Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/telecom-recent/[e-mail] _Tue Jan 2 14:21:42 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-21 | 32KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id OAA07713; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:21:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:21:42 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #1

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jan 96 14:22:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 1

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Happy New Year; Announcements, Administrivia (Patrick A. Townson)
    Re: Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones? ([e-mail])
    Re: Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones? (David Richards)
    Re: Absolutely Amazing Free Catalog (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Re: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment (Ronda Hauben)
    Re: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment (John R. Levine)
    Re: Digital Global Roaming (Cameron J. Atkins)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Bob Spargo)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (John R. Levine)
    Telco Wiring Problems in Old Apartment Building ([e-mail])
    Re: Angst and Awe on the Internet - George Gilder Essay (Robert Jacobson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:07:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Happy New Year; Announcements, Administrivia


I want to welcome everyone to the start of Volume 16 of TELECOM Digest
and encourage you to make full use the resources of the Telecom Archives
and our 'think tank' of telecom professionals involved with this
journal.

In the next day or so, I will have the index to last year's Volume 15
completely finished and will send it out to everyone. This will be the
usual index of authors and subjects as they appeared in each issue.

As most of you know, the past year -- or really two years -- have seen
an unrelenting growth in connections to the Internet and subscribers
to this and other newsletter/journals. The mailing list here now
numbers in the thousands of names, and with this comes a great deal of
work merely on mailing list maintainence alone, to say nothing of the
usual editorial work. Daily submissions are also coming in at a record
pace and I hope no one is offended and everyone understands when I say
that it is impossible to even begin considering/printing anything
other than a small fraction of what reaches my inbox each day.

Most of you were also very understanding when at the first of last
year a voluntary subscription donation policy was implemented since
this has for two years now been virtually full time employment for me.
Although Microsoft and ITU both provide grants, those grants cover
only about half the cost involved, and I rely on readers to provide
the balance due.

The suggested donation is twenty dollars per reader per year. If you
sent a subscription last year, I hope you will do so again this year
sometime over the next couple weeks as it is convenient for you. If
you did not send one last year, please do so this time. The address
is:
                      TELECOM Digest
                   Post Office Box 4621
                   Skokie, IL     60076

To bring you up to date on the phones here, the correct phone number
to reach me is either 847-329-0571  _or_ 500-677-1616 (preferred).
You can reach me by fax at 847-329-0572.

Some of you are *still* writing to the Digest at the old address at
Northwestern ([e-mail]). Please stop using this address
immediately. Use ONLY the correct, current email address which is
as shown above. Before long, mail sent to nwu.edu will bounce and
be returned to you.

I was *not* pleased to see Northwestern get beaten in the Rose Bowl
yesterday ... but just seeing them there for the first time since
I was a little kid was indeed a source of pride. All throughout this
area over the weekend there were celebrations, particularly in
Evanston directly east of us where the university is located.

Anyway, happy new year 1996, and welcome to another time around with
your favorite Digest and mine. May we all benefit and learn as we
share together here in the next twelve months.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Editor

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones?
Date: 02 Jan 1996 07:31:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
Peshkin) writes:

> Is there a source for what they don't tell you about cellphones in the
> users manual?  Like, how to read out and/or program the phone's id
> number?  Every salesperson knows how to do this, so it can't be too
> great a secret.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are various books you can
> purchase with information and instructions on programming cellphones.
> One example which comes to mind is Bishop. I forget the exact title
> of their book but you would find it in some technical book stores.

You might also want to check out Some back issues of Nuts and Volts
magazine. Damion Thorn usually contributes very interesting articles on
cellular.

However ... the book "The Cellular Hackers Bible" is one of the best
books I've read on the subject.


YUK

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

From: [e-mail] (David Richards)
Subject: Re: Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones?
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 07:27:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Michael Peshkin
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Is there a source for what they don't tell you about cellphones in the
> users manual?  Like, how to read out and/or program the phone's id
> number?  Every salesperson knows how to do this, so it can't be too
> great a secret.

