Internet charges to soar unless government backs down
webm...@democrats.org.au
Senator Lyn Allison
Australian Democrats
Spokesperson on Telecommunications
23 March 1997
Media Release
Internet charges to soar unless government backs down
Internet charges are set to soar because of the Federal Government's
refusal to guarantee business access to untimed local data calls, the
Democrats said today.
See the complete media release
http://www.democrats.org.au/democrats/media/1997/03/203la.html
_______________________________________________________________________
The Australian Democrats
http://www.democrats.org.au
Tom Davies
webm...@democrats.org.au wrote in article
<33354cb4....@news.uq.edu.au>...
[snip]
>
> Internet charges to soar unless government backs down
>
[snip]
> See the complete media release
> http://www.democrats.org.au/democrats/media/1997/03/203la.html
Here's a section of the media release:
>The Democrats Spokesperson on Telecommunications, Senator Lyn Allison
said, "The Government's refusal to guarantee these untimed local timed data
calls will mean that many small >Internet service providers will go out of
business.
>"At the moment, there are many small Australian Internet service providers
succeeding in a highly competitive environment.
>"But if the government doesn't guarantee untimed local data calls for
business, all these service providers will have to pay for their access to
the Internet on a timed basis.
Is this true? Do ISPs rely on untimed calls for their connections to
Internet backbones? That comes as a suprise to me, but I'm willing to be
corrected.
I would have assumed that they used leased lines, which (presumably) would
be unaffected by changes to the timed local calls regime. Isn't it only the
service providers *customers* who would have to "pay for their access to
the internet on a timed basis"?
Tom
Reg Braddock
On 24 Mar 1997 11:42:08 GMT, Tom Davies <tom_d...@POBoxes.com> wrote:
>
>>"But if the government doesn't guarantee untimed local data calls for
>business, all these service providers will have to pay for their access to
>the Internet on a timed basis.
>
>Is this true? Do ISPs rely on untimed calls for their connections to
>Internet backbones? That comes as a suprise to me, but I'm willing to be
>corrected.
>
>I would have assumed that they used leased lines, which (presumably) would
>be unaffected by changes to the timed local calls regime. Isn't it only the
>service providers *customers* who would have to "pay for their access to
>the internet on a timed basis"?
For many ISPs, especially small ones, newsfeeds and often their link
to their upstream provider is done on POTS. Those who use ISDN
typically use a semi-permanent connection which costs $394 for
installation, $70 per month rental and $2172 per annum when you are
within 12kms of an exchange (as of Nov last year) per 64k channel.
That increases to $3204 up to 25 kms from and exchange and $5940 up to
50 km from an exchange.
I don't know what the charges are for POTS leased lines, although I
believe that they are expensive. The ISDN service will be replaced
with something else over the next few years.
One of the big concerns is that the communications minister has said
that residential local calls will not be timed, but but that local
data calls for business might be. The problem is that most every ISP
is classified as a business for phone charging purposes. The dominant
phone company (Telstra) has mentioned that it may time charge
businesses for the _reception_ of local data calls. The distinction
won't help the consumers who have to pay their phone bills. The rates
being mentioned are between $2 and $5 per hour.
Out of interest, you being a Yank, how much does ISDN cost over there?
Reg.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Eleanor Shipp
In article <slrn5jh2ur....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
<snip>
>One of the big concerns is that the communications minister has said
>that residential local calls will not be timed, but but that local
>data calls for business might be. The problem is that most every ISP
>is classified as a business for phone charging purposes.
As someone from APANA i would have thought that you would get this right Reg,
Telstra only charges business rates to ISP's who operate for a profit.
The dominant
>phone company (Telstra) has mentioned that it may time charge
>businesses for the _reception_ of local data calls. The distinction
>won't help the consumers who have to pay their phone bills. The rates
>being mentioned are between $2 and $5 per hour.
B party charging....????? in whose dreams? Which technology platform supports
this?
Love
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Shipp
"There's only one thing worse than being talked
about, and that's not being talked about"..OW
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reg Braddock
On 26 Mar 1997 04:45:51 GMT, Eleanor Shipp <ESh...@tennet.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn5jh2ur....@labrador.apana.org.au>,
><snip>
> >One of the big concerns is that the communications minister has said
> >that residential local calls will not be timed, but but that local
> >data calls for business might be. The problem is that most every ISP
> >is classified as a business for phone charging purposes.
>
>As someone from APANA i would have thought that you would get this right Reg,
>Telstra only charges business rates to ISP's who operate for a
>profit.
I thought I said "most every ISP" which is quite different from "every
ISP." Since most every ISP operates for a profit, such a move would
affect most every ISP. Hopefully, no one will make an exception for
APANA or other not-for-profit providers/asylums. Perhaps I should
have just said "most ISPs."
> The dominant
> >phone company (Telstra) has mentioned that it may time charge
> >businesses for the _reception_ of local data calls. The distinction
> >won't help the consumers who have to pay their phone bills. The rates
> >being mentioned are between $2 and $5 per hour.
>
>B party charging....????? in whose dreams? Which technology platform supports
>this?
We would love to know. There is some doubt as to whether the evil
empire can even distinguish data calls from fax calls since the
frequencies used to set the connection are the same. However, that is
one of the strange noises coming out of the Tel$tra. Afterall,
someone has to pay Frank Blount's salary.
David Voss
One question,
Who is going to listen across the line to see if it is a data or a
voice call?.
brad...@labrador.apana.org.au (Reg Braddock) wrote:
>On 24 Mar 1997 11:42:08 GMT, Tom Davies <tom_d...@POBoxes.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"But if the government doesn't guarantee untimed local data calls for
>>business, all these service providers will have to pay for their access to
>>the Internet on a timed basis.
>>
>>Is this true? Do ISPs rely on untimed calls for their connections to
>>Internet backbones? That comes as a suprise to me, but I'm willing to be
>>corrected.
>>
>>I would have assumed that they used leased lines, which (presumably) would
>>be unaffected by changes to the timed local calls regime. Isn't it only the
>>service providers *customers* who would have to "pay for their access to
>>the internet on a timed basis"?
>For many ISPs, especially small ones, newsfeeds and often their link
>to their upstream provider is done on POTS. Those who use ISDN
>typically use a semi-permanent connection which costs $394 for
>installation, $70 per month rental and $2172 per annum when you are
>within 12kms of an exchange (as of Nov last year) per 64k channel.
>That increases to $3204 up to 25 kms from and exchange and $5940 up to
>50 km from an exchange.
>I don't know what the charges are for POTS leased lines, although I
>believe that they are expensive. The ISDN service will be replaced
>with something else over the next few years.
>One of the big concerns is that the communications minister has said
>that residential local calls will not be timed, but but that local
>data calls for business might be. The problem is that most every ISP
>is classified as a business for phone charging purposes. The dominant
>phone company (Telstra) has mentioned that it may time charge
>businesses for the _reception_ of local data calls. The distinction
>won't help the consumers who have to pay their phone bills. The rates
>being mentioned are between $2 and $5 per hour.
>Out of interest, you being a Yank, how much does ISDN cost over there?
>Reg.
Llewellyn Griffiths
David Voss wrote
> One question,
>
> Who is going to listen across the line to see if it is a data or a
> voice call?.
The computer equipment at the telephone exchange. When the call is
connected, modems go through a handshaking sequence that basically consists
of a number of tones. It is actually a bit more complicated than that but
it is very easy to detect a data call. If you are interested in how modems
communicate with each other you can visit the ITU site and look at the
various standards.
Reg Braddock
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:39:04 GMT, David Voss <dv...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>One question,
>
>Who is going to listen across the line to see if it is a data or a
>voice call?.
>
>
>>One of the big concerns is that the communications minister has said
>>that residential local calls will not be timed, but but that local
>>data calls for business might be. The problem is that most every ISP
>>is classified as a business for phone charging purposes. The dominant
>>phone company (Telstra) has mentioned that it may time charge
>>businesses for the _reception_ of local data calls. The distinction
>>won't help the consumers who have to pay their phone bills. The rates
>>being mentioned are between $2 and $5 per hour.
I answered this in email, but will answer it publicly.
Both fax and data calls are recognisable due to clever tricks they
employ during connection establishment. One of those things is that
they use a tone which switches off the echo cancellation device on the
line - a give away.
ISPs are easy to spot just from customer records.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> David Voss wrote
> > One question,
> >
> > Who is going to listen across the line to see if it is a data or a
> > voice call?.
