Telecom

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Telecom / 1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso / back.issues / 1981-86.volumes.1-5 / vol2.iss001-088 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1990-12-16 | 621KB | 15,254 lines

3-Jan-82 23:50:38-EST,10466;000000000000 Date: 3 Jan 1982 2350-EST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at RUTGERS> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #1 To: Telecom: ; Reply-to: TELECOM at Rutgers TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 4 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Volume 2 Query - Answering Machines Home Telephone Service - Data vs. Voice First Installation of #5 ESS Delayed AT&T VideoPhone Links Query - Custom Calling Features 800 NPA Test Numbers Going Away Backbone for ACS need not be Packed Switched EIA Address Correction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jan 1982 2319-EST From: The Moderator <JSol at Rutgers> Subject: Administrivia Well, I'm back from my vacation and am resuming TELECOM today as promised. Note that we are now officially starting Volume 2. I plan to increment the volume number each year on Jan 1st. An additional note, In the next week or so, I will be moving my base of operations to the USC-ECL machine, and TELECOM will also move there. At this point, there is no address for TELECOM at USC-ECL, so continue to use either the Rutgers address or the MIT-AI address. I will keep you posted on developments as they occur. I hope the transition will be a smooth one... Cheers, JSol ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 81 20:13:33-EDT (Sat) From: Rich.CC at UDel Subject: Answering machines Hi there... Recently my mom got an answering machine to connect up to her second line. Her main line has 3 extensions, all touch-tone enabled. The second line, however, has dial-only service. The problem is that, although the answering machine works fine on the main line, it won't pick up on the second line at all. I started digging into things, and found that: - Putting a touch-tone phone on the dial-only circuit works fine, except that you get a recording saying "we cannot complete your call" when you dial out, and the bell doesn't ring when you dial in. (I only say it works "fine" because the keys make sound and you can indeed pick it up and talk when an incoming call is made, even with- out the bell. Pretty useless, though, I gotta admit...) Since the bell-ringer circuit to this phone doesn't get any juice, clearly that's why the answering machine won't pick up. - The innards of the dial phone contain just two outgoing wires to the wall jack, rather than three. They are yellow and black, and polarity seems not to matter. I always thought the voice and bell-ringer circuits were separate, requiring three wires, but this phone has them both on the same wire. - I can make the answering machine pick up (and the touch-tone phone's bell ring) by reversing any pair of wires such as the black and the green. But the sound quality is terrible, and I managed to put a spike through the circuit once so that it tripped the breaker for five minutes. - The power supply (on the green and red wires) to both the main and the secondary lines seems to be the same. But the green and red wires aren't even used by the dial phone! Basically, I conclude that some economizing method that Bell started using to cut the number of connectors from three to two on dial phones has made the answering machine's circuit obsolete. Does anyone know the cure to this problem? It appears that it would be fixed by simply having Ma Bell enable touch-tone service on the second line, but that is a slight extra expense that I don't think is necessary. Regards Rich ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 1981 2303-PST From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI> Subject: Phone + Computer?? I have unlimited service at home, which I use extensively for dialing to our local computers in Silicon Valley. The problem is that this ties up my line, preventing me from getting incoming calls (and dialing out, although this is a minor problem). Undoubtably many of you folks have similar problems. I was wondering what the "best" solution to this problem is. I've come up with several possibilities. 1) Install a new line. This line will be measured service and will be my "public" number for incoming calls and occasional outgoing calls. The old line, with unmeasured service, will be used for dialing the computer. 2) Try to install an answering machine (a good idea itself) that can handle incoming calls while I am talking to the computer ON THE SAME LINE. Is this possible? 3) Use a centralized message service. Any thoughts and/or experience out there? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1981 1750-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: That first Bell System No. 5 ESS... Back in November I announced that the first No. 5 ESS was due to cut into service in December. Well, like many engineering projects, it is not on schedule. Seems that March is now the target date. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 81 22:23:16-EDT (Tue) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> Subject: AT&T Videophone Links Via: UDel-CC; 29 Dec 81 22:25-EST San Francisco Chronicle, Wed., December 23, 1981: Washington: The American Telephone and Telegraph Co. yesterday proposed offering a two-way video teleconference service beginning in 1982...AT&T said the new, full-color Picturphone Meeting Service will be available in 16 cities in 1982 and a total of 42 cities by the end of 1983.... If the FCC approves the service, it will first be offered between New York City and Washington, D.C., beginning next March. The service would be made available to customers in two ways: through a public room built by AT&T in each of the 42 cities, or through private rooms on customer premises. It would be provided over a digital network of satellite and Earth facilities. Any room, public or private, would be able to communicate with any other room on the video network.... Typical charges for a customer using two public rooms to conduct a one-hour meeting between New York and Washington would be $1340. A similar meeting between New York and Los Angles would cost $2380. In the case of private rooms, usage charges would be lower: $600 for a one-hour New York-Washington session and $1640 for the New York-Los Angles session. Customers installing private rooms would pay a one-time installation charge of $124,800, as well as monthly equipment rental and access fees of $13,420. There would also be a monthly charge of $250 per mile to connect each room to Bell System facilities. Customers would have the option of providing equipment themselves, the company said. United Press ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1981 01:04-PST Subject: Custom Calling Services: Speed Dialing From: nomdenet at RAND-UNIX As something of a Christmas present for myself, I ordered speed dialing (of eight numbers) enabled for my telephone (in Culver City, Ca., Pacific- Telephone territory). This leads me to ask two quesions: 1) How long may stored numbers be? The Phone-Center person thought 17 was the maximum number of digits. 2) Supposing I forget what the numbers are I've set up for speed dialing, and supposing I mislay the piece(s) of paper on which I've written them down; does anybody know whether I may, from my telephone, query the ESS as to what numbers I've set up? If so, how? I think these questions are sufficiently worthwhile so that any replies should be to the list. A. R. White ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 1982 1410-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: More on 800 test numbers In TELECOM V1 #76 I explained the operation of the 800 test numbers. It turns out that they will all go away shortly, when the way 800 service works will be drastically altered. Because of the ability of the No. 4 ESS to store huge amounts of information about routing, 800 Service customers will now be able to have ONE number, nation- wide, which will route to different access lines depending on where the call is coming from. Thus, 800-ppq-1234 could be some airline's reservations number for the whole country. Callers in some parts of the country could be routed to one reservations center, callers in another part of the country could be routed to another reservations center. A customer in Illinois calling the number might reach the same reservations center, located in Missouri, as a customer located in Missouri, who also dialed the same number. The airline would still have to purchase both an interstate and an intrastate access line, but the "Stored Program Control Network" would be able to route the call to the appropriate access line based on a combina- tion of the customer's needs and the tariff requirements. For some time, if you know that "321" is Illinois, you'll probably be right, because the existing numbers won't all suddenly be changed, but eventually the No. 4 ESSs will all use distributed data base technology to route 800 Service calls based on number and ORIGIN, rather than DESTINATION. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 1982 1356-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: krauss at MIT-MC Subject: Backbone for ACS Note that, as you said, the AT&T subsidiary offering ACS may not own "transmission facilities," but must purchase them from a regulated common carrier. The backbone for a packet switched network need not (and in most cases would not) be another packet switched network. The trans- mission facilities the subsidiary needs to buy are simply plain vanilla broadband (or DDS) leased lines, services which can be purchased from AT&T under tariff. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 81 16:06:03-EDT (Thu) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> Subject: Address of EIA (As an aside, the address of Electronic Industries Association is 2001 I Street NW...not "eye" street.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 5-Jan-82 21:27:30-EST,9631;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site UTEXAS-20 rcvd at 5-Jan-82 2122-EST Mail-from: ARPANET site RUTGERS rcvd at 5-Jan-82 1956-CST Date: 5 Jan 1982 2047-EST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at RUTGERS> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #2 To: Telecom: ; Reply-to: TELECOM at Rutgers TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 6 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Confusion About Telephone Technology Single Line For Data And Voice Packet Network For ACS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 January 1982 2156-PST (Sunday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: misc. confusion The last digest (V2 #1) contained a couple messages which exhibited some degree of confusion about telephone technology... 