The original Ripco BBS, is going on it's thirteenth year (which can't
be bad luck, nothing could be worse luck than the events of May 8,
1990) and carries a full selection of free files on cellular phones
and other interesting subjects.

The number is 312-528-5020 all modem speeds, full access on the first call.

> Why do I want to know?  Nothing unethical.  I'd like to use a spare
> phone as an emergency phone in my other car, sharing a number.  (Of
> course if both ever got turned on at the same time, they'd probably
> disconnect my service, but I can avoid doing that.)  Also I'm just
> curious what are all the things you can do that they don't tell you
> about.

Motorola in particular commonly has numerous extra features coded into
their phones and pagers, some can be accessed from the keypad/buttons,
others require a programming cradle and software.

TELECOM Digest Editor then noted in response:

> Actually, you can *not* share a number between two phones as you
> propose, or certainly not with your level of expertise. The reason
> is both phones need to share the same ESN, or electronic serial
> number, and that is the one thing which is difficult or usually
> impossible to modify ... again, for most people.

And the cellular carriers are working on pushing laws that would make
changing the ESN a criminal act, even for the purposes of having two
phones you own use the same account. Anything that denies them revenue
is fraud :-(


David Richards                     Ripco Communications Inc.
My opinions are my own,            Public Access in Chicago
But they are available for rental  FREE Usenet and Email
[e-mail]                       [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: Absolutely Amazing Free Catalog
Organization: as little as possible
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 08:06:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes:

> TELECOM PRODUCTS is the name of an interesting sixty page catalog
> published about every two months by Mike Sandman. Billing himself as
> "Chicago's Telecom Expert" -- which I have no doubt he is -- his
> bi-monthly catalog is full of technical reports, short articles of
> interest on telephony, and *lots* of illustrations and short blurbs
> about things he sells from his shop, which is located in Roselle, IL.

I stopped in there one day to buy a headset he sells for the Motorola
radios he carries. Email correspondence preceding the "event"
suggested that he didn't know whether it would work with my specific
model, but he'd be willing to test it.

I thought I had read a blurb inviting people to stop by and see his
messy but comprehensive selection of stuff, so with the word "messy"
in my head I walked into an office area which I thought was quite
a neat and efficient use of space. A cute bird announced my arrival
quite loudly to a lady nearby, who called Mike in the back room and
gave my name; Mike came right out and introduced himself, remembering
me from our exchange some days previous.

He had to rip open one of those ultrasonically-welded "bubble packs"
to let me test the headset, but did so without hesitation. As it
turned out, it worked fine and I bought it on the spot. The entire
operation from my entry to my exit must have taken ten minutes
(nine of it to open that damned package :-), and I walked away quite
impressed with the operation and the courtesy of his employees.

> His merchandise all seems to be reasonably priced. Most of the prices
> in his catalog appear to be average or better than average. I strongly
> recommend getting a copy and checking it out.

Headsets for the usually inexpensive ham radio equipment I buy
generally cost a lot; the headset for my $215 Alinco radio cost me
$87. I was very nicely surprised when I walked out of Mike's store
with a Motorola headset for $95 (plus a few bucks for a belt clip
upgrade; the stock ones Motorola supplies are chintzy). Note that I
include the PTT-switchbox-cum-VOX gadget in the price of both.

There's a LOT of stuff in Mike's catalog which can be used for things
other than telecom equipment; for example, some tiny little Alps
switches he carries are used in just about every kind of consumer
electronic equipment I've seen, and the deskset keypad repair kits
he offers would be perfect for repairing TV remote controls and
certain computer keyboards. And there's always that bidet!

I'll be going back.


   Cliff Sharp
     WA9PDM
  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment
Date: 1 Jan 1996 23:22:01 EST
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


John Vitiello ([e-mail]) wrote:

> A question was posed to my class in Regulatory Law and Telecommunications
> Policy at grad school. I'm interested in anyone's opinion on the subject.