>
> connected, modems go through a handshaking sequence that basically consists
> of a number of tones. It is actually a bit more complicated than that but
> it is very easy to detect a data call. If you are interested in how modems
> communicate with each other you can visit the ITU site and look at the
> various standards.
It's a lot more complex than that. The end-point negotiation between
two modems is relatively simple, but to assume that this is detectable
by the bearer owner is false. 'The computer equipment' at the exchange
may not exist. The model of a modem dialing into an exchange, being
looked at by a monitor, and subsequently being assigned a virtual
circuit
to the destination end-point is false, and usually represented
diagramatically
to teach basic communication concepts. The model ignores circuit
switching,
congestion based routing, traffic control, data tunneling, routing etc.
And that's
only analogue. How do you tell the difference between a digital fax and
digital voice given the current infra-structure in place in Australia.
I would suggest that class-of-service charging on a shared network would
be virtually impossible to implement unless the investment in a national
network upgrade implementing ISDN and Broadband - ISDN with frame relay
and ATM. Building the infra-stucture required for class-of-service
billing
on a shared network could be implemented at a central (or number of
centralised) location(s).
Numbers and duration is much of what we have at the moment and given
the financial state of the players, I can't see a network overhaul for
many moons. Of course, if someone bites the bullet and does build a new
integrated network (and I'd like the contract ;) the costs will _need_
to be passed on to the end user of the services.
The only viable way for a telecommunications provider to cash in on
Internet connectivity would be to introduce timed local calls and when
Telecom is sold, I predict this will happen.
The other possibility of course is to make the big-drip the only ISP
in Australia, and then it's user pays all the way.
I see a new high-speed network is being proposed to link acedemic,
research
and DoD sites. Wow Deja view. Then all us oldies can drop off to
ARPANET2,
establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
One of the funniest articles I have ever read on this news group.
My opinion of you just increased by several magnitudes. If you can ever
resist the temptation to call everyone a 'retarded cunt', and overcome your
xenophobia, you have the potential to make a very successful politician.
Anybody, who not in the industry, will take your statements at face value
and be tremendously impressed.
You will, however, have to improve your grasp of technical jargon. Ask
someone at Telstra about their digital exchanges and visit the ITU site
[Although I don't remember the address, the Rockwell web page has all of
the links]. In the meantime, I have the V.34 recommendation somewhere and,
if I can find the disk, I will email a copy to you.
Overall though, the article was ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. Of the
parliamentarians in living memory, only Barry Jones could have done better.
Keep up the good work!
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall wrote
>
> One of the funniest articles I have ever read on this news group.
>
> My opinion of you just increased by several magnitudes. If you can ever
> resist the temptation to call everyone a 'retarded cunt', and overcome your
> xenophobia, you have the potential to make a very successful politician.
> Anybody, who not in the industry, will take your statements at face value
> and be tremendously impressed.
Oh, you are in networking? Why have I never heard of you?
>
> You will, however, have to improve your grasp of technical jargon. Ask
> someone at Telstra about their digital exchanges and visit the ITU site
> [Although I don't remember the address, the Rockwell web page has all of
> the links]. In the meantime, I have the V.34 recommendation somewhere and,
> if I can find the disk, I will email a copy to you.
Dont bother. I own a copy (along with a stack of OSI, CCIT and related
documentation) and have done for many years.
>
> Overall though, the article was ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. Of the
> parliamentarians in living memory, only Barry Jones could have done better.
>
> Keep up the good work!
I will try.
OK bright eyes. Astound me with your brilliance.
How would you implement a nationwide monitor that would interrogate
virtual circuits and check the contents of packets of information
to see whether they contain voice or data?
In the industry?
Reading the 'Bozo guide to Visual Basic' doesn't cut it
in the big bad world of comms.
retarded cunt.
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Reg Braddock wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:39:04 GMT, David Voss <dv...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
> >One question,
> >
> >Who is going to listen across the line to see if it is a data or a
> >voice call?.
> >
> >
> >>One of the big concerns is that the communications minister has said
> >>that residential local calls will not be timed, but but that local
> >>data calls for business might be. The problem is that most every ISP
> >>is classified as a business for phone charging purposes. The dominant
> >>phone company (Telstra) has mentioned that it may time charge
> >>businesses for the _reception_ of local data calls. The distinction
> >>won't help the consumers who have to pay their phone bills. The rates
> >>being mentioned are between $2 and $5 per hour.
>
> I answered this in email, but will answer it publicly.
>
> Both fax and data calls are recognisable due to clever tricks they
> employ during connection establishment. One of those things is that
> they use a tone which switches off the echo cancellation device on the
> line - a give away.
What if the connection is made locally where the area only employs
old fashoined circuit-switch technology, and the echo cancellation
tone is just dismissed as out-of-band transmission.
How about digital? Without reading the packet header information
how do you tell the difference between voice and data?
More commonly, using packet switch technology do you interrogate
every packet or do you make up your mind at the establishment of
the circuit (keeping in mind that the circuit is established
before any point-to-point negotiation occurs).
And lastly, how do you write and implement a monitor process that
will interrogate every packet transfer in/out and around Australia?
Jesus, keeping track of the status of packet information on your
very own distributed network is the stuff PhDs and headaches are
made of. Try doing it with a nation. It can be done, but will
need a shitload of money thrown at it.
>
> ISPs are easy to spot just from customer records.
>
> Reg.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Brendan is my pal then :)
Mark.
David Gerard
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:40:13 -0800, Mark Addinall (addi...@southwest.com.au) wrote:
[list of difficulties in detecting data calls]
:And that's
:only analogue. How do you tell the difference between a digital fax and
:digital voice given the current infra-structure in place in Australia.
One plan is to keep a list of the numbers of the ISPs' incoming lines.
Then it's easy: all calls to those numbers must be data calls! Then
charge accordingly.
:The only viable way for a telecommunications provider to cash in on
:Internet connectivity would be to introduce timed local calls and when
:Telecom is sold, I predict this will happen.
:The other possibility of course is to make the big-drip the only ISP
:in Australia, and then it's user pays all the way.
That's what Telstra REALLY wants. Knocking out every other ISP in this
manner. Selling Big Drip via 1-900 number at a rate far lower than
they even sell 1-900 numbers for.
:I see a new high-speed network is being proposed to link acedemic,
:research
:and DoD sites. Wow Deja view. Then all us oldies can drop off to
:ARPANET2,
:establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
I'd Like To See That.
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"Um yeah. My name's Nile Evil Bastard, Nile for the river and Evil Bastard
because that's what I am ... Have you met my pal Everest Motherfucker?" (TSM)
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
> OK bright eyes. Astound me with your brilliance.
>
> How would you implement a nationwide monitor that would interrogate
> virtual circuits and check the contents of packets of information
> to see whether they contain voice or data?
>
> In the industry?
>
> Reading the 'Bozo guide to Visual Basic' doesn't cut it
> in the big bad world of comms.
>
> retarded cunt.
If you need some lessons in basic telecommunications, try one of the
tertiary institutions. I don't give free training and you could not afford
my consulting fees. The detection of data calls, at any telephone exchange,
is actually quite simple and doesn't involve any of the gobbledygook that
you have been spouting.
Even so, your ability to throw together pieces of unrelated technical
jargon is quite impressive. It confirms my opinion that you have the
potential for a career in politics.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall wrote
> > OK bright eyes. Astound me with your brilliance.
> >
> > How would you implement a nationwide monitor that would interrogate
> > virtual circuits and check the contents of packets of information
> > to see whether they contain voice or data?
> >
> > In the industry?
> >
> > Reading the 'Bozo guide to Visual Basic' doesn't cut it
> > in the big bad world of comms.
> >
> > retarded cunt.
>
> If you need some lessons in basic telecommunications, try one of the
> tertiary institutions. I don't give free training and you could not afford
> my consulting fees.
No answer came the immediate reply.
Are you that important taffy?
What networks have you built?
How much do you charge for cleaning weelie bins anyway?
And why do you think that a tertiary institution is a good place
to learn telecommunications?
> The detection of data calls, at any telephone exchange,
> is actually quite simple and doesn't involve any of the gobbledygook that
> you have been spouting.
So tell me how you are going to do it...
On a binary network, a general purpose Unrestricted 64-kbps ISDN, 8kHz
Structured
service, how are you going to tell if the data is voice, fax, data or
any other
of the ISDN services that can be used?
Since you are (obviously) a world famous net.guru I need not remind you
that
the term 'unrestricted' means that information is transferred without
alteration and that there is no restriction on the bit pattern to be
transferred; also known as a 'transparent' bearer service'
Users can employ this service for _any_ application that requires a data
rate of 64 kbps.
