🚀 go-pugleaf

bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:

>Ian or Katts <ianw@juicer.magna.com.au> writes:

>>On 14 Aug 1995, Mr J Cameron wrote:

>>> GuyD@world.net wrote:

>>> [stuff about cyptography ban deleted]

>>> : It is a fact that Telstra had a software development project in
>>> : progress in early 1995, who's aim is to monitor and log phone connections
>>> : through their exchanges, to determine:-
>>> :   a) Which calls are voice, and which are modem.
>>> :   b) If modem, what baud rate and protocol.
>>> :   c) Given (b), to determine whether the link is using encryption.
>>> :   d) Lastly, given a positive (c), to attempt to analyse what _sort_
>>> :      of encryption it is.

>>My guess is so that they can time-charge modems, but without 
>>time-charging voice. This means that they can get more revenue, without 
>>risking the political firestorm that timed local calls would bring.

>It would be unreliable to put in an automatic time-charging for modems;
>how can they reliably tell the difference on a per-call basis?

>Besides, the ensuing revolt as the general public gets more "connected"
>will probably cause many, many headaches to the phone company.

I suspect that as more and more people begin to use modems, Telstra will
really start to itch about this matter. They will see a rapidly growing pool
of sucke^H^H^H^H^H customers who can be forced into paying a few more dollars
for their calls.

And I imagine they would like to move on this matter before this pool of 
people becomes big enough to be a powerful lobby.

Of course they might be trying to find out which lines are used for data
connections so they can ensure these lines are connected to higher quality
equipment at the exchange, thusly allowing faster and more reliable modem
and fax calls.

(Who can recognise sarcasm without a smiley?)

-Richard.