1) To the poor sole with the Touch-Tone/Dial Pulse/ 3 vs. 2 wire/ answering machine problems. First of all, Touch-Tone has nothing to do with anything as far as the answering machine is concerned. When touch-tone is enabled, all that happens is that your line is bridged across a touch-tone receiver in the CO during call origination. If you are not TT enabled, then you simply will not be able to "break" dialtone with the TT phone... dialtone will just continue when you try to dial and will eventually timeout to a tone or recording or whatever. As for the answering machine and ringing problems. The actual phone line running to your house is only two wires, called tip and ring. There is historically a third wire, called sleeve, which these days may still be associated with complex ringing and call accounting supervision on partylines. (I believe I discussed tip, ring, and sleeve in some past digest). In any case, all that the phone needs is tip and ring -- the ringer is usually simply bridged across them with a series capacitor. Now, many phones still have provision for sleeve, and bring the ringer out to a separate terminal in the phone or a third wire in the plug/connector (this is especially true with older phones that are hardwired or use the old 4-prong plugs). However, in 99.9% of the cases, that third wire is simply bridged to one of the other two wires either in the plug or inside the phone. In other words, one side of the ringer goes directly to tip or ring, and the other end is connected (somewhere) to the OTHER wire (either tip or ring, depending on which one the other side of the ringer is attached to). I recommend you simply make sure that this sort of configuration is in place. Tip/Ring are usually RED/GREEN, and the third (ringer) wire is typically YELLOW. Now, without any specifications as to where you are located (is it really Bell or an independent?) and what kind of answering machine you have, I can only speculate, but the possibility does exist that your home has some old style wiring that uses all three wires (or, you MIGHT be on a partyline [you would have mentioned that, right?]) If old wiring is the cause, you can bridge the wires yourself if you figure out which is which. If you're on a partyline, you LOSE; don't play with anything or all hell will probably break loose! That's about all I say about this without more information. 2) To the person who has the "one phone line blues". What's all the hassle? Just get another line! By far the only sensible solution. Message rate lines are cheap -- use it as an incoming line and use the other one for outgoing calls. There is no way to use one pair of wires (that is, one phone line) for simultaneous incoming and outgoing calls! (Well, there *is*, but it is not practical for you in any case.) Most people who spend alot of time on dialups have been using second and third and fourth lines for YEARS. Oh yeah, centralized message services are generally a waste except in very special circumstances; stick with an answering machine. They wouldn't solve your one-line problems anyway -- you still can't be using one line for two calls at the same time. (Not the way you want to, even with call waiting and split calling and the like.) ---- To Nomdenet: As far as I know, there is absolutely no way for you to get a direct readout of stored speed-calling numbers. I suppose telco could look it up for you... but good luck. I suspect the philosophy is simply that if you get confused, you can just reenter the numbers. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1982 2259-PST From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich) Subject: Ways around tying up your incoming line To: JPM at SU-AI What I do is use what is generally considered a misfeature; I have call-waiting on my regular phone, and when someone calls me when I have a terminal on that line, the incoming-call tones cause my data line to drop! I did this originally because I was only going to have one line and because I receive few calls, thus I could live with the frustration of having my line suddenly drop at unpredictable times (I now have a dedicated data line, too, so I'm dropping call-waiting soon). -Rich Zellich ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 0831-EST From: Jeffrey Shulman <SHULMAN at RUTGERS> Subject: Phone + Computer To: jpm at SU-AI When I was an undergrad I had the same problem. My one phone would be tied up for whole days at a time (needless to say several people thought my phone wasn't working!). At that time I resolved to make SURE I have TWO lines. Now that I am a grad here at RU I *DO* have two lines. One just for the computer and the other as a 'public' number. To date both lines have unlimited dialing, the reason is that NJ Bell hasn't received the ok to go with metered service. As soon as they do I plan on converting my 'incoming' line to the cheapest rate available. I have seen in some past TELECOM digests that Ma Bell frowns upon this and may not allow it (for obvious reasons: the main usage will be on the 'unlimited' line). I would like to know if anyone 'got away' with having such a setup and how did they persuade their local reps. Jeff [The reason NJ Bell doesn't permit it is because they have either Unlimited (Flat rate) or Lifeline (message rate) service. Tarrifs on Lifeline say it must be the only type of service per customer premesis. Other states, such as California offer normal message rate service in addition to flat rate service. In many instances (such as in New York City), Lifeline means fewer calls per month, each additional one costs more (8c vs 12c) and the same restriction on not having any other types of service installed along with it. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 4 January 1982 08:46-EST From: Jeffrey Krauss <KRAUSS at MIT-MC> Subject: Packet Network for ACS To: rsx-dev at DEC-MARLBORO You may be right that an enhanced data service vendor can lease circuits and add its own packet switching. However, the AT&T document filed with the FCC says that "XYZ Co.", the temporary name for the separate subsidiary, will lease a packet switched service under tariff from a common carrier. It also says that AT&T considers packet switching to be a Basic rather than Enhanced service. So, since AT&T does not offer a basic packet switched service, where will XYZ Co. get this service? ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 0923-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #1 cc: MERRITT at USC-ISIB Re: Speed calling: I believe that 17 digits is the correct figure. It is possible to query ESS for the list of speed calling on a given line. I am not sure you will be able to convince the TELCO to do it for you, but it is a trivial matter. Kevin Mitnick used to read peoples speed-calling (by impersonation of TELCO employees) to try to find computer dial-ups. Re: Touch-tone lines and bells: In some older areas, the bells are still separately signalled, however in most areas they are on the same pair as the line. It sounds to me like the line you are playing with has either the remnants of some old multi-party circuit, or some other old contraption, but in any case it should work with the machine. FUrthermore, I doubt that putting touch-tone service on the line would make any difference. You might be able to get repair service to fix it if the machine is FCC certified. Re: Second line for data I have installed a data line in addition to my main telephone line for that very reason. Remote answering services of the standard flavor are not able to intercept calls on a busy line, but if you have call-forwarding, some services will allow you to forward to some rotary hunt-group which will answer your calls. This tends to be very impersonal, not that a machine is any better. The bell system companies are talking of offering a new service (indeed it is already installed and ready to use pending tariff) called "Custom Calling II". As I understand it, this is an automatic digital message system which can play a recorded (by the subscriber) message to the caller, then take the callers message and save it for later retrieval by the subscriber. Just as with an answering machine, except it is done digitally on magnetic disk. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Jan-82 13:20:57-PST,15145;000000000001 Date: 9 Jan 1982 1320-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #3 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: : TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 9 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Administrivia - All Moved In Antitrust - AT&T Phone Companies Disbanded Speed Calling Numbers - What The Tarrif Says How Many Wires Does It Take ... Your Home Terminal vs. Your Phone Service Picture Phone Service - Availability Answering Machine Blues Leased Lines - For Hackers At Home ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jan 1981 16:06-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: All Moved In... Many thanks for being patient with me while I moved from Rutgers to USC-ECL. Mail to TELECOM may now be sent to TELECOM@USC-ECLB, in addition to the normal addresses, TELECOM@MIT-AI and TELECOM@Rutgers. The archives are now in the directory <JSOL.TELECOM> at USC-ECLB. Volume 1 in its Entirety is stored in <JSOL.TELECOM>VOLUME-1.TXT. Current issues are stored in <JSOL.TELECOM>TELECOM.RECENT. In addition, I am now testing new software used to distribute TELECOM. Please report any problems (truncated or garbled digests or multiple digests received) to me with great dilligency (TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB). ------------------------------ Date: 9 January 1982 13:15-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at Rutgers> Subject: AT&T Monopoly on local phone service disbanded [The first paragraph of this article had to be ad-lib'd by yours truly since that part of the Associated Press article was unreadable --JSol] The big anti-trust suit over AT&T is over. AT&T has agreed to split off the local phone companies into their own separate entities, which will be regulated. The subsidiaries remaining (Bell Labs, Western Electric, and Long Lines) will be unregulated and will be permitted to compete in the free market (Meaning they can sell telephones to the General Public). The following phone companies must be divested by the American Telephone Company within 18 months, under terms of the agreement reached yesterday: -The New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. -The New York Telephone Co. -The New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. -The Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania. -The Diamond State Telephone Co. -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., serving Washington, D.C. -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland. -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia. -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of