So come on. Astound all of us. How will you implement this monitor?
Your "It's easy to tell the difference because modems beep at
each other and people don't" theory is a bit of a loser taff.
>
> Even so, your ability to throw together pieces of unrelated technical
> jargon is quite impressive. It confirms my opinion that you have the
> potential for a career in politics.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought possible taff old mate.
If you can't see this is a scam then you walk around with
your head up your arse.
This is the dumb cunt that complains about no content postings...
Retard.
Mark.
Mark Addinall
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:40:13 -0800, Mark Addinall (addi...@southwest.com.au) wrote:
>
> [list of difficulties in detecting data calls]
>
> :And that's
> :only analogue. How do you tell the difference between a digital fax and
> :digital voice given the current infra-structure in place in Australia.
>
> One plan is to keep a list of the numbers of the ISPs' incoming lines.
> Then it's easy: all calls to those numbers must be data calls! Then
> charge accordingly.
Yep. That'd work. No technology involved. What about you dialing into
my server locally, telnetting to munnarie in Melbourne and spend all
day downloading stuff from sunsite in the states?
>
> :The only viable way for a telecommunications provider to cash in on
> :Internet connectivity would be to introduce timed local calls and when
> :Telecom is sold, I predict this will happen.
> :The other possibility of course is to make the big-drip the only ISP
> :in Australia, and then it's user pays all the way.
>
> That's what Telstra REALLY wants. Knocking out every other ISP in this
> manner. Selling Big Drip via 1-900 number at a rate far lower than
> they even sell 1-900 numbers for.
My gosh. _Another_ thinking person still lives on the net.
This whole thing is another scam. It's a shell game. Similar
to banning 'automatic' weapons. A load of debate will go
back and forth, a watered down statement will be made that
will placate most, and legislation will be put into place that
can be changed at will from the authoriy of a glove puppet.
About a year ago I posted along the lines of "Heh, wake up
people, the gun thing will cost a couple of billion dollars
to do bugger all".
No one wanted to debate cost, infra-structure, resource
requirements. We just get the usual idiots ignoring
issues and flaming around the edges. Well, the gun thing
happened, it's costing us all money and it's not doing any good.
In the same posts I asked "what if the guvmint comes after
after your net.access?". Again, stony silence. Can't happen, right?
Well, here it comes kiddies. So, it's going to 'inconvenience'
a million people. So what. It makes Telstra a more juicy
apple to sell (and the profit will help pay for the gun fiasco).
'Told you so'.
>
> :I see a new high-speed network is being proposed to link acedemic,
> :research
> :and DoD sites. Wow Deja view. Then all us oldies can drop off to
> :ARPANET2,
> :establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
>
> I'd Like To See That.
It's happening. Since those well meaning morons at CERN inflicted
the web on the world, no-one can get any real work done on the
net so a new high speed backbone is being proposed.
>
> --
> *** Rev Dr David Gerard
Mark.
Roger Thomas
In article <33415B...@southwest.com.au>,
> This whole thing is another scam. It's a shell game. Similar
> to banning 'automatic' weapons. A load of debate will go
> back and forth, a watered down statement will be made that
> will placate most, and legislation will be put into place that
> can be changed at will from the authoriy of a glove puppet.
>
> About a year ago I posted along the lines of "Heh, wake up
> people, the gun thing will cost a couple of billion dollars
> to do bugger all".
>
> No one wanted to debate cost, infra-structure, resource
> requirements. We just get the usual idiots ignoring
> issues and flaming around the edges. Well, the gun thing
> happened, it's costing us all money and it's not doing any good.
Heh, heh, heh... :-) Speak for yourself. You shoulda stayed in
Qld. You should see all the nice stuff being purchased with the
extraordinary payouts for non-functional junk. Frightfully generous
all these nice people in the cities, helping with their Medicare
surcharge. Surprising how much more you get for a "stainless"
semi - that is actually an ordinary one with the blue rubbed off :-)
Oh - and did I mention there's no registration here 'til 1st June -
they stuffed up the paperwork. So all this new stuff is unregistered
But it sorta works - South Oz reckon they got 50% of the autos, including
70% of the registered ones. Big deal.
Matt McLeod
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:40:13 -0800, Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>I would suggest that class-of-service charging on a shared network would
>be virtually impossible to implement unless the investment in a national
>network upgrade implementing ISDN and Broadband - ISDN with frame relay
>and ATM. Building the infra-stucture required for class-of-service
>billing
>on a shared network could be implemented at a central (or number of
>centralised) location(s).
To charge timed data calls generally would be tricky indeed.
What would be quite simple, though, would be to require ISPs to regsiter
their lines as "data lines", and then you charge all calls to those lines as
data calls (remember, they're talking about charging the ISPs for
*receiving* data calls...)
>I see a new high-speed network is being proposed to link acedemic,
>research
>and DoD sites. Wow Deja view. Then all us oldies can drop off to
>ARPANET2,
>establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
Usenet2 could be established right away, using UUCP.
--
Matt McLeod "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses."
<ma...@hna.com.au> - Sir Humphrey Appleby
KDE: http://www.kde.org/kde/
Llewellyn Griffiths
It gets more hilarious every day. You really are quite funny. Perhaps we
should shift this across to aus.jokes. I look forward to the next chapter.
I hope that I won't have to wait until April 1 next year.
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
<334161...@southwest.com.au>...
Peter Wiley
Roger Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <33415B...@southwest.com.au>,
> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> writes:
> > This whole thing is another scam. It's a shell game. Similar
> > to banning 'automatic' weapons. A load of debate will go
> > back and forth, a watered down statement will be made that
> > will placate most, and legislation will be put into place that
> > can be changed at will from the authoriy of a glove puppet.
> >
> > About a year ago I posted along the lines of "Heh, wake up
> > people, the gun thing will cost a couple of billion dollars
> > to do bugger all".
> >
> > No one wanted to debate cost, infra-structure, resource
> > requirements. We just get the usual idiots ignoring
> > issues and flaming around the edges. Well, the gun thing
> > happened, it's costing us all money and it's not doing any good.
>
> Heh, heh, heh... :-) Speak for yourself. You shoulda stayed in
> Qld. You should see all the nice stuff being purchased with the
> extraordinary payouts for non-functional junk.
Interesting. Do the guns have to be complete, to get paid out? I could
probably lay my hands on a Garand missing a few vital bits, if they'll pay
for it. Doesn't have a trigger mechanism; useless owner field stripped it
and lost it but I'm sure he still has the rifle. He could go buy a nice new
s/steel Ruger bolt gun for the money. Probably have enough left for a good
scope as well.
Trade something that doesn't work for something that does. An 8 round
semiauto for a 5 round bolt gun with 4X the accuracy. Very sensible.
> Frightfully generous
> all these nice people in the cities, helping with their Medicare
> surcharge. Surprising how much more you get for a "stainless"
> semi - that is actually an ordinary one with the blue rubbed off :-)
ROTFL, I must admit that that never occurred to me. Love it.
> Oh - and did I mention there's no registration here 'til 1st June -
> they stuffed up the paperwork. So all this new stuff is unregistered
I predict that when registration comes in, the number of guns in Australia
will prove to have been greatly exaggerated. But there will be a lot of
licenceholders buying their first rifle.
> But it sorta works - South Oz reckon they got 50% of the autos, including
> 70% of the registered ones. Big deal.
50K firearms TOTAL handed in in NSW so far, according to the SMH. Guess
they're figuring on everyone handing them in the last week. Haven't seen a
breakdown by type, but at least some were not newly prohibited firearms.
Minister was most miffed at police accepting legal guns, as the Feds won't
pay and the State had to. Guns had already been destroyed.
Peter Wiley
Eleanor Shipp
In article <01bc3e8f$534c8360$LocalHost@llga>,
"Llewellyn Griffiths" <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
>It gets more hilarious every day. You really are quite funny. Perhaps we
>should shift this across to aus.jokes. I look forward to the next chapter.
>I hope that I won't have to wait until April 1 next year.
Just answer the question
Mark is right (I can't believe I'm admitting this), b party charging for data
calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be too
expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that telstra might
make.
Roger Thomas
In article <3341F3...@prospect.anprod.csiro.au>,
> Roger Thomas wrote:
>> In article <33415B...@southwest.com.au>,
>> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> writes:
>> > issues and flaming around the edges. Well, the gun thing
>> > happened, it's costing us all money and it's not doing any good.
>>
>> Heh, heh, heh... :-) Speak for yourself. You shoulda stayed in
>> Qld. You should see all the nice stuff being purchased with the
>> extraordinary payouts for non-functional junk.
