why can't parents be responsible for their kids and
since its legal to talk about it on the radio in Outer Slobovia what
happens if atmospheric conditions cause the signal to skip and I
hear it on my radio here thousands of miles away; how can the radiocops
punish me, etc ad nauseum.

Did you really think all those were new issues, unique to our present
medium? After awhile, people got tired and bored and quit using CB.
Give Usenet another year or two at most.      PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 11:23:36 -0500
From: Dave Farber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Elegy For a Free Press


Passed along to the Digest FYI:

EDITORIAL
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent
Hollywood, Calif.   12/21/95


ELEGY FOR A FREE PRESS
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent

We still find it hard to believe that our President will betray
the First Amendment and his duties to the Constitution of the United
States by signing into law the censorship legislation contained in the
larger telecommunications reform bill, but that now seems inevitable.

Frankly, for one reason or another, that will almost certainly
mean the death of The American Reporter, a brave, struggling, desperate
little journal that tried to make reporters owners of their destiny.

Most reporters are not very brave, though, perhaps preferring to
watch from the sidelines than to be in the trenches, and subscribers are
not sufficiently generous to keep us going.  Now that we have also taken
upon ourselves the task of challenging the Congress of the United States
and the President, our fate is probably sealed.

It is painful to contemplate spending the next two years in a Federal
prison for violating a law that violates the First Amendment, but it
is very possible that all the lawyers in Congress, and all the lawyers
that work for them, and all the lawyers that work for the lobbyists,
have devised a scheme that will not discomfit five Justices of the
United States Supreme Court.

In that event, the jail terms and fines associated with our challenge
to the legislation will surely prevent our further publication.  That
will be a small tragedy in most lives, though a great one in ours.  We
know how badly the world needs a free and independent press, and how
badly the corporate giants want a controlled, pliable press.  Congress
has given the latter their way.

It would be our observation that as long as they are paid every two
weeks, most journalists will go along, loudly protesting all the
while, but resisting the appeal to civil disobedience their own hearts
must make.  Few have distinguished themselves in this debate, and
those that have are still contributing to The American Reporter.

We will continue to publish at least long enough to produce the
article by Judge Steve Russell of Texas, that is to be defended in the
courts by attorney Randall Boe of Arent Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn.

We know it is difficult for most Americans to see the relationship
between a word they consider obscene and the right to be unquiet in our
speech.  To understand, they will have to realize that untrammeled speech
is a threat to those interests that hope to soon control the Internet.

In the pay-as-you-go Cyber Disneyland of our immediate future, the
Net's strong cables of self-created connections will become strands of
angel hair pasta and a fiber optic lure to the unwary.  Not only the
classic "seven dirty words" but words that recreate lovemaking or voice
the reality of human experience will be forbidden.

Indecency is not the world of slaughter and depredation found in
Bosnian war crimes or the gluttonous hoarding of public money from the
poor, nor the vast poverty of spirit our entertainment industry creates,
and not the ugly deaths of children shot down in the streets of New York,
Chicago and Los Angeles.

These are unoffensive, but the anger they arouse, the language of
uninhibited love and the celebration of freedom in which their expression
is contained, is now to be offensive and obscene.

We love our country more than we should, or would we not be so hurt to
see its blessings betrayed.  Of all of those, none is greater than the
right to speak and write freely, and none is more worth dying for.  We
have vowed to challenge the law that would diminish those rights, and
we will.  We expect that others will follow, at a safe distance.

To do less would be to avoid the responsibility of Americans to
defend with all our heart and might the tenets of our freedom and our
precious Bill of Rights.


                      The American Reporter
          Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter
                       All Rights Reserved

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #534
******************************