> The question was:

> Could the internet have developed if the Bell Sysyem had remained a
> monopoly?

Yes, and in fact it developed while the Bell System was a regulated
monopoly and the regulation of the Bell System was a significant
contributing factor in a number of ways to the development of the
Internet.

> If so how?

1. The availability of leased lines from AT&T long lines was a
help to the development of the early ARPANET which was the father
of the Internet.

2. The regulatory pressure on AT&T in the mid 1960's led them to
support the development of UNIX in 1969 and not only its subsequent
development, but then the development of Usenet in 1979.

3. Usenet played an important part in contributing to the development
of the Internet. When Usenet pioneers made ARPANET Mailing
Lists available to those on Usenet in 1981, this was a step toward
making the ARPANET open to others, which helped to support the
development of the Internet.

The Bell System played an important and supportative role in the
creation of Usenet, and Usenet has contributed in many important
ways to the development of the Internet. (Usenet has been called
the soul of the Internet :)

4. There are several chapters in the netbook "Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" that provide
important details of these events.

See especially the chapters "On the Early Days of Usenet: The
Roots of the Cooperative Online Culture" and "On the Early
History and Impact of Unix:Tools to Build the Tools for a New
Millenium". Also the chapter "Social Forces Behind the Development
of Usenet" gives an overview of these developments. These are
available online at

    http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/project_book.html

The issue of the Amateur Computerist that we did to commemorate the
25th Anniversary of Unix includes an interview with Berkley Tague of
AT&T who describes the automation of AT&T under the pressure of
regulatory obligations. The automation that AT&T then undertook in the
1970's and the programming of the 5ESS at AT&T in the late 1970's and
early 1980's was a massive programming project and there are
indicators that programmers in AT&T supported the development of
Usenet because it was helpful to them in their work on large scale
programming projects. Thus regulation played an important role helping
the development of the Internet, rather than deregulation being
helpful.

The issue of the Amateur Computerist commemorating 25 years of UNIX
is described in my signature and available free via email.

It is also available at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/acn/


Ronda Hauben       The Amateur Computerist    [e-mail]
  vol 6 no 1 Winter/Spring 1994 Celebrated the 25th Anniversary of Unix
          with interviews with John Lions and Berkley Tague
    articles on the history of Unix and of Usenet, article on linux etc.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 17:21:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.


> [most Internet traffic travels via T1 and T3 leased lines and ... ]
> (As I understand it, rates for leased lines did not drop
> nearly as much as consumer long distance prices.)

Sure they have.  Inter-lata leased lines are just as competitive as
inter-lata switched service.  They technology has changed somewhat,
e.g. frame relay and ATM, so you can't quite compare apples to apples.

Lacking divestiture I suppose we'd have seen a lot more use of satellite,
microwave, and other bypass technologies and fewer leased lines from the
telco.

> I believe that the "real" cause of the Internet explosion is that the
> price of modems and personal computers has dropped dramatically while
> the speed and power has greatly increased.

No question there, the net would be a lot smaller if modems and
routers were $2K and $20K rather than $150 and $2K.


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 [phone]
[e-mail] "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 23:46:57 EST
Subject: Re: Digital Global Roaming


> Ian Nicholls wrote:

>> [e-mail] (James Brister) writes:

>>> Do I have any hope of use that phone is the USA?

>> No.  I don't think GSM is used at all over there.  Some companies use a
>> digital variant of the Analogue system, which doesn't help you.

> Well, you might be able to use your SIM in the Washington DC area.  A
> Sprint (and someone else) venture just launched PCS1900 service.
> PCS1900 is basically GSM at 1900Mhz (there are some "americanization"
> aspects such as equal access for long distance).  But, you will NOT be
> able to use your phone from Australia.