>
> Interesting. Do the guns have to be complete, to get paid out? I could
> probably lay my hands on a Garand missing a few vital bits, if they'll pay
> for it. Doesn't have a trigger mechanism; useless owner field stripped it
> and lost it but I'm sure he still has the rifle. He could go buy a nice new
> s/steel Ruger bolt gun for the money. Probably have enough left for a good
> scope as well.
No - they don't have to be complete. And don't forget the spare mags -
they pay extra for those :-) Quite a few people saving the stocks, if
they've got nice wood.
> Trade something that doesn't work for something that does. An 8 round
> semiauto for a 5 round bolt gun with 4X the accuracy. Very sensible.
> 50K firearms TOTAL handed in in NSW so far, according to the SMH. Guess
> they're figuring on everyone handing them in the last week. Haven't seen a
> breakdown by type, but at least some were not newly prohibited firearms.
> Minister was most miffed at police accepting legal guns, as the Feds won't
> pay and the State had to. Guns had already been destroyed.
Heh! :-) Word has it that when SA extended the buyback period to try
to increase the amount handed in, they didn't gazette the extension.
Guess who's gonna pay :-)
There's some stuff not on the list being handed in here too, but it
isn't being paid for. That's led the outside of the hand-in centres
looking like a bazaar, with people with money coming out and buying
non-compensatable stuff from people outside (still no rego, remember).
Hmm - maybe that should be bizarre.
Of course, if you have a stack of spare mags, or a barrel from
something, you just hang around the centre until someone with
one of those turns up. You give 'em the mags/barrel and split the
extra they receive - works well!
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote
> Yeah, you backing down and providing more and more 'no content posts'.
> I'm LMFAO :)
> You wish. You're in politics and flame buster. You purport to be
> a net.guru, post something, back down or just fuck off.
>
> Hmmm. Still no LBMS task list from taffy the comms king.
>
> Go tend your goats idiot.
>
> Mark.
>
Do you mean that really want the V.34 recommendation? I assumed that this
whole thread was a joke and a very good one at that].
Llewellyn Griffiths
Eleanor Shipp
> Mark is right (I can't believe I'm admitting this), b party charging for
data
> calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be
too
> expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that
telstra might
> make.
If it is not a viable proposition for Telstra to charge for data calls on a
timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
Peter Wiley
Mark Addinall wrote:
>
> Roger Thomas wrote:
> >
> > In article <33415B...@southwest.com.au>,
> > Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> writes:
> > > to banning 'automatic' weapons. A load of debate will go
> > > back and forth, a watered down statement will be made that
> > > will placate most, and legislation will be put into place that
> > > can be changed at will from the authoriy of a glove puppet.
> > >
> > > About a year ago I posted along the lines of "Heh, wake up
> > > people, the gun thing will cost a couple of billion dollars
> > > to do bugger all".
> > >
> > > No one wanted to debate cost, infra-structure, resource
> > > requirements. We just get the usual idiots ignoring
> > > happened, it's costing us all money and it's not doing any good.
> >
> > Heh, heh, heh... :-) Speak for yourself. You shoulda stayed in
> > Qld. You should see all the nice stuff being purchased with the
> > all these nice people in the cities, helping with their Medicare
> > surcharge. Surprising how much more you get for a "stainless"
> > semi - that is actually an ordinary one with the blue rubbed off :-)
>
> shed. It hasn't worked since 1962 but being a farmer he can't
> throw anything away, just keeps building more sheds ;)
Hey, I resemble that remark! I'll put you to work on the shed building crew. Got
a steel frame for the next one ready to erect at the moment.
>
> $210 shekles for a disfunctional rusty pipe. Wot a dream.
> Thanks Medicare. Thanks johnny.
I seem to recall I had a heap of shit Gevarm .22 about 10 years ago. Might be in
the shed with the combine seeder...they can have that one back for $50; I only
paid $20 for it in the first place.
>
> >
> > Oh - and did I mention there's no registration here 'til 1st June -
> > they stuffed up the paperwork. So all this new stuff is unregistered
>
> No 8-0
>
> Tell me an admin error could not occur...
Even better, they'll probably use Windows NT and SQL Server. Can you imagine the
fun of dragging the sysadmins, dbadmins and programmers into court to testify as
to the reliability & accuracy of their database and the source code?
>
> >
> > But it sorta works - South Oz reckon they got 50% of the autos, including
> > 70% of the registered ones. Big deal.
>
> So we can expect the deaths in SA to fall by 50%.
>
> Bets....
> Any takers...
Me. I bet the rate doesn't fall by 50%. As I said last year, given the pool of
existing guns and the ease of construction/smuggling, those who want one will
always get one.
Peter Wiley
Peter Wiley
Roger Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3341F3...@prospect.anprod.csiro.au>,
> Peter Wiley <P.W...@prospect.anprod.csiro.au> writes:
> >> In article <33415B...@southwest.com.au>,
> >> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> writes:
> >> > issues and flaming around the edges. Well, the gun thing
> >> > happened, it's costing us all money and it's not doing any good.
> >>
> >> Heh, heh, heh... :-) Speak for yourself. You shoulda stayed in
> >> Qld. You should see all the nice stuff being purchased with the
> >> extraordinary payouts for non-functional junk.
> >
> > probably lay my hands on a Garand missing a few vital bits, if they'll pay
> > for it. Doesn't have a trigger mechanism; useless owner field stripped it
> > and lost it but I'm sure he still has the rifle. He could go buy a nice new
> > s/steel Ruger bolt gun for the money. Probably have enough left for a good
> > scope as well.
>
> No - they don't have to be complete. And don't forget the spare mags -
> they pay extra for those :-) Quite a few people saving the stocks, if
> they've got nice wood.
Do you realise that you can buy RHS (rolled hollow sections for the tech.
illiterate) that is *very* close in size to STEN gun magazines? I have a
metalcutting bandsaw, bet I could turn out 4-6 per hour if I got going. They
wouldn't actually *work*, but hey, they'd look right.
What are they paying for mags? This could be more lucrative than programming,
while it lasts.
Peter Wiley
Peter Wiley
Eleanor Shipp wrote:
>
> In article <01bc3e8f$534c8360$LocalHost@llga>,
> "Llewellyn Griffiths" <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
> >It gets more hilarious every day. You really are quite funny. Perhaps we
> >should shift this across to aus.jokes. I look forward to the next chapter.
> >I hope that I won't have to wait until April 1 next year.
>
> Just answer the question
>
> calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be too
> expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that telstra might
> make.
I don't claim to be a fancy WAN comms expert, but I don't think it can be done
either. Plenty of my friends agree with me. Some *are* WAN comms experts, with
engineering degrees in this area.
Llewellyn Griffiths - put up or shut up.
Peter Wiley
Mark Addinall
Peter Wiley wrote:
>
> Roger Thomas wrote:
> >
> > In article <33415B...@southwest.com.au>,
> > Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> writes:
> s/steel Ruger bolt gun for the money. Probably have enough left for a good
> scope as well.
Not funny Wiley ;)
> Peter Wiley
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Peter Wileywrote
> I don't claim to be a fancy WAN comms expert, but I don't think it can be
done
> either. Plenty of my friends agree with me. Some *are* WAN comms experts,
with
> engineering degrees in this area.
>
> Llewellyn Griffiths - put up or shut up.
>
> Peter Wiley
>
I will repeat.
If it is not a viable proposition for Telstra to charge for data calls on a
timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
On the off chance that you may be serious, you are looking in the wrong
spot for the point of detection. If Telstra decides against proceeding with
timed data calls, it will be for other than technical or implementation
cost reasons.
In the meantime, are you prepared to assure everyone that it is not
feasible for Telstra to introduce timed data call charging?
Eleanor Ship
In article <01bc4015$151dd9e0$LocalHost@llga>,
"Llewellyn Griffiths" <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
>Eleanor Shipp
>> Mark is right (I can't believe I'm admitting this), b party charging for
>data
>> calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be
>too
>> expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that
>telstra might
>> make.
>
>If it is not a viable proposition for Telstra to charge for data calls on a
>timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
>dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
>technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
Am I right, then, in assuming you can not respond to Marks assertions and are
now admitting he is right?
Mark Addinall
Eleanor Shipp wrote:
>
> In article <01bc3e8f$534c8360$LocalHost@llga>,
> "Llewellyn Griffiths" <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
> >It gets more hilarious every day. You really are quite funny. Perhaps we
> >should shift this across to aus.jokes. I look forward to the next chapter.
> >I hope that I won't have to wait until April 1 next year.