West Virginia. -The Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. -The South Central Bell Telephone Co. -The Ohio Bell Telephone Co. -The Michigan Bell Telephone Co. -The Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Inc. -The Wisconsin Telephone Co. -The Illinois Bell Telephone Co. -The Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. -The Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. -The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. -The Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. -The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. -The Bell Telephone Co. of Nevada. The Bell Telephone Co. of Nevada is actually a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., rather than directly owned by AT&T. Company officials said Friday the consent decree does not yet address the question of whether AT&T will be required to divest itself of its minority interests in two other local operating companies: The Southern New England Telephone Co. and Cincinnati Bell Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 1252-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: nomdenet at RAND-UNIX Subject: Speed Calling Numbers The tariff says that you can store either a 7 or 10 digit number in a Speed Calling location. In fact, you can store any twelve digit number plus an "access code" (needed if you are in a CENTREX -- e.g. "9") and/or a "prefix" ("1+", "0+", "011+", "01+"). There were some bugs in both No. 1 and No. 2 ESS with 12 digit numbers, which may or may not have been patched or fixed by new releases in your particular ESS. Perhaps one of the readers at BTL in Columbus can tell us exactly which issues of the various Generics fix the problem. This allows you to dial, via speed calling, anything you could dial by hand. Of course, you can put an OCC access line number into your speed calling, but clearly you can't put anything beyond that into it. There is no defined way for you to find out what your speed calling numbers are if you forget. Although the ESS can display the list for you, that is not a service provided by the telephone company. (For some reason, the business office claims they can't do it rather than that they won't do it.) Obviously the telephone company attitude is that if you forget the list, you can just program it again. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 1312-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: rich.cc at UDEL Subject: How many wires in a subscriber loop There are now, and always have been, only two wires in a telephone subscriber loop circuit. These are "Tip and Ring" which are normally on the red and green wires. In the case of party lines, the bell circuit may be between either Tip or Ring and ground, rather than between Tip and Ring. Registered equipment (such as answering machines) MAY NOT BE CONNECTED to party lines. Older telephones (prior to the implementation of the registration program) often had the bell connected between red and yellow. This allowed the installer to connect a telephone to a normal line or to a party line by simply connecting the wires at the end of the cord to the right things -- without opening the phone. The telephone company is also bound by the registration program for anything new which they install. As long as your line is not a party line, it must be connected, bell circuit and all, to the center two contacts of a modular jack. Don't worry about the color of the wires. If a second line is being installed near the first one, the installer will often use the yellow/black pair of the same cable as was used for the first line. EXCEPTIONS: If there is any special arrangement, such as a phone with a "turn-button" to pick up both lines, the second line may be connected to other contacts on the same jack as the first line. But if the second phone is properly wired, the answering machine should work. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 1329-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: jpm at SU-AI Subject: Call coverage with heavy terminal use This digest has already discussed the issue of unlimited and flat-rate service at the same address. You may or may not be able to obtain mixed service, depending upon a non-orthogonal set of the tariffs, the person you talk to when you order the service, your creativity, etc. A second line is probably the best solution, but you may have to have both lines unlimited. The only service I know of which allows an "answering machine" on the same line as something else is Enhanced Custom Calling, in which the "answering machine" is actually in the central office. For various reasons (including anti-trust) this is not yet being offered. To use an answering service, you need the kind of answering service where you FORWARD your calls to the answering service (I.e. call forwarding has to be in your area). You cannot have the type of answering service where the service is bridged across your line, since your line is in use and therefor busy. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 10:40:27-PST From: cbosgd!mark at Berkeley Subject: picturephone service Funny, but our TV news stations just made the announcement a couple weeks ago that Ohio Bell is NOW OFFERING this picturephone meeting service in Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinatti, and I got the impression that it's been available in some of the more major cities already. I certainly did not get the impression that it was pending FCC approval. By the way, I was one of the guinea pigs when BTL was developing this. It was pretty neat! The only weird thing is that there is a delay of about .75 seconds between when you say/do something and when the guy at the other end hears/sees it, due to satelite delays and processing. This means it will be 1.5 seconds between the time you do something and when you see the response. Since you are otherwise under the impression that you are meeting face to face with the person, it feels a little weird not to get instant response to a facial inflection or interruption. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 13:55:04-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Subject: answering machine troubles Cc: Rich.CC@UDel I'm not certain what the problem is, but I can tell you a few things it isn't. First, Bell phones have been 2-wire for many years. The non-modular jack phones (the big four-prong jobs) ran three wires from the phone to the jack, red, green, and yellow. The yellow wire went to the bell, and was typically connected to the same pin as the green wire in the jack. Since that can't be done with the modular connectors, they make the connection inside the phone. (One thing that can be confusing: on some of the rotary-dial desk phones at least, there are three wires (red, green, and yellow again) running from the female modular jack to the network block. The yellow, though, is just a dummy -- it isn't used for the bell. I never did figure out why they even included it there.) As you observed, the polarity isn't important for rotary-dial phones; it is for Touch-Tone. The jack itself may contain 4 wires, in which case it will be two for each line: red/green for one, yellow/black for the other. By cross-connecting the two, you may establish a circuit using the TIP wire of one line and the RING wire of the other, but this is hardly a reasonable way to connect things. (RING and TIP are the phone company's name for the two wires, going back to the days when phone plugs were used to make connections: hence the leads going to the tip of the plug, vs. those going to the ring comprising its body. The name has nothing to do with the bell.) A ringing signal is normally about 90V at 20Hz; there's a filter network within the phone to let through only signals of that frequency to the ringer. If the ring frequency on your line is off, it's quite reasonable that neither the Touch-Tone phone nor the answering machine would detect the ring. I've never heard of other frequencies being used except on party lines, though. A useful test would be to hook the dial phone up to the Touch-Tone line, and see if it rings there. I know of no way in which the rotary/Touch-Tone distinction could be related to your problems. One other thing to check: as has been mentioned before on this list, many gadgets *use* the black and yellow wires for various purposes; a particularly common use is to indicate off-hook to key systems. This can cause interference on jacks where red and green are one line, and black and yellow are another. Your symptoms don't sound anything like that, though. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 16:50:43-PST From: decvax!yale-comix!ima!johnl at Berkeley From: John R. Levine, From: The INTERACTIVE Electric Calculator Co., Cambridge MA. The problem with the answering machine not working on the second line probably has nothing to do with touch service. The standard wiring for phones these days is to use the red and green wires. Polarity doesn't matter for rotary dials, and a touch phone wired backwards will be unable to dial but otherwise OK. Three-wire wiring has has been on the way out for a long time so it is unlikely that an answering machine would depend on it. The third yellow wire which used to be attached to metallic ground is now just tied to the green wire. If the yellow wire is unhooked, the usual symptom is that the bell doesn't work. What is likely in this case is that an installer put your second circuit on the otherwise unused yellow and black wires found in common telco cable. Some answering machines do funny things with the yellow and black wires because they are occasionally used for hold buttons and such in commercial installations, as was discussed in Telecom a month or so ago. First verify what wires your phone circuit is on, and then make sure the answering machine connects only to those two wires. If there is a third wire and it's hooked up wrong, the telephone's ringer could be wired across the two phone lines, causing all sorts of oddities. On another note, my solution to having my phone constantly busy because of a modem was to get call waiting. The click and beep that you get when a second call is waiting will usually freak out your modem and make it hang up (it helped a lot for me that my computer was good at saving stuff when the connection dropped.) So when my terminal hung up unexpectedly, I would just pick up the phone and talk to whoever was calling. An alternative might be to wait for CCS II ("Mr. Smedley can't come to the phone right now. This is his telephone exchange. Please leave a message at the tone ...".) And finally, I think that 17 digits is indeed the limit for speed dialing. Unless you make some pretty strange overseas calls, that limit is quite adequate, since speed dialing can only be used to store phone numbers, not other stuff you might want to punch after the other phone answers. There's no way to find out what the stored numbers are from your phone. Sigh. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1982 18:13:25-PST From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: extra phone lines if you're a hack Regarding Jim's inquiries: My housemate's and I had the same problem, but we got a very good solution - namely the installation of a leased line into the local network at our local university, where we all study/work. We get 4800 baud use of the unix machines and access at high speeds to everything else. There is even a port to datapac, a public network that connects to telenet and tymnet. Not everybody can get this where they live, of course, but it's worth looking into depending on what you use and where you live. Otherwise, getting another phone is best - it still means you have a free line when you are using the line for a voice call. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 12-Jan-82 12:28:44-PST,13517;000000000000 Date: 12 Jan 1982 1228-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #4 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 10 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Address Correction - EIA Telephone Service Choices - Hunting Lines Beware - Using *0 To Flash The Operator May Not Always Work Custom Calling II - Voice Storage System Pseudo Direct Connect Modems ATT Subsidiary Offering Packet Switched Networking Services "Sleeve" & Speed Calling Ways Around Call Waiting Why Videophone? AT&T Broke Up - Now What? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 January 1982 12:15-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia - AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!!! The new software also broke in very unfriendly ways, but it is still better than truncated messages. Please bear with us while we put the peices back together. If you are missing digests, please send a message to TELECOM-REQUEST asking me to resend you that issue. If you get random messages (about problems with receiving mail from the arpanet), please ignore them. I am on the recipient list, so I know when these messages occur. If you receive multiple digests for Issue 4 or Issue 5, please ignore them as well and accept my apologies, I have no idea how many of them have actually been delivered. Starting with issue 6 I would like to hear about any problem you have, thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I'm very sorry that this happened, please excuse any garbage in your mailfile caused by this unfortunate problem! Cheers, JSol ------------------------------ Date: 5 January 1982 02:36-EST From: John C. Gilmore <GNU at MIT-AI> Subject: EIA address "correction" It's common practice to indicate "I" Street in DC as "Eye" Street. It helps keeps the postal clerks from squinting. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1982 05:00:26-PST From: chico!harpo!ber at Berkeley Subject: choices I don't know how much it costs where you are but two lines (with hunting at effectively no extra charge, as I learned in fa.telecom) has got to be the most convenient. You'll find it's nice to use the terminal and talk on the phone at the same time. brian redman [Amen! I had that service for quite some time. No matter how many people and terminals hunting your lines is the best way to go -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1982 05:58:42-PST From: cbosg!dale at Berkeley Subject: Three way calling and *0 Some time ago there was a discussion regarding using *0 to flash the operator when you had three way calling. (A normal flash simply puts you on your aternate line, you are then supposed to dial *0 to flash and return to the original line.) Recently I had occation to try this and discovered that my original call was dropped and I was not connected to the operator. I discussed this problem with my local Ohio Bell friend and he informed me that Ohio Bell had decided not to implement this feature since it requires additional trunks between the ESS and TSPS. So, beware, *0 may not do as you desire. ------------------------------ Date: 5 January 1982 1918-PST (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Custom Calling II and VSS Reference was made in V2 #2 about the Bell System Custom Calling II features (such as "call answering" and "advanced calling"). These services were to be offered via the facilities of #1A VSS (Voice Storage System), and a fully operational testbed was in place in Philadelphia. I was given demos on this system several times and was very impressed. I believe I mentioned several potential problems with the system back in HUMAN-NETS a year or so ago. While the system WAS impressive, my sources at Bell Labs tell me that, apparently, the entire project has been scrapped for the time being. The problems are political -- relating to the issues of basic vs. enhanced services and Baby Bell (the separate subsidiary for enhanced services). Bell was unsuccessful in getting CC II declared a basic service, and a ruling was made that any enhanced services (like those VSS would provide) could not be located in the same CO as basic equipment! (Sounds kinda crazy, doesn't it?) VSS was designed to be tightly interfaced with the Central Office (as it would have to be) and thusly ran afoul of these restrictions. The powers that be apparently decided to halt the whole project until such a time as these issues can be resolved. This information should be considered to be a rumor, since it is not from an official release, but it is from a usually reliable source within the Labs. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1982 2123-PST Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: pseudo-direct connect modems, and extra data lines. From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL> 1) Re: multiple lines Well, I have a roomate who is also a (hacker), and so we have two phone lines with consecutive numbers, both unlimited service. I give out both numbers to friends and other people who might NEED to get ahold of me, so they can usually get through on one line or the other (unless we are both dialed up). So far, this has worked out very well, although there is much incomming phone traffic on either line at the present time. 2) Does anyone know the legal particulars involved for a device such as The Novation D-Cat, which connect in between the phone and the handset ? If certification of some kind is necessary for this, I would think it would be easier to get than that necessary for direct connection to the phone line. Thanks Bill W ------------------------------ Date: 6 January 1982 09:50-EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #2 AT&T expects its unregulated sub to buy packet service at tarrifed rates from none other than AT&T, the regulated common carrier. AT&T announced some months ago its intention of offering a BASIC packet network communication service. As a BASIC service it would not include any code or protocol conversion (X.25 only), would not include electronic message services, would not include stored formats for order entry, private network control services, etc., all of which are ENHANCED services to be offered as part of ACS. ACS will buy packet virtual circuits from the BASIC service, under tariff, and add value in the ways I have suggested above. For more details see the article in the October, 1981 issue of Data Communications "AT&T plans packet-switching network that could be prelude to ACS", p. 34. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1982 1901-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: "Sleeve", Speed Calling The third line sent out to customer premises for party line ringing is not called sleeve... In fact, it is simply local earth ground. Sleeve is used in SxS switchtrains and can also be brought out on PBX trunks to operate message registers (hotel local call billing). I sent a previous message explaining that what speed calling can store is a 1, 2, or 3 digit access code (if required) plus a prefix of 1, 0, 011, or 01 (if required) plus a telephone number of up to twelve digits. This "seventeen" number which seems to be floating around has no basis in fact. For example, if I were to need a three digit access code for my outside calls in my Centrex, and wanted to store a tele- phone number in Germany which consisted of the country code 49, the city code 221, the PBX number 5486, and the extension 222, speed calling would have to store 18 digits. But it doesn't think of it that way -- it thinks it is storing access code + prefix + 12 digit number. I checked and made sure that my No. 1 ESS Centrex line was working correctly, and indeed, the earlier bug with numbers longer than 10 digits is fixed. I then checked out my No. 2 ESS POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) line and found that there are still problems. I had stored and used a friend's number in Nuernberg on Christmas Day (to not have to re-enter it each time I got a circuits busy). This number was prefix plus 11 digits. I stored it in one of my two digit locations -- and it seemed to work fine. But the other night, in order to be able to report to TELECOM about the bug (or its disappearance) I stored extension 222 at our Cologne office on the CENTREX line and verified that it worked correctly. Then I stored in on the POTS line and got some rather bizarre behaviour. The first few times I received the recording, previously discussed in this digest, "Military Bases in Korea may not be dialed directly." I'm not sure whether that was a result of what it stored or whether I had left one of those numbers in that same location from past experiments (it was "9", a location I use for temporary work). I tried storing it again, several times, getting confir- mation tone each time, but no change in the result of the call -- still going to the wrong continent. I then changed location 9 to something local, then stored the Cologne number in it again. Now it took something in that PBX, but mutilated one of the final digits. (Exactly which one, I don't know. It was the middle of the night and no one answered. But I do know it wasn't what I stored.) Some more experimentation showed me that I could not store a twelve digit number properly in any case. I also found out that one digit locations would not accept 11 digit numbers, even the same one I had stored in a two digit location. What is most impressive is that in many cases it claims to have stored a number but has, in fact, done something else. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1982 1920-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: Ways around Call Waiting I believe that this has been discussed in the past, althougu I am not about to go digging through the archives to try and find it. There are three ways to get around the problem of interrupted data calls by call waiting. The cheapest way is to remove the call waiting. This will of course lose if someone is trying to get hold of you and you're deep within a big hack. Another way is to get call waiting and call forwarding, and another line. When you make data calls you forward your incoming calls to the other line. This gives you the endless possibilities inherent in having two lines also. The third way, and the way I use at home, is to get call waiting and three-way calling. When you make your data call, you first dial up some number that is always busy or recording or something. Then you get your ''second line'', and make your data call on that, and *do* *not* link the two calls together. If at any time you have a call on ''hold'' of any sort, any further incoming calls will be met with a busy signal. If you went and joined the two calls then call waiting is once again enabled. Note that the first [Null] call, if it is to something that does not actually answer its end, must be to a location that is not within your own ESS office [You can tell this by observing the delay time after dialing before the connection actually seems to go anywhere]. Otherwise when you do the one-second hangup you will be at base-level dialtone again. I suppose the decision is made by how much money you are willing to lay out every month. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1982 00:20 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Re: AT&T Videophone links Many business look upon this as a means of saving money on meetings. I'm not so sure. At least, not at those prices. Consider the New York to Washington meeting. For a one day meeting, flying the round trip is very reasonable. If I remember air shuttle fairs, $100 round trip (would someone please supply the correct figure, it's been a while since I lived in that part of the country), the $1340 public room charge for the first hour would permit shuttling 13 people back and fourth. The $2380 NY to LA would permit shuttling 4 people, although there you would probably need to add food and lodging expenses. Of course, if your meeting lasted longer than one hour, you could move even more people. I expect that the videolink room fees will be dropping with time, and airline fares will be increasing. Perhaps by 1985..... Paul ------------------------------ Date: 08 Jan 1982 2236-PST From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI> Subject: ATT Well, they finally broke it up. Any thoughts on how this is going to impact the regulated local companies and the other long distance operators (MCI, etc...)? Jim PS for those of you who have been hacking too much, ATT just agreed to divest itself of all 22 operating companies in 18 months, leaving itself with Long Lines, Bell Labs, and Western Electric. This new ATT company will be completely free to compete in any market. [I received this message before yesterday's digest went out. -JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 12-Jan-82 12:28:47-PST,12261;000000000000 Date: 12 Jan 1982 1228-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #5 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 11 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Article - Impact Of Deregulation Of Ma Bell Phone Lines For Data - Custom Calling II Second Phone Lines - Using Computers To Dial Numbers Pacific Tel Enforcing 415/408 Area Code Split ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 1982 13:42-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Article on deregulation of A. T. & T. n096 1956 08 Jan 82 BC-BELL-LEGACY (BizDay) By N.R. KLEINFIELD c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - Ma Bell, if the mythical lady ever truly existed, wouldn't know what to make of it. For more than a century, Bell's basic mission has been to extend ''P.O.T.'' - plain old telephone service - to every American who wanted it, at a price almost every American could afford. Now, the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. is getting out of P.O.T. Under the terms it accepted in its proposed settlement of the government antitrust suit against it, the phone company is rescinding its guarantee of universal service and turning away from its historic legacy. ''This is the death of Mother Bell as we knew her,'' Howard Anderson, president of the Yankee Group, a telecommunications consulting company, said flatly. By agreeing to strip itself of its far-flung network of local operating companies - the entities that most Americans think of as ''the phone company,'' the offices that send out the phone bills and dispatch the Bell repairman to fix faulty phones - AT&T is molding itself into a smaller, more flexible, more competitive company that promises to be better poised to enter the 21st century. At the same time, it will be a company that the average consumer may find difficult getting used to. ''It may become Go-Go Bell rather than Ma Bell,'' suggested Robert La Blanc, a telecommunications consultant who once worked at AT&T. ''The gray-haired Ma Bell, with her hair in a bun, may give way to a miniskirted, booted young thing.'' The agreement with the Justice Department was probably the most wrenching decision a Bell System board of directors will ever have to make. From the first day that a new Bell employee reports to work, he or she is drilled with the concept of providing universal service. It is looked on as an almost holy mission. Employees are reminded again and again that the Bell System is the carrier of last resort. Indeed, ever since it came into being in 1877, spawned, of course, by Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone, the phone company has grown big by tending to small things - little economies, little efficiencies, little people. Now it clearly intends to grow bigger by tending to big economies, big efficiencies, big people. ''The phone business is a franchise not unlike the Catholic Church or McDonald's,'' Anderson said, ''where the local operating companies do the grunt work of putting in phones and fixing wires when your kids trip over them.'' In its new form, AT&T will be getting out of that work to tackle the opportunities beckoning in its highly profitable long-distance business and the array of new products and services that technology is ushering into the marketplace. The settlement is a case of business acumen prevailing over emotion. In effect, AT&T appears to have opted to trade away its local companies in exchange for clinging to Western Electric, its giant manufacturer. It is a decision that has its clear attractions. It removes AT&T from the most capital-intensive, labor-intensive and heavily regulated portion of its operations. Local service has been growing at a mere 4 percent a year and has long been subsidized by long-distance revenues. ''AT&T basically got into a triage,'' Anderson said. ''It was out on the battlefield, and it had to decide who goes and who stays and who dies. Western Electric was its choice to stay, and the operating companies were its choice to die.'' The settlement will also mean that AT&T will be abandoning the last chunk of the once-impervious Bell monopoly that Theodore Vail worked out in the early 1900s. But it is a portion of the monopoly that has existed mainly because no one else wanted it. According to the Vail agreement, the government could regulate the phone company (of which Vail was then head) and put a ceiling on its profits. He would insure that everyone could have service, as long as the government respected and protected his monopoly. And so was born one of the most successful business philosophies of all time. The antitrust settlement means that AT&T is giving up that ideal. It will be up to the ex-Bell operating companies to perpetuate it. ''The settlement means the end of Vail's ideal,'' a longtime Bell follower said. ''But Vail's ideal lasted for 100 years. How many ideals last that long?'' The antitrust settlement should serve as an aspirin for certain Bell headaches. When competition began to stream into the phone business in the last decade - the so-called cream skimmers, who chased the lucrative high-traffic routes between cities like New York and Chicago and Los Angeles - AT&T always protested that it, and it alone, was taking care of the farmer in South Dakota, the rancher in Arizona, the people nobody else wanted to serve because there was just no money to be made serving them. When a blizzard brought down the phone lines in rural Iowa, it was the phone company that trudged out to put them back up. It won't have to worry much about the farmers and blizzards any longer. nyt-01-08-82 2253est ------------------------------ From: KRAUSS@MIT-MC Date: 01/07/82 09:10:52 Subject: Second line for data; Custom Calling II Second line for data: Several years ago I tried to get a second line installed in my home at the metered rate (in Maryland, there is flat rate unlimited, lifeline, and something in between that costs more than lifeline;this is the one I ordered.) Telco rejected this order since its tariffs do not permit a customer to have both flat rate and metered rate at the same location. Obviously, I planned to use the flat rate line for outgoing calls and the metered rate line for incoming calls. When the order was returned, I complained to the Maryland Public Service Commission. I got back a letter saying sorry, but that's the way the tariff reads. I complained again, but I could never get past the one staff guy who was obviously having C&P draft his replies. Custom Calling II: The FCC has ruled that Custom Calling II, a voice store-and-forward service, is an Enhanced service within the meaning of Computer Inquiry II, and must be offered by a fully separate subsidiary. AT&T asked for a waiver in order to permit this service to be integrated with the public long distance network, and the FCC refused. The FCC decision (released October 20, 1981) is interestinng for several reasons. It provides a berief review of the Computer II decision, including a discussion of what constitutes an enhanced service and a restatement of the finding that a separate corporate subsidiary is mandatory for AT&T in order to minimize AT&T's ability to use monopoly revenues to subsidize competitive enhanced services. It includes a discussion of the burden that must be met by someone asking for a waiver of the regulations, and why AT&T didn't satisfy that burden. Finally, there is an extensive discussion of alternative approaches for providing voice storage services, based on comments filed by Delphi, Exxon Enterprises, Ford Industries, and other equipment manufacturers already in the voice storage business. ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 82 20:29:21-EDT (Thu) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> Subject: 2nd line; msc I finally installed a second line after complaints of people trying to reach me and encountering a constant busy.... The local phoneco (C&P) has three types of services: lifeline, which is very cheap and each outgoing call costs 10c or someting; measured local service, which costs a little more and includes 50 free local calls a month (each additional call the same 10c or whatever); and good old unlimited service, which is up to $16 or so a month now...Lifeline, of course, is only available as the only service in a residence. I had the new line listed under an old pen name I used to use (in an underground magazine in hs)...whenever it rings (which it does from time to time) I know that it has to be a wrong number, so I always try and think up something interesting to say when I answer... I have speed calling, but since I also use SPRINT for long-distance calls it doesn't help as much as I'd like. (I called SPRINT and they told me they wait 30 seconds before assuming a line is connected, and if you get charged for a by, da, or telco intercept, just call them, or note it on your bill for credit). What I'd really like is to be able to connect something like a small computer between my phone and the line, so, for example, I could type "sprint tom" and it would look up Tom's number, dial my local sprint access number, enter my billing number, then Tom's number. If it encountered a busy, it could re-dial. I hate always punching in all these numbers. That's what computers are for. randall ------------------------------ Date: 9 January 1982 04:39-EST From: John C. Gilmore <GNU at MIT-AI> Subject: Pacific Tel enforcing 415/408 areacode split To: GNU at MIT-AI The following arrivd in probably everyone's phone bill in the SF Bay Area. Apologies to local folks. *** A REMINDER *** EFFECTIVE JANUARY 11, 1982, ALL TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN AREA CODES 408 AND 415, WHETHER DIALED DIRECT OR PLACED THROUGH AN OPERATOR, WILL REQUIRE THE USE OF THE AREA CODE. AFTER THAT DATE, ANY CALL BETWEEN 408 AND 415 WILL REQUIRE BOTH THE AREA CODE AND THE SEVEN DIGIT LOCAL NUMBER. CALLS DIALED WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE AREA CODE WILL REACH A RECORDED MESSAGE. THIS CHANGE WILL NOT AFFECT LOCAL CALLING AREAS. CUSTOMERS WILL STILL BE ABLE TO CALL TOLL-FREE TO ANY LOCATION THEY COULD CALL TOLL-FREE BEFORE THIS CHANGE. *** PLEASE REMEMBER *** * PERSONAL CALLING LISTS SHOULD BE UPDATED TO SHOW THE AREA CODE PLUS THE SEVEN-DIGIT LOCAL NUMBER. * TOLL DIVERTING OR RESTRICTING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE REPROGRAMMED TO INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE AREA CODE. * AUTOMATIC DIALING DEVICES (SPEED CALLING) WITH FRE- QUENTLY CALLED NUMBERS FOR THE ADJACENT AREA CODE MUST BE REPORGRAMMED TO INCLUDE THE AREA CODE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS CHANGE, PLEASE CALL OUR BUSINESS OFFICE. THE TELEPHONE NUMBER APPEARS ON YOUR BILL. I recall that in Washington, DC, you used to be able to dial numbers with 7 digits whether or not they were in area code 202, 703, or 301, as long as they were in your local calling area. This must have made new CO assignment a real pain. In the case of 415/408, they're probably just running out of exchanges. The next change to come, of course, will be having to dial the "1" prefix, so they can use the L.A. kludge (using area codes as exchanges). Note, currently you get no indication whether your call is free, "local", "nearby", or "long distance"...until a month later when the bill arrives. This is a minor blessing for calling friends and a major pain when calling unknown numbers. The rate structure is too complicated for your CO to understand anyway, I guess there's not much choice. (Charges vary greatly depending which of about 8 plans you have, your exchange, the called exchange, the time of day, day of week, phase of moon, etc.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 13-Jan-82 22:09:18-PST,10214;000000000000 Date: 13 Jan 1982 2209-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #6 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 14 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Administrivia Modem Query What Will Happen To Baby Bell Touch Tone Phones - Polarity (In)Sensitivity Making Calls To Mexico - Confusion! Query - MCI Offers Limited Service Areas To Business Customers Black And Yellow Wires - What Are They Used For? Service For Outgoing Calls Only - Available Or Not? ESS Operator Flash With *0 (or 110) - Snow From TPC Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 January 1982 21:04-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at Rutgers> Subject: Administrivia - Problems (hopefully) straightened out At this point, you should all be up to Volume 2, Issue 6. The mail problems of the past few days should be straightened out. At the very least, the people responsible for the machine which distributes the digest have more control over the distribution. This should mean better service for all subscribers. This also means that I want to hear about every little nit picking problem that happens which could be linked to me or this digest. Send any bugs or gripes to TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB. Thanks. Enjoy, JSol ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 1982 2105-PST From: Barry Megdal <BARRY at CIT-20> Subject: modems What is the cheapest price for which I can get a new 1200 baud (Bell 212) modem, and from whom? What if I want a Bell 212/Vadic/300 baud modem? And now for the apparently obligatory "Address replies to me, I will collect them and send a summary to the list". Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 1982 2244-PST From: Richard Furuta <Furuta at WASHINGTON> Subject: Baby Bell cc: Furuta at WASHINGTON Does anyone know what the status of the plan to break the Bell System into regulated and un-regulated portions is now that the antitrust suit settlement calls for the selling of the local companies? --Rick ------------------------------ Date: 12 January 1982 1101-EST (Tuesday) From: Michael.Fryd at CMU-10A (C621MF0E) Subject: Polarity and TouchTone (TM) The newer Western Electric Touch Tone phones are not sensitive to the polaroty of the phone line. I suspect that they have merely added a Bridge Rectifier to the phone. The new Trimline (TM) phones are like this. The new Trimlines are easy to spot because they use LEDs powered by the phone line for light (No Xformer needed). Unfortunatly, They aren't making their new phones like they used to. We have a new desktop standard model, and it occasionaly makes mistakes when dialing (or is that Touch Toning?). (Yes, I know the phone company will fix the phone for free, But it's still a pain to have to bring it to them.) -Michael Fryd ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1982 1400-CST From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive at UTEXAS-20> Subject: International Long Distance Rates For the last several months now I have been battling with the phone company trying to get answers to several questions regarding international long distance service. Since I've had virtually no success, I'd like to try my luck here. 1. Who sets the rates? Are international treaties involved? Are there any public commissions or consumer groups with "jurisdiction" over these rates? 2. Why are some rates so high? Here I'm mainly interested with rates to Mexico City, since I call there quite frequently. A 15-minute, nighttime call to Mexico City from Austin, Texas will cost about $16.00. For that amount, I can call Great Falls, Montana, which is more than twice the distance, and speak for 90 minutes. I used to think this had something to do with the scarcity of lines old technology, or whatever. But Mexico has a good, modern phone system with all sorts of satellite and microwave links, etc. (In fact, I've had more trouble getting through to Montana, and the quality of the connection is often not as good.) I suspect that it probably all comes down to international politics, but I'd really like to know if there is anybody or any agency who considers this disparity a problem and is working on it. 3. In part because the discount time periods in Mexico differ from those in the U.S., it is very hard to figure out just what the rates are. Over the last few years, it's hard to remember a month in which I did NOT call the business office to challenge the seemingly random rates being applied to some of my calls. I always win, mostly because the phone people have just as much trouble calculating the rates as I do, and they wind up taking my word for it. As an experiment, I once called the rate operator several times over a two-day period, and got FIVE different rates quoted for a given call. I have begged and pleaded for a printed copy of the rate tables or the algorithm used, but the phone company refuses to oblige. I'm sure this info must exist somewhere, but so far I can't track it down. 4. Does anybody know whether any of the alternate long distance services such as MCI do international business? 5. One of the implications of the recent A.T.T. decision is that the local phone companies will now have to provide equal access all companies which are competing to provide long distance services. Has anybody heard any details of how this will actually be implemented? In particular, does this mean that long access codes will go away? Will we receive separate bills? By the way, talking about the Mexican phone system reminds me of a very neat, little-known feature it has had for years--long before stuff like Call Waiting was available in the U.S. If somebody tries to call you while you are on your phone, you will hear a single very soft click in the line. There's no way to put the first call on hold or anything, but nevertheless it's quite useful once you discover it. I've often wondered if the phone people down there might not actually consider it a bug?! Anyway, if somebody out there knows the in's and out's of international long distance and/or how to get rate tables out of the phone company, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Clive [The Los Angeles phone book seems to do the best job I have seen to document calls to Mexico. Your Local Phone Co. *should* be able to supply one of them. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 1982 13:54:23-PST From: decvax!yale-comix!ima!johnl at Berkeley From: John R. Levine From: The INTERACTIVE Electric Calculator Co., Cambridge MA. Subject: MCI question I have two MCI account that I use, one for business and one for personal use. The business code number is a "credit card" number which is 7 digits long and mine is a regular 5 digit code number. I have to use different local phone numbers for the two accounts. What confuses me is that there are places I can call with the business number that I cannot call with my personal number, for example Princeton NJ and Estes Park CO. Anybody know what the story is? I thought that MCI either went places or didn't. While we're on the topic, anybody know the schedule for implementing the "950" phone numbers to access funny phone companies? [If I remember, MCI customers can choose which areas they want service to. The rate per month goes up or down according to size. I think this is just for business customers who most likely pay much more for the service than you do. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 1982 0225-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: What the black and yellow wires are for Motto: Bliss is ignorance We have two phone lines in our place. Line #1 comes in on the red and green wires, and line #2 comes in on the black and yellow ones. I believe the phone company set it up so our place (and many others) can have up to six telephone lines. If you ever go into your wall, you'll notice there are a blue and white pair of wires, an orange and white pair, and either a gray and white or green and white pair. One pair of phone lines come through each of these. If you ever wanted to find out which line your phone was coming in on (to install another phone), all you would have to do is feel which pair of wires were hot. --Lynn [Generally, TPC (The Phone Co.) uses black and yellow for whatever suits it at a given moment. This has been discussed before on this list. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 1982 11:37 PST From: Kolling at PARC-MAXC Subject: one way lines To: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> cc: kolling at PARC-MAXC Ref: "I had the new line listed under an old pen name...whenever it rings I know that it has to be a wrong number..." There used to be a type of service available, in Rhode Island, anyway, which was outgoing only, and cheaper than "normal" service. Has that vanished everywhere? ------------------------------ Date: 13-JAN-82 17:34:30 From: COVERT AT KERMIT (in care of RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO Subject: Snow from Ohio Bell Employees re: Operator Flash with *0 All that is required for *0 to work in No. 1 ESS to flash the operator is that the code 110 (which is automatically equal to *0) be pointed to a rate and route pattern with with call type 14. Nothing else is required, no extra trunks, and no baloney from the TELCO employees. As usual, when you ask a TELCO employee a question to which he doesn't know the answer, you are most likely to get lots of snow, rather than the embarrasing admission that there is something he doesn't know. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 14-Jan-82 22:11:19-PST,7284;000000000001 Date: 14 Jan 1982 2211-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #7 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 15 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Query Answer - Answering Machine Problems One Way Phones - Putting Them On "Vacation" Cheaper Credit Card Calls - Preparing For Dial-It-Yourself How To Kill Call Waiting On Data Lines SPRINT/MCI and the 950 Exchange TelCo Magic Words ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jan 1982 11:02:13-PST From: ihnss!houxi!houxp!houxr!houxm!houxs!houxt!govern at Berkeley Re: Answering machines - Rich.CC@ UDel, 12-26-81 I'm speaking as a telephone customer, since I haven't done hardware at BTL. A number of people here take their Touch-Tone\\TM phones home so they can user their computer terminals from their dial-pulse phones. Sometimes it works. Polarity doesn't matter to a dial-pulse phone; all those do is flip a switch many times. However, it does matter for Touch-Tone. If you get Touch-Tone on your line for a month or two, that often takes care of the problem -- but it may depend on whether your central office is step-by-step (probably won't help), crossbar(probably should work), or ESS(Touch-Tone=std, with rotary=optional equip). However, Ma wants her money, and the legality of free Touch-Tone is unclear. Re: Phone+Computer?? (Jim McGrath, JPM at SU-AI 26 Dec 81) Simultaneous computer and answering machine on one line won't work: Telephone switches will make OUTGOING three-way calls fairly happily, given ESS Custom Calling Services, But the closest you can get for incoming calls is call-waiting: Your line is switched between two different calls under control of switch-hook flashes. Computer terminals also tend to say interesting things about call-waiting beeps ( like #$#$^&^%$$### ) Good Luck; Bill Stewart, houxr!govern, Freehold ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 0030-PST From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: one-way phones You can put your phone (in California) on "vacation" service for a period of up to 6 months. During this time, incoming calls are referred to a number you specify via intercept. Outgoing calls are still permitted. The rate is 1/2 of the normal service rate. This is like the trick of using dedicated voice circuits instead of leased data lines, a case of the home terminal user being able to use the rate structure to his advantage. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 00:20:13-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Subject: credit card calls Along with my 1982 credit card, Southern Belle enclosed a flyer that said, among other things, "because of the new rate structure for operator-assisted calls, you now pay $.40 less for Calling Card calls than for collect or third-number charged calls. And $1.40 less than for person-to-person calls." [That is probably in preparation for when you will be able to dial your own credit card calls -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 1982 17:01:33-PST From: ihnss!houxi!houxj!houxf!houxg!lime!we13!rjk at Berkeley Regarding CALL WAITING/CALL FORWARDING for data lines: The premise was to first forward calls to another number, then the call waiting would not bother you. Wrong, ESS breath! In some cases, a slight blip gets through which is long enough to cause a "lost carrier disconnect". Perhaps this is due to my particular ESS, I don't know. I finally gave up and got the Family Plan service, which is a bare-bones second line. I did splurge and get touch tone, however. This appears to be the best all around solution. It's a real drag to be doing a huge make as root or some other important thing and get blipped off. Besides, if you use it for business, let Uncle Sam pay for it on your 1040 form. (A case for net.taxes!) Randy King WECo-Montgomery [I will bet you didn't actually have call forwarding in effect even though you thought you had it. Double check by calling your number from your number (it should simply forward to the preprogrammed destination). If it doesn't work, try doing it twice (or even 3 times). ESS doesn't let you forward to two numbers at once, so if you get a reorder tone (fast busy signal) then you are all set. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 14 January 1982 09:19-EST From: Joseph D. Turner <CUTTER at MIT-AI> Subject: MCI, SPRINT, ITT and you... cc: E.Galvin at UCB-C70 About this "950" buisness: 1. For those who forgot, BelTel (the old one) planned to put Sprint, MCI, ITT and all the others on a special exchange (950, unused in all area codes) which they would load up with call tracing equipment, links from Bell computers to MCI/SPC computers to nab all the nasties who use them illegally. It was supposed to take into effect in November/December. 2. I called the Boston central offices, and asked them about it. They got me in touch with some high ranking official who said he had heard about it, and was still awaiting small things, like the equipment and the go-ahead. In other words, they are still waiting for Ma Bell to tell them to start. He also said that until the court situation is settled, and everything gets back to normal, nothing will happen. 3. About the query on places that MCI dials. I once had a Sprint number (I hear they are 8 digits now) and was amazed at how many places it *didn't* get. Sure, I could get major centers of population, but try my brother in Amherst, MA? Zip. Virginia? Zilch. Texas? Uh-uh. What is preventing these guys from getting all these places? Just put a dish in one major city, and have all the suburbs around it dialable. Do that in a few places in the county/RFD/state, and voila! 4. The only reason Sprint and MCI are there is so you can call long distance cheaper. They are not there to become another TPC. Therfore, they are only interested in US long distance, not foriegn. Anyhow, compared to TPC, they would lose so much money it isn't funny. Oh well, my terminal's overheating and my fingers are tired,so I'll say Shade and Sweet Water, --Joey-- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 16:46:22-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Dealing with the Telco My experience has been that the magic words are "supervisor", "state utilties commission", and "FCC". I suspect that all three are equivalent: you get to talk to a supervisor who at least knows somewhat more. And of course, one can always appeal to the appropriate regulatory agency for copies of the tariffs, especially when the Telco folks don't want to tell you they don't know either. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 16-Jan-82 16:29:34-PST,9187;000000000000 Date: 16 Jan 1982 1629-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #8 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 16 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: AT&T Antitrust Suit - It's not over yet What AT&T Is Doing To It's Competition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 January 1982 2128-PST (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: It's not over yet -- Congress enters the decree fray n085 1811 11 Jan 82 BC-BELL By ERNEST HOLSENDOLPH c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service WASHINGTON - State regulatory commissioners, who last year approved more than $3 billion in telephone rate increases, are resigned to the idea of the Bell System's divestiture of its regional phone companies, but the regulators look to Congress for help in offsetting potential losses in local phone revenues. There is wide agreement among the regulators that the divestiture itself, separating the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. from its operating subsidiaries, does not necessarily mean higher local service charges, although it could add upward pressure to rates that were going up anyway. But they insist that other factors, such as the method of determining the value of phones and equipment to be transferred in the divestiture, could cost the regional companies billions of dollars. ''I would say that an estimated $10 billion is at stake in the valuation process,'' said John Bryson, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, in an interview Monday. The value of equipment transferred from local phone companies to AT&T would have to be decided. A higher value would be better for the local companies in determining their rate base. One theory is that the figure to use is