There are no commercial arrangements between any of the Australian
carriers (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone) to support roaming (whether your
own SIM or a "SIM swap") into the US if you have a digital mobile
service.  Technically it may be possible, but it is usually the
abilities of Telco's billing systems to exchange CDRs and the agreed
tariffing that are the challenges that present themselves.

>>> Could anyone enlighten me as to potential problems?

>> When you get back, you might have to pay an arm and a leg through the nose
>> for approval to use a foreign phone in Australia.

> That's kind of protectionist, isn't it?  I mean, all you should have
> to do is pay any import duties and you should be done.  As far as
> getting service with Telstra or OPTUS, you should be able to plug your
> SIM (that is registered in a local network) into your phone ... and you
> should be done.  However, I've heard that the voice encryption (A5
> algorythm (sp?)) used in Europe was blocked in Australia.  And, that
> a "substitute" encryption method was employed instead.  Anybody know
> the details?

Any telco equipment in Australia must be approved by Austel (Aust.
Telecomm.  Authority) before it should be used.  By virtue of the way
GSM phones operate, this is difficult to police though as a rule of
thumb you will not get into trouble if you simply purchase a GSM phone
overseas that is already marketed within Australia (e.g. Nokia 2110,
Ericcson 337, Motorola 8200)- if you believe you may want to sell the
phone in the future it is prudent to get the necessary certification
that endorses the phone by Austel.  To get this you simply approach
the local office of any of the phone distributors.  This may cost you
A$25 thereabouts.

However, if you buy a GSM phone o/s (It is bound to be cheaper), you
simply plug your local SIM in.

A5 is used in Australia.  Some developing countries (Am unsure exactly
who and do not wish to guess) are prevented from using it due to
perceived concerns of providing it where the threat of having it
applied for dubious means is a risk.  We're a friendly bunch down
here!

> The GSM networks in Australia generally wouldn't know where the phone
> was purchased (or manufactured).  Really, all they care about is
> whether or not your IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity)
> and IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) numbers are valid
> in it's network.

The telcos don't log the IMSI or IMEI at present.

The telcos are individually (I know Voda and Optus are for certain)
constructing IMSI and IMEI databases that will enable them to validate
and track customer phones.  The application of this will be similar to
what is applied on the AMPS network whereby the ESN is logged on the
network customer care/billing system - (i) for the purpose of
registering valid local phones and (ii) "locking" out the activation
of stolen or lost phones.  The ease of re-using GSM phones at present
when lost or stolen has been the obvious trigger for such databases.

If you want more information, please contact me directly.


Regards,

Cameron Atkins

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

From: Bob Spargo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 23:53:37 EST
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Rob Hickey wrote:

> An interesting article appeared in the {Globe and Mail} (Canada) regarding
> the future of PCS.  The author, Geoffrey Rowan, appears to cast doubt
> on the viability of PCS providers; he maintains that cellular technology
> will not be quickly missplaced for the following reasons:

> 1)  PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are
> practically giving away cell phones;

This shows a distinct lack of understanding of market economics on the
part of Mr.  Rowan.  Manufacturers are not giving away cellular
phones.  Their price is being bought down at the retail level by the
cellular operator.  If the PCS equipment costs less to manufacture
(and it will in time) then the buy down will be less, or the same buy
down amount will provide a lower end user cost.

> 2)  PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most
> cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends;

I think the basic premise that most companies give away nights and
weekends may not be true when considering the lowest rates in the
major metro areas.  In any event, the money in cellular is made off of
air time charges during business hours.  Provide a less expensive
service during those hours and you will attract business.

> 3)  PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest
> cell phones;

Probably true.  Size is predominately determined by the human body
(ear to mouth distance) and battery technology.  The body isn't going
to change but, for a given talk/listen time, the battery capacity (in
mA/hr) and size may be able to be reduced slightly with PCS due to
lower power drain.

> 4)  PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

Don't put money on this.

> Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in
> infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist.

After reading your summary of his article, I suspect Rowan is not very
familiar with the technology of either service or with the market
potential for personal communications services.  Having been involved
in the embryonic days of cellular from the late '70's through mid
'80's, I witnessed similar questioning of the viability of that
service.  After all, the first phones were close to $3,000 at retail
and the cellular operator needed to gross $100/month/subscriber to
make any money.  If you want to know how those early guys made out
check with John Kluge, John Palmer, Wayne Schelle, Craig McCaw and all
those others who had the foresight and guts to build those first
systems.


Bob

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jan 96 17:15:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.


> ATT and some of the other big boys plan to market nation wide services
> which use PCS in some areas and cellular in others. All with the same
> telephone. No more roaming, anywhere in the country call in or out for
> the standard per minute rate. I call you wherever you are, no extra
> charge -- for you or me.

Hey, that's just like what A side cellular users in Canada have had
for the past decade.  (Well, you do pay toll charges, but it's home
airtime rates everywhere.)

Seems to me that PCS will force a big consolidation in the cellular
biz.  We're already seeing some of that, e.g. NYNEX and BAMS merging,
and AT&T SBC buying up systems all over the place, but once PCS starts
being a serious threat, I expect to find cellular systems in medium
sized markets eaten by the majors.  It'll probably end up with a
scenario similar to that for landline phones -- a few big players that
dominate all the major markets, and scattered small players in rural
areas.


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 [phone]
[e-mail] "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telco Wiring Problems in Old Apartment Building
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:27:05 EST
Organization: Phantom Access Technologies, Inc. / MindVox


I am in New York, and my telco is NYNEX. The question that I have is
where I live there are two buildings that share a inside wall, and
other things like hot water and steam. We have a main line that come
from a pole, to one of the building's basement. It is 150 - 200 feet
from the pole to the building basement. From there the main line
splits in to two; one for each building going like 75 feet each
direction to each box. These are the old terminal boxes that need a nut
wrench to connect the wires.

There is a mess in the boxes, a bunch of wires everywhere, so that
when telco comes to repair or connect a new service always they break
someone else's line. I told them that if this happen again I not going
to let anyone go and work in the lines there, and they would have to
fix it from the street. Usually when some line is not working, the
first thing they say is that the problem is in the basement. I know
for a fact that the problem is not there; the problem is where the
other telco men are working on the street someplace else. Later they
want to come to the building and try to find an empty pair so they
can change the line to the other pair.

1) Can I tell the telco NYNEX to put a new box where the main
cable enters the basement, just there instead the two boxes,
I think one is much better, so all the lines from each building
can go in there.

2) Can I make them change the old main line, and put a new from the
basement box to the pole or some where else, and what type, can I
specify what type and how many wires, thinking of the future like
ISDN or something else, I think 100 to 200 pairs is enough, on
both buildings are 24 apartments.

3) Right now the main line that is coming to the buildings sucks,
in that line are I think ten exchanges none of them offers ISDN or some
of the other services like CALL ANSWERING etc, the problem is that the
line routes to some place and that place don't support this services,
some of the exchanges do, but since they route to that place is no way
to get some of the services. Is there anything I can do about it?

4) Is there going to be any charge to the building or that is the
telco responsibility.

Any ideas, or other things that I can ask them?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are several things which need to
be addressed here. First of all, what is *your* relationship to the
owner of the property and the apartment buildings?  If you are not the
landlord or the landlords's representative (i.e. building manager or
caretaker) then you will NOT instruct the telco to do anything with
those boxes. I've seen a lot of situations such as you describe here
in the Chicago area in very old apartment buildings; especially in
buildings where there used to be switchboard phone service operated
at a front desk many years ago. Generally over the years since, telco
has 'wired through' those old basement boxes straight to all the
apartments so they do not have to have access to them on any regular
basis.