>
> Just answer the question
As if...
>
> Mark is right (I can't believe I'm admitting this),
Hey, why beat me with a stick?
> b party charging for data
> calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be too
> expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that telstra might
> make.
>
> Love
Glad you don't hate me then.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eleanor Shipp
Mark.
Mark Addinall
I told you, I own all the doco.
Yawn taffy, you got picked up and shaken. Peter Wiley
wants to hear your monitor theory, Ellenor does, and I do.
Modems beep at each other, shit, _who_ do you work for?
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Eleanor Shipp
> > Mark is right (I can't believe I'm admitting this), b party charging for
> data
> > calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be
> too
> > expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that
> telstra might
> > make.
>
> timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
> dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
> technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
I'll translate;
"I have avoided the technical issues because I haven't
a fucking clue..."
Bad luck taff. A tad out of depth unfortunatly.
Mark.
Kym Horsell
In article <334581...@southwest.com.au>,
I'll translate:
"I don't understand how a criticism can be leveled at
an argument based on its overall form, rather than its minutae.
Likewise, I can't see how anything can be ``proved'' or ``disproved''
without supplying a list of examples that I can see.
But then, I never studied logic".
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall
> Yawn taffy, you got picked up and shaken. Peter Wiley
> wants to hear your monitor theory, Ellenor does, and I do.
>
> Modems beep at each other, shit, _who_ do you work for?
>
> Mark.
>
Why should I tell you how it would be done? It would kill this thread off
and I am having too much fun.
Why don't you tell everyone how telephone exchanges work?
David Gerard
On 1 Apr 1997 01:31:39 GMT, Matt McLeod (ma...@hna.com.au) wrote:
:On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:40:13 -0800, Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
:>establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
:Usenet2 could be established right away, using UUCP.
Usenet3, actually. Usenet2 is FidoNet.
(awaits flames from FidoNetters)
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"there are times when I dance exactly like I am simply practicing fighting
forms on the dance floor (usually random bits of northern shaolin kung fu
or tai-chi strung together in a way which moves me around the dance floor
without ever moving into someone else space) - the most amusing thing
about it is once I was totally smashed, dancing forms, and I noticed some
GI's who were making sneering comments at me earlier suddenly looked a lot
less aggressive when looking my direction - granted, a guy with long black
hair and 'faggy' poets' shirt and tight black pants usually makes a good
target for GI's - except if he's 6'4" in some nastily adorned boots, has
broad shoulders, and is dancing what looks like perfect fighting forms
while smashed." (Feyd-Rautha)
David Gerard
On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 15:45:25 -0800, Mark Addinall (addi...@southwest.com.au) wrote:
:[rthomas]
:> But it sorta works - South Oz reckon they got 50% of the autos, including
:> 70% of the registered ones. Big deal.
:So we can expect the deaths in SA to fall by 50%.
:Bets....
:Any takers...
No, it means that the next pointless loony shooting a bunch of tourists
will kill 17 instead of 34.
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"VISUALIZE USING YOUR GODDAMN TURN SIGNALS" (Jetrock)
David Gerard
llga>
Organization: Leftist Thought Police(tm)
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
On 3 Apr 1997 21:19:41 GMT, Llewellyn Griffiths (ll...@acslink.aone.net.au) wrote:
:If it is not a viable proposition for Telstra to charge for data calls on a
:timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
:dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
:technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
They will be charging ISPs to receive the calls, because they will keep
a list of the incoming modem lines' numbers and assume all calls to those
numbers are data calls.
If this sends ISPs broke, then that's even better. Telstra's goal is
to get a monopoly. Then we can all be using OnAustralia at $10/hr.
:On the off chance that you may be serious, you are looking in the wrong
:spot for the point of detection. If Telstra decides against proceeding with
:timed data calls, it will be for other than technical or implementation
:cost reasons.
This stuff is serious. Leaked memos, disgruntled employees spilling
beans and so on. We know exactly what bullshit they have coming down
and are seeking to stop it.
To join the stoptelstra mailing list, send the word SUBSCRIBE as the
body of a message to stoptelst...@efa.org.au .
:In the meantime, are you prepared to assure everyone that it is not
:feasible for Telstra to introduce timed data call charging?
See above.
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"I think that all normals are equipped with some kind of weirdness scope. Have
you ever noticed that you will always get picked out of a crowd for staring
privledges even if you look like a damn lawyer?" (William C. Isenhour)
Llewellyn Griffiths
David Gerard
> This stuff is serious. Leaked memos, disgruntled employees spilling
> beans and so on. We know exactly what bullshit they have coming down
> and are seeking to stop it.
>
Of course it is a serious subject. My amusement arose out of the
assertions, of a number of networking "experts", that it was impossible for
Telstra to implement timed charging for data calls.
Your comments on the motives of Telstra are no doubt fairly accurate. I
have yet to see any evidence to back up their claims that Internet users
are affecting the capacity of the telephone network and it is obvious that
the Telstra management see being the sole Australian ISP as a great way to
maximise profits. A number of the American telephone companies have similar
views. It is a fairly short sighted view and I am convinced that they have
underestimated the loss of revenue that would result if they made Internet
access too expensive for non-corporate users.
Incidentally, I know a number of people who have tried swimming in the pond
and they have all reported that the water is too cold.
Apart from this current fuss, I find the topic of time local calls quite
interesting and I would be interested to see proposals for charging rates,
I have been analysing the costs involved with my own Internet access and
have found that the cost of the local calls exceeds the ISP's charges. My
Internet usage may not be typical in that the most common activity is
exchange of e-mail messages. My web browsing is fairly limited and
typically involves down-loading data sheets from chip manufacturer sites.
Before I lodge my protest, I would like to take a closer look at the costs
of the various proposals.
Mark Addinall
Kym Horsell wrote:
>
> In article <334581...@southwest.com.au>,
> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
> >Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
> >> Eleanor Shipp
> >> > Mark is right (I can't believe I'm admitting this), b party charging for
> >> data
> >> > calls is virtually impossible. The only way it would be possible would be
> >> too
> >> > expensive to implement and would negate any potential savings that
> >> telstra might
> >> > make.
> >> timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
> >> dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
> >> technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
> >"I have avoided the technical issues because I haven't
> > a fucking clue..."
> >Bad luck taff. A tad out of depth unfortunatly.
>
> I'll translate:
>
> "I don't understand how a criticism can be leveled at
> an argument based on its overall form, rather than its minutae.
> Likewise, I can't see how anything can be ``proved'' or ``disproved''
> without supplying a list of examples that I can see.
> But then, I never studied logic".
I'll translate:
"Kym never studied anything that needed implementing,
he/she or it just hangs around a Uni..."
Go wax your legs dearest.
>
> --
> R. Kym Horsell
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Maybe they all 'beep' at each other you brainless fuck?
>
Retarded loser. Go tend your sheep.
Mark.
Peter Wiley
David Gerard wrote:
> I'm beginning to think the gun-enthusiasts were right, and it was
> just practice in asserting control. aus.censorship is a nice
> newsgroup.
>
> :> I'd Like To See That.
> :It's happening. Since those well meaning morons at CERN inflicted
> :the web on the world, no-one can get any real work done on the
> :net so a new high speed backbone is being proposed.
>
> WooHoo!(tm)
>
> Hey, I've seen a newsgroup poster from WebTV. Truly, the WebTV audience
> makes AOL users look gifted. They've actually invented AOL For Dummies.
Always thought AOL stood for Arseholes On Line.
With apologies to the 3 AOL posters I've ever seen who had sense.
Peter Wiley
Mark Addinall
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 15:45:25 -0800, Mark Addinall (addi...@southwest.com.au) wrote:
> :[rthomas]
>
> :> But it sorta works - South Oz reckon they got 50% of the autos, including
> :> 70% of the registered ones. Big deal.
> :So we can expect the deaths in SA to fall by 50%.
> :Bets....
> :Any takers...
>
> No, it means that the next pointless loony shooting a bunch of tourists
> will kill 17 instead of 34.
Wanna bet?
Any takers?
>
> --
> *** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
> "VISUALIZE USING YOUR GODDAMN TURN SIGNALS" (Jetrock)
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Peter Wileywrote
> > I don't claim to be a fancy WAN comms expert, but I don't think it can be
> done
> > either. Plenty of my friends agree with me. Some *are* WAN comms experts,
> with
> > engineering degrees in this area.
> >
> > Llewellyn Griffiths - put up or shut up.
> >
> > Peter Wiley
> >
>
> I will repeat.
>
> timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
> dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
> technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
Sorry Taff. You said it was going to be piss easy to detect the
data calls from the voice ones. I asked how. You have backed down
Peter has been a scientist with CSIRO for 19 years, I am sure he could
tell you a few things about method and methodologies.
>
> On the off chance that you may be serious, you are looking in the wrong
> spot for the point of detection. If Telstra decides against proceeding with
> timed data calls, it will be for other than technical or implementation
> cost reasons.
>
> In the meantime, are you prepared to assure everyone that it is not
> feasible for Telstra to introduce timed data call charging?
Yawn.
Retarded cunt.
Mark.
Reg Braddock
On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:42:21 -0700, Mark Addinall
<addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> No, it means that the next pointless loony shooting a bunch of tourists
>> will kill 17 instead of 34.
>
>Wanna bet?
>
>Any takers?
I'll bet that the next one will have to take out 40, minimum. Hey,
there's a record to beat; a chance to get one's name in the Guiness
Book of Records.
If anyone thinks otherwise, they haven't seen university students on
television going for the world domino toppling record.
Reg.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> David Gerard
>
> > This stuff is serious. Leaked memos, disgruntled employees spilling
> > beans and so on. We know exactly what bullshit they have coming down
> > and are seeking to stop it.
> >
>
> Of course it is a serious subject. My amusement arose out of the
> assertions, of a number of networking "experts", that it was impossible for
> Telstra to implement timed charging for data calls.
>
So you will debunk mt points in public? You will also show
greater networking skills than myself?
I am sure we all look towards that day with eager anticipation
taffy.
Answer Wiley if talking to me is uncomfortable.
Retard.
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
I am disappointed. I was expecting another Barry Jones impersonation with a
lengthy discourse on how telephone exchanges do or do not work. Since you
have been trying to convince everyone that is not possible for Telstra to
differentiate between voice and data calls, you could have used the same
arguments to prove that it is "impossible" to make telephone calls at all.
Perhaps you think it is achieved through magic.
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
<33489A...@southwest.com.au>...
Matt McLeod
On 3 Apr 1997 21:19:41 GMT, Llewellyn Griffiths <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
>Peter Wileywrote
>> I don't claim to be a fancy WAN comms expert, but I don't think it can be
>done
>> either. Plenty of my friends agree with me. Some *are* WAN comms experts,
>with
>> engineering degrees in this area.
>>
>> Llewellyn Griffiths - put up or shut up.
>>
>> Peter Wiley
>>
>
>I will repeat.
>
>If it is not a viable proposition for Telstra to charge for data calls on a
>timed basis then none of us have need to worry about it and the issue is
>dead. This thread has more to do with it recently being April 1 than any
>technical issues [but then I am sure that you realise that].
>
>
>spot for the point of detection. If Telstra decides against proceeding with
>timed data calls, it will be for other than technical or implementation
>cost reasons.
>
>In the meantime, are you prepared to assure everyone that it is not
>feasible for Telstra to introduce timed data call charging?
It is unlikely that Telstra could reliably detect data calls, but they
*could* build up a register of data lines, then charge accordingly. The
simplest way to do this would, IMHO, be to change the terms of service
provision to make non-disclosure of data lines a breach of the terms, and
to then prosecute a few ISPs to show they mean business.
This wouldn't be too expensive, especially with the prospect of getting
complete control over the ISP market as a prize. If you're making
several billions a year, the odd hundred million to get control over a
market is just small change.
Of course, Sen. Alston has said that the Government won't allow this. As
he has not specified whether this falls into the category of "core" or
"non-core" promises, I won't be taking much comfort from his statements.
Especially since, on the surface, letting Telstra have it's way is an
appealling political prospect. You boost the sale price, and you also get
rid of all those pesky, hard-to-control ISPs (and their customers with
them), replacing them all with a single, sanitised, censored, service.
Politicians *like* media moguls, and they dislike fora which they can't
control or get on-side by offering favours.
Perhaps I'm just a cynical, paranoid bastard. But then I've been
observing Australian politicians in action...
--
Havelock Vetinari for P.M.!
Matt McLeod
On 4 Apr 1997 12:47:05 GMT, Llewellyn Griffiths <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
>Mark Addinall
>>
>> Yawn taffy, you got picked up and shaken. Peter Wiley
>> wants to hear your monitor theory, Ellenor does, and I do.
>>
>> Modems beep at each other, shit, _who_ do you work for?
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>
>Why should I tell you how it would be done? It would kill this thread off
>and I am having too much fun.
>
>Why don't you tell everyone how telephone exchanges work?
Gawd. To think I had thought that this dipshit was at least more
rational than Peyton-Smith.
Griffiths - either put up or shut up. This ain't Parliament - it's
generally considered bad form here to make an assertion without backing
it up.
David Gerard
On 8 Apr 1997 11:12:00 GMT, Matt McLeod (m...@SPAMMERS.hna.BUGGER.com.OFF.au) wrote:
:On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:46:55 GMT, David Gerard <gerdw_remove-this...@cougar.vut.edu.au> wrote:
:>On 1 Apr 1997 01:31:39 GMT, Matt McLeod (ma...@hna.com.au) wrote:
:>:On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:40:13 -0800, Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> w
:>:>establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
:>:Usenet2 could be established right away, using UUCP.
:>Usenet3, actually. Usenet2 is FidoNet.
:I wouldn't do it so much honour.
:(Not a Fight-o fan...)
By the way, Mark, how will this new Internet keep from getting swamped
by the Web? It's just a form of data. Ones and zeroes. Will nothing
the size of a picture be permitted? Will http be forbidden? Will HTML
be detected at each router?
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
Llewellyn Griffiths
You haven't made any points, apart from your ridiculous assertion that it
is impossible for Telstra to differentiate between voice and data calls.
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
<334997...@southwest.com.au>...
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> I am disappointed. I was expecting another Barry Jones impersonation
[drivel snipped]
You lose. At least you've stopped being a 'comms expert'.
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Matt McLeod wrote
> It is unlikely that Telstra could reliably detect data calls, but they
> *could* build up a register of data lines, then charge accordingly.
A low tech solution. Not as reliable as what I had in mind. It could be
used to target Internet Service Providers [if that is Telstra's aim]. It
wouldn't cover other types of data calls on the switched network.
Incidentally, how do you think that the PSTN works? Next you will be saying
that Telstra can't reliably determine the number dialled when a subscriber
makes a call or that they can't determine the duration of a call.
Telstra already charges ISDN customers on a timed call basis [with
different rates for voice and data calls] and current legislation allows
them the option of introducing timed call charging for business customers
who use the PSTN. Whether or not they ever do this will be based purely on
the political climate at the time.
Now that Telstra has issued a press release denying any intent to charge
non-corporate PSTN customers for timed data calls, I suppose that this
topic will gradually fade away. What has really surprised me about this
thread is the number of self professed "networking experts" who have shown
their complete ignorance of how a switched telephone network actually
works.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Matt McLeod wrote
> Gawd. To think I had thought that this dipshit was at least more
> rational than Peyton-Smith.
>
> Griffiths - either put up or shut up. This ain't Parliament - it's
> generally considered bad form here to make an assertion without backing
> it up.
I actually did some time ago. You must have missed it.
Llewellyn Griffiths
You will have to admit that we have managed to flush out a number of so
called comms experts who obviously have no idea how the telephone network
operates. I am now giving consideration to offering a new business service
- Seminars on basic telecommunications concepts for network specialists.
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
<334C34...@southwest.com.au>...
Mark Addinall
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On 8 Apr 1997 11:12:00 GMT, Matt McLeod (m...@SPAMMERS.hna.BUGGER.com.OFF.au) wrote:
> :On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:46:55 GMT, David Gerard <gerdw_remove-this...@cougar.vut.edu.au> wrote:
> :>On 1 Apr 1997 01:31:39 GMT, Matt McLeod (ma...@hna.com.au) wrote:
> :>:On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:40:13 -0800, Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> w
> :> rote:
>
> :>:>establish USENET2 and keep it a big sercret this time ;)
> :>:Usenet2 could be established right away, using UUCP.
> :>Usenet3, actually. Usenet2 is FidoNet.
> :I wouldn't do it so much honour.
> :(Not a Fight-o fan...)
>
> By the way, Mark, how will this new Internet keep from getting swamped
> by the Web? It's just a form of data. Ones and zeroes. Will nothing
> the size of a picture be permitted? Will http be forbidden? Will HTML
> be detected at each router?
Are you talking about the new acedemic and research backbone I talked
about. If so, no, the information packets are probably going to be quite
large. Membership to the network is going to be limited.