Still though, I think if you check applicable tariffs and case law,
you will see that telco has easement in the basement; that is, you
may not forbid them to enter for the purpose of working on their
wires. Even if you are the landlord or the landlord's representative
this is probably the case. Telco can be admitted to the basement at
anytime in an emergency or at any reasonable hour otherwise. There
is also a question of who owns the wire inside the building, what
are called the 'house pairs'. Were the house pairs abandoned, or
vacated by telco at any time in the past? If not, then your 'demarc'
is in a distinctly different location than it would be otherwise.
In that case, it is immediatly where the wires enter your apartment
and prior to that (unless you are the landlord) you have no right
to tell telco they must or must not do anything. If the inside
wires or house pairs were at some point abandoned by telco and are
now the property of the landlord, then the demarc moves back to
where the wires come in the basement from the outside. Now, maybe
you or landlord have a right to say something.

The trouble is, fifty or seventy years ago when there were lots of
buildings being constructed in larger cities and telco was busy
wiring everything; installing the old switchboards in apartment
buildings, etc. no one ever could have forseen what the future and
divestiture would bring. The best course of action now might be
to speak with someone in authority who has some responsibility for
'outside plant' at telco and explain what appear to be the chronic
and repeated problems with service when work is done in your area.
Again, it would help if you are in a position to do some of the
bargaining, i.e. the landlord or property owner.

It sounds to me like there is probably a severe shortage of pairs in
the area (a very common problem in some older inner city neighborhoods)
and that to merely get a pair for new service for someone, the
installer has to go around to several basements in the area like yours
and try to find a couple of good wires he can make into one working
pair. Then he has to tell someone in the central office which wires he
is using; they have to coordinate it there; somewhere along the line
the plant records are inaccurate and need reconciliation; someone else
gets accidentally cut off in the process. You have noticed how the
wire pairs in your basement box are probably tagged with cryptic
information of one sort or another; some of it accurate, some of it
woefully out of date. When a new subscriber gets service, the
installer has to go to all the other basements in the area to 'open
the multiples', that is, to disconnect the wires at that point so
someone else won't be able to use the new subscriber's line.

It would be of tremendous help if you are in a position as landlord
to negotiate the installation of a new terminal box outside the
building with all existing inside wires and the inside boxes neatly
organized once and for all; all house pairs accounted for and
correctly tagged where they are 'wired through' to the new outside
terminal, etc. If you are only a tenant, then my sympathies to you.
Telco does not care what you think of *their* terminal in the the
basement of the building where you live, although they might do
something about it if the right person(s) are properly approached.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Angst and Awe on the Internet - George Gilder Essay
Date: 2 Jan 1996 06:04:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


Seems to me Mr. Gilder has his demons wrong.  I haven't noticed a lot of
"left-wing Luddites" or "media Marxists" going full out to discredit the
Net.  I'm not even sure who he means, but the critiques I've seen from
social critics have always been tempered with a realization that the Net
represents power and its management, like everything having to do with
power, is up for grabs.  Only a pollyanna would be surprised that this is
the case.

On the other hand, it looks to this humble observer that it's the media
magnates and the far-right crazies who run this Congress, with whom Mr.
Gilder is usually very comfortable, who are threatening the Net with the
"Three Cs":  consolidation, concentration, and censorship.  No amount of
praise for garage information handiworkers can obscure the fact that it's
cats on the right who have everyone's fate clutched tight in their dirty
little hands.  But they pay the freight for most of the techno-futurists,
so it would be pollyannish in its own way to expect any of the contract
theorists to call them out.

Thanks, Pat, for a chuckle on New Year's.


Bob Jacobson


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If George Gilder wishes to respond,
I'll certainly appreciate his thoughts. Meanwhile, once again a
happy new year to all, and welcome to another volume of the Digest.
I really want to work on improving the Digest and the Archives this
year, so any of you who can help, PLEASE do so ... your financial
assistance is very very important.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #1
****************************