Data content will probably not be vetted at the routing stage, but
accepted traffic (from and to whom) almost certainly will be.
>
> --
> *** Rev Dr David Gerard
Mark.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> You haven't made any points, apart from your ridiculous assertion that it
> is impossible for Telstra to differentiate between voice and data calls.
No. Deja news is such a wonderful tool. I have never said this was
impossible, just extremely expensive and out of reach at the moment
given
the current technical infrastructure of Australian tellecommunications.
I offered you several chances to teach me how it could be done. You
replied with no content flames.
And you are the dumb cunt that took me to task for not producing
content.
How will you do it taff?
I'll tell you what, since you can't seem to answer the technical
questions, how about giving me a quote on how much it will cost
to amend the Telecom TQMS system to deal with a new reverse billing
regime? Procedures documentation, Quality manual, Training,
Administrative
procedures. Just a small part of a big change.
How much and how long?
Or drop it, 'cause everyone on the net is regarding you as an idiot.
Mark.
>
> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Matt McLeod wrote
> > It is unlikely that Telstra could reliably detect data calls, but they
> > *could* build up a register of data lines, then charge accordingly.
>
> A low tech solution. Not as reliable as what I had in mind.
And that was ...
> topic will gradually fade away. What has really surprised me about this
> thread is the number of self professed "networking experts" who have shown
> their complete ignorance of how a switched telephone network actually
> works.
Yeah, funny heh taff.
I know a few networks you're not getting close too.
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
<334CCC...@southwest.com.au>...
> Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
> >
> > You haven't made any points, apart from your ridiculous assertion that
it
> > is impossible for Telstra to differentiate between voice and data
calls.
>
> No. Deja news is such a wonderful tool. I have never said this was
> impossible, just extremely expensive and out of reach at the moment
> given
> the current technical infrastructure of Australian tellecommunications.
>
> I offered you several chances to teach me how it could be done. You
> replied with no content flames.
>
> And you are the dumb cunt that took me to task for not producing
> content.
>
> How will you do it taff?
>
You are shifting your ground. As for the technical stuff, I have given
plenty of hints which you obviously did not understand. Didn't you know
that AXE exchanges can differentiate between voice and data calls on any
PSTN line. The detection of a modem call is quite straight forward. Didn't
you know that the answering modem, after a short period of silence [around
2 seconds from memory] generates a 2100 hz tone [typically this tone is
generated for around 3 seconds. Again from memory, I think that the V.25
recommendation only nominates a period of less than 4 seconds]. After the
answer tone, there is another short period of silence [ nominally 3/4 of a
second] before the training sequence begins.
When I first became involved in the development of communications
equipment, the detection process was relatively complex since we used
discrete component circuits that were not very reliable. Since the
development of DSPs, a number of component manufacturers have released a
wide range of single chip products that make the whole process very easy.
Rob Silva
Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote:
>Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>>
>> Matt McLeod wrote
>Isn't Deja news a wonderful tool :)
>You're just a tool.
>
>I let this thread die if I were you Llew. You got caught
>big-noting yourself as a comms expert to a kid who knew
>even less than you. "It's easy to do... I have a V.34 spec...".
>
>If indeed you hold some minor function in the world of
>tele-communications I would suggest you either just go
>very quiet; come up with a plausible lie as to why you
>made a dopey statement; or tell all the eager people here
>(and I'm sure at Telstra) your "quite simple really" method
>of introducing timed data calls at a trunk level.
>
>Modems go beep...
>
>Mark.
I don't see what the problem is here. There is no technical reason why
it can't be done - how practical or cost effective is another
question.
Modem connections are, after all, highly standardised. It is *easy* to
detect a modem connection - that is after all how modems and fax
machines know when to get their shit into gear. If they don't already
have the capability to do this detection, telstra certainly can add it
- sure, it'll cost some millions and take time to achieve but so what?
Alternatively, there aren't too many people who telstra sell
multi-line rotary phone pools to, so if Telstra wanted to pick on
ISP's, they could just time charge anyone who dialled into one of
these phone pools.
-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Rob Silva | The sooner you fall behind, the more
| time you have to catch up
Remove NOSPAM to reply by email
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall <addi...@southwest.com.au> wrote in article
> <334CCC...@southwest.com.au>...
> > Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
> > >
> > > You haven't made any points, apart from your ridiculous assertion that
> it
> > > is impossible for Telstra to differentiate between voice and data
> calls.
> >
> > No. Deja news is such a wonderful tool. I have never said this was
> > impossible, just extremely expensive and out of reach at the moment
> > given
> > the current technical infrastructure of Australian tellecommunications.
> >
> > I offered you several chances to teach me how it could be done. You
> > replied with no content flames.
> >
> > And you are the dumb cunt that took me to task for not producing
> > content.
> >
> > How will you do it taff?
> >
>
> You are shifting your ground.
Never. You lack comprehension skills.
> As for the technical stuff, I have given
> plenty of hints which you obviously did not understand.
Care to quote? Apart from 'Modems go beep'.
> Didn't you know
> that AXE exchanges can differentiate between voice and data calls on any
> PSTN line. The detection of a modem call is quite straight forward. Didn't
> you know that the answering modem, after a short period of silence [around
> 2 seconds from memory] generates a 2100 hz tone [typically this tone is
> generated for around 3 seconds. Again from memory, I think that the V.25
> recommendation only nominates a period of less than 4 seconds]. After the
> answer tone, there is another short period of silence [ nominally 3/4 of a
> second] before the training sequence begins.
So, tell us how you will implement this detection on a network wide
basis?
>
> When I first became involved in the development of communications
> equipment, the detection process was relatively complex since we used
> discrete component circuits that were not very reliable. Since the
> development of DSPs, a number of component manufacturers have released a
> wide range of single chip products that make the whole process very easy.
Also, please tell what communication devices you have been involved in
the development of. I just don't want to buy one by accident.
Back to your goat herd idiot.
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
> We agree. Found your V.34 spec yet?
> Is your modem still going beep?
>
You continue to exhibit your total ignorance in this matter and you
obviously have no idea why modems "beep". My recollection is that the word
modem was derived from a contraction of modulation and demodulation and the
generated tones are not there for your amusement. From your comments it
would appear highly unlikely that you have any idea why telephone handsets
generate DTMF tones when you dial a number. Have you noticed that each
digit generates a different tone?
Yes, I did find my copy of the V.34 Recommendation. I did not bother to
send it to you because you claimed to already have a copy.
Now would be a good time to test your knowledge.
Why do modems go into a training sequence after the V.24 answer tone and
under what conditions do modems retrain?
V.34 modems employ Quadrature Amplitude Modulation for each channel with
transmission at selectable symbol rates between 2400 and 3200 [mandatory]
and 2473 and 3429 [optional]. The synchronous primary channel data
signalling rates are between 2400 and 28,800 bits/sec. Do you understand
why there is a difference between bit rates and symbol rates?
If you can answer these questions, we will try something a bit harder.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
> So, tell us how you will implement this detection on a network wide
> basis?
So you still haven't worked it out. PSTN is an analog network. The AXE
exchanges may be digital but the circuits to the end users are not. The
discussion only applies to local calls from PSTN subscribers since
non-local calls are already charged on a timed basis and ISDN customers
already pay separate timed rates for data and voice calls.
Incidentally, some of the technical information that I have posted [and
will continue to post to in response to your utterances on this subject] is
deliberately incorrect. Since you have such a great technical knowledge, I
will leave it to you to determine when I am being serious and when I am
not.
Matt McLeod
On 9 Apr 1997 11:28:58 GMT, Llewellyn Griffiths <ll...@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Matt McLeod wrote
>> It is unlikely that Telstra could reliably detect data calls, but they
>> *could* build up a register of data lines, then charge accordingly.
>
>used to target Internet Service Providers [if that is Telstra's aim]. It
>wouldn't cover other types of data calls on the switched network.
Given that the assumed goal behind timed charging of local data calls is
to get rid of ISPs, it would be an acceptable solution. It might not be
fancy, and it might not be impressive, but it has the virtue of being
relatively simple.
Of course, to back it up they'd need to change the BCS to add a third
class of customer, with some fairly heavy-duty sanctions for
non-complying customers (i.e., require that ISPs register, rather than
trying to find all the ISPs - then you find one or two who don't
register, sue the pants off them, and the rest will fall into line).
>Incidentally, how do you think that the PSTN works? Next you will be saying
>that Telstra can't reliably determine the number dialled when a subscriber
>makes a call or that they can't determine the duration of a call.
PSTN and ISDN are different, in case you hadn't noticed. PSTN just
wasn't designed for this kind of thing - it might be possible to bolt it
on, but it'll be an expensive hack.
Another way to do it, I suppose, would be to downgrade all lines in such
a way that they are no longer suitable for data. Then they could offer a
premium service for data users (i.e., somehow "upgrade" certain lines
back to their current state).
>Now that Telstra has issued a press release denying any intent to charge
>non-corporate PSTN customers for timed data calls, I suppose that this
>topic will gradually fade away. What has really surprised me about this
>thread is the number of self professed "networking experts" who have shown
>their complete ignorance of how a switched telephone network actually
>works.
We'll just have to wait and see what they do next. Telstra wants to own
the ISP market, so if they don't get it this way, they'll try some other,
sneakier, method
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall wrote
> > So, tell us how you will implement this detection on a network wide
> > basis?
>
> So you still haven't worked it out. PSTN is an analog network. The AXE
> exchanges may be digital but the circuits to the end users are not. The
> discussion only applies to local calls from PSTN subscribers since
> non-local calls are already charged on a timed basis and ISDN customers
> already pay separate timed rates for data and voice calls.
And from your (beeping) Modem, after the CONNECT is made, how do you
decide whether the data is voice or not?
>
> Incidentally, some of the technical information that I have posted [and
> will continue to post to in response to your utterances on this subject] is
> deliberately incorrect. Since you have such a great technical knowledge, I
> will leave it to you to determine when I am being serious and when I am
> not.
Oh, you admit to posting crap just for the sake of it?
You had a credibility of zero last week. Fast approaching
negative numbers taff. I hope your boss or clients don't
read news. I already know you have been put on the 'never to
be considered' list by certain factions within CSIRO :)
You're doing rather well.
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
> decide whether the data is voice or not?
Very easy. The calling and answering modems each transmit modulated signals
at different frequencies. Somewhat different from the human voice. When you
speak on the telephone, do you beep?
Incidentally, I had a look at your home page. Very impressive. If I ever
move to Queensland I will ask you to set up the PC network in my office.
Unfortunately [for you] telephone networks are quite different and you
obviously don't understand what the difference is.
Next question.
What is meant by the following:
"INFO sequences are used to exchange modem capabilities, results of line
probing, and data mode modulation parameters. All INFO sequences are
transmitted using binary DPSK modulation at 600 bits/s + or - 0.01%. INFO
sequences are transmitted by the answer modem with a carrier frequency of
2400 Hz [+ or - 0.01%] at 1 dB below the nominal transmit power, plus an
1800 Hz guard tone [again + or - 0.01%] 7 dB below the nominal transmit
power. INFO sequences are transmitted by the call modem with a carrier
frequency of 1200 Hz [would you believe + or - 0.01%] at the nominal
transmit power."
Tell me Mark, since you are the world's greatest expert on
telecommunications, is this the same as typing an IP address into a dialog
box?
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall wrote
> > And from your (beeping) Modem, after the CONNECT is made, how do you
> > decide whether the data is voice or not?
>
> Tell me Mark, since you are the world's greatest expert on
> telecommunications, is this the same as typing an IP address into a dialog
> box?
Not the worlds greatest expert. Not shabby though.
You obviously didn't read (or understand) my home page
well enough. Does Tactical Communications network imply data
transfer only?
Just get back to the origional question and answer it taff.
According to you, it would be relatively simple to introduce
timed local data calls.
How would you do it?
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
> Just get back to the origional question and answer it taff.
> According to you, it would be relatively simple to introduce
> timed local data calls.
>
> How would you do it?
What? Do you want to restart this entire thread from the beginning again?
Since you didn't understand the first time, what would be gained by going
over it all again? How old are you, Mark? We will have to work out the
statistical probability of which of us is going to have the last word since
it would appear that this thread is going to continue indefinitely. If you
want to start an argument on another subject, I am more than happy to
accommodate you. Guns have been done to death and everyone else is arguing
about Pauline Hanson. If you are interested, let me know.
In the meantime, another test of your technical knowledge. The following
was taken from a data book on my shelf. You can get a point if you can
identify the deliberate mistake and another point if you can identify the
source of the statement.
"After 155 +- 10 ms of unscrambled binary 1 has been detected, the modem
remains silent for a further 456 +- 50 ms, then transmits an unscrambled
repetitive double digit pattern of 00 and 11 at 1200 bps for 100 +- 3 ms
(S1 Sequence). Following this, scrambled binary 1s are transmitted at 1200
bps."
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall wrote
> > Just get back to the origional question and answer it taff.
> > According to you, it would be relatively simple to introduce
> > timed local data calls.
> >
> > How would you do it?
>
> What? Do you want to restart this entire thread from the beginning again?
> Since you didn't understand the first time, what would be gained by going
> over it all again?
Still no answer taff. Well bow me down.
> How old are you, Mark?
Old enough to have done a few things I haven't been caught for.
Old enough to remember munnari going on line for the first time.
Old enough to read the TCP/IP documentations the year it became
official.
Point, goat herd?
> We will have to work out the
> statistical probability of which of us is going to have the last word since
> it would appear that this thread is going to continue indefinitely. If you
> want to start an argument on another subject,
One where you will seem less foolish perhaps. I have little wish to
bandy with
you, I have little time for idiots.
> I am more than happy to
> accommodate you. Guns have been done to death and everyone else is arguing
> about Pauline Hanson. If you are interested, let me know.
>
> In the meantime, another test of your technical knowledge. The following
[taff types from a book he stole, snipped]
Retard.
Mark.
Llewellyn Griffiths
Mark Addinall wrote
> Still no answer taff. Well bow me down.
The answers were all there, it is just that you don't have the technical
knowledge to understand them.
> Old enough to have done a few things I haven't been caught for.
An attempt at schoolboy humour?
> Old enough to remember munnari going on line for the first time.
> Old enough to read the TCP/IP documentations the year it became
> official.
A mere lad then. Never mind, when you finally do grow up understanding may
come to you.
Mark Addinall
Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
>
> Mark Addinall wrote
> > Still no answer taff. Well bow me down.
>
> The answers were all there, it is just that you don't have the technical
> knowledge to understand them.
No taffy, you know everything, and can prove it by never answering a
question. Well done indeed.
>
> > Old enough to have done a few things I haven't been caught for.
>
> An attempt at schoolboy humour?
Nope. Anyone in the know would recognise the quote.
>
> > Old enough to remember munnari going on line for the first time.
> > Old enough to read the TCP/IP documentations the year it became
> > official.
>
> A mere lad then. Never mind, when you finally do grow up understanding may
> come to you.
Ooooh. Could you teach me taff.
Yawn,
fucking retard.
Back to your goat herd boy.
Mark.
rod speed
Matt McLeod <m...@SPAMMERS.hna.BUGGER.com.OFF.au> wrote in article
<slrn5l1e...@praetor.hna.com.au>...
> Given that the assumed goal behind timed
> charging of local data calls is to get rid of ISPs,
They cant, the trade practices act wont allow it. Fels would have their guts for garters.
> Telstra wants to own the ISP market,
The trade practices act wont allow it.
> so if they don't get it this way, they'll try some other, sneakier, method
And Fels will have their balls if they try it. He's got quite a collection already.
Llewellyn Griffiths
> Llewellyn Griffiths wrote:
> >
> > Mark Addinall wrote
> > > Still no answer taff. Well bow me down.
> >
> > The answers were all there, it is just that you don't have the
technical
> > knowledge to understand them.
>
> No taffy, you know everything, and can prove it by never answering a
> question. Well done indeed.
>
If you keep saying this to yourself [especially in front of a mirror], you
might end up believing this. In reality, you don't understand how PSTN
works. Would you like some basic information on how a telephone operates?
The other information went right over your head.
> >
> > > Old enough to have done a few things I haven't been caught for.
> >
> > An attempt at schoolboy humour?
>
> Nope. Anyone in the know would recognise the quote.
>
The quote is, as you say, well known. Your use of it is a good indication
of your emotional immaturity.
> >
> > > Old enough to remember munnari going on line for the first time.
> > > Old enough to read the TCP/IP documentations the year it became
> > > official.
> >
> > A mere lad then. Never mind, when you finally do grow up understanding
may
> > come to you.
>
>
> Ooooh. Could you teach me taff.
>
> Yawn,
> fucking retard.
>
> Back to your goat herd boy.
>
Actually, on another news group, there has been a recent discussion on
implementing TCP/IP on a 6502. Now if you could say that you had done
something like that, you might earn my respect. In the meantime, I will
continue to view your bluster with contempt.