the net book value. But a bill pending in Congress would place the value closer to the replacement cost, which would be higher. If a local phone company is recompensed at the lower level it will need more revenues, implying an increase in phone rates. In 1980 the nation's state regulatory agencies approved $1.45 billion of rate increases for operating phone companies. Last year they awarded $3.16 billion of increases, and in 27 states $3.22 billion more is pending. In the view of most regulatory experts, long-distance telephone service has subsidized local service, so it is argued that the divestiture, in separating long-distance and local service, could press the regional companies to make up the loss with higher rates. According to utility experts, possible competition between the slimmed-down AT&T and the regional phone companies for certain local business - such as high-volume distribution of data to business customers - could also have an adverse impact on the regional companies' revenues and on their local service rates. The experts concede that such competition depends on proposals in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission to let the new AT&T engage in unregulated, competitive business. The likely impact on local phone rates, which was noted by some members of Congress last Friday as soon as the Justice Department and AT&T announced the proposed settlement of the antitrust suit against the company, could become a political issue. This might draw Congress into reacting to, and possibly revamping, the terms of the settlement. Rep. Timothy E. Wirth, a Colorado Democrat and chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications, has already disclosed plans to hold hearings on the proposed settlement and his own bill to reorganize communications. And Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr., the New Jersey Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said it will also examine the Bell settlement in hearings starting Jan. 28. William H. Baxter, the assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust enforcement, is to be the first witness. In addition, Sen. Bob Packwood, Oregon Republican and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, is expected to conduct hearings on the Bell consent decree in the next two weeks so he can decide how his communications deregulation bill, which was approved, 90-4, in the last session, may need to be modified. The Justice Department has indicated that it will comply with the provision of the antitrust law that opens a proposed settlement like this one to public comment before it becomes final. Paul L. Gioia, chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission, said Monday that he welcomes the surge of public interest in telecommunications. ''The tremendous publicity is good because it will make us consider the implications all the more,'' he said. ''Most of the policy decisions surrounding the divestiture should be made by Congress and not by a few lawyers at the Justice Department and at AT&T,'' he added. ''Whatever we do, we must not let pricing according to costs, an otherwise commendable policy, shut customers out of the market.'' nyt-01-11-82 2110est *************** ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1982 1333-PST From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW @ SRI-KL> Subject: news clipping: new rates for MCI, etc ? e527 10:12 15-Jan-82 at&t - connection rates ny -(dj)-- american telephone & telegraph co. asked the federal communications commission for permission to nearly triple the rates it charges long distance competitors to connect into the local bell system network. at&t said the proposed rates are a 'contingency filing' in case the fcc doesn't extend an existing agreement between bell and its competitors. the first three years of the agreement end april 15 and the fcc then will have to decide whether to continue it for another two years. under terms of the arrangement the competitors pay only a portion of the costs incurred in connecting into the bell network. the proposed new rates would increase to 345 dlrs a month from 137 dlrs the charge for each line a competitor connects with the bell system the washington post reported today. -- at&t - connection rates -2- ny -(dj)-- american telephone & telegraph co. spokesman told -(dow jones that the proposed new rates to be charged long distance competitors reflect the cost of connections into the local bell system. 'that's the way regulatory people are moving these days' he said 'to have rates reflect the costs of doing business.' the spokesman said the proposed new rates are unrelated to at&t's agreement with the justice department last week settling its seven-year-old antitrust battle. he noted that the consent decree with justice calls for long distance competitors to pay access charges to connect into the local phone network. he said those charges 'would be operative in 18 months' under the agreement and would supersede any existing arrangements between bell and its competitors. -0- -mci communications comments on at&t rate request washn -(dj)-- mci communications corp. responding to american telephone & telegraph co's request for permission to nearly triple rates it charges long distance competitors said 'this is precisely the kind of behavior the settlement was designed to eliminate.' philip nyborg vice president regulation and industry relations for mci communications said in reference to at&t's recent settlement of the government's antitrust case 'our reaction is that at&t is in a position having agreed to the settlement but prior to its divestiture to try to disadvantage its long distance competitors.' 'after agreeing to the settlement at&t's first major act has been to file on behalf of the local companies a tariff which attempts to triple the access costs of its competitors' nyborg said. at&t made its request on rates it charges competitors to connect into the local bell system network. earlier today at&t said the proposed rates are a contingency filing in case the fcc doesn't extend an existing agreement between bell and its competitors. -0- -at&t sets proposed long distance connection rates ny -(dj)-- american telephone & telegraph co. said the new rates it is proposing to charge long distance competitors to connect into the local bell system network would be a minimum of about 325 dlrs for each line a competitor connects with the bell system compared with a minimum of about 127 dlrs under existing rates. as previously reported at&t has filed for permission to raise the connection charges if the fcc fails to extend an existing rate agreement expiring april 15. the washington post had reported today that the proposed new rates would increase to 345 dlrs monthly from 137 dlrs the charge for each line a competitor connects with the bell system. -0- -(dj-01-15-82 2058gmt *************** ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 16-Jan-82 19:26:29-PST,12694;000000000000 Date: 16 Jan 1982 1926-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #9 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 17 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jan 1982 0211-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: MCI and SPRINT locations Motto: Bliss is ignorance My husband and I have a similar complaint. We have MCI, but neither MCI nor SPRINT will let us dial either of our parents' houses (mine live in south Jersey; his live in Huntsville, Alabama). The only reason we get MCI at all is because it is good for data transmission (we dial up computers with it). SPRINT can't handle data because the computer's connect tone is the same frequency as SPRINT's disconnect tone. In spite of this, the folks at SPRINT STILL claim that SPRINT can handle data transmission... --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 15 January 1982 09:07-EST From: "Richard Kovalcik, Jr." <RK at MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #7 and credit card calls I also got a little notice in with my 1982 New England Telephone Credit Card which said that Credit Card Calls would be cheaper than other operator assisted calls BUT ONLY ON INSTATE CALLS for the time being. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 82 18:45:58-EDT (Thu) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> Subject: outward-calling only; dropping area code prefix I remember quite a few years ago getting a message to call someone and it turned out that the number given was outgoing-only. This was in a suburb of Philadelphia. (The person who left the message was at a friend's and did not relize.) The Washington, DC area still lets me call a number with just the 7-digits, (free calling area only) to and from area codes 202, 703, and 301. Also, people calling from outside the free calling area can use any of the 3 area codes to reach any number. randall [Pay telephones are the most popular "outgoing only" phones -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 15-JAN-82 10:25:09 From: "COVERT AT POLLUX c/o" <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: RSX-DEV AT DEC-MARLBORO,Cutter at MIT-AI Subject: Universal service by OCCs "Just put a dish in every major city and make all the suburbs dialable." What MCI and SPRINT have done is essentially that. But what you don't realize is how big this country really is, and how far away from major cities so many places are. Two places were mentioned: Amherst, MA, and Virginia. Amherst's local calling area consists of Amherst, Belchertown, Northhampton, South Deerfield, and Montague. Nowhere else. In Virginia, the suburbs of Washington are dialable, but how many other major cities are there. Now, if you meant fot MCI or SP to put up dishes EVERYWHERE, so that they could cover even the tiny places, suddenly they are just like AT&T, and are providing service which may not be profitable. So they have to either charge rates higher than AT&Ts rates to those points (and what a confusing rate structure that would be for their competitors) or they have to average it over their whole system. Then they would no longer be cheaper than AT&T. However, with resale of WATS now permitted, the OCCs could provide universal access. ------------------------------ Date: 15-JAN-82 10:28:54 From: "COVERT AT POLLUX c/o" <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: RSX-DEV AT DEC-MARLBORO Subject: Vacation service Are you sure that vacation service in California allows outgoing calls? I had my phone in Atlanta put on vacation service for about twelve months -- the phone was dead the whole time. Most ads for vacation service in places on the East Coast say that the phone can't be used for outgoing calls "so unauthorized charges won't be incurred." [Apparently, California allows outgoing calls when Vacation service is in affect -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 15-JAN-82 10:34:28 From: "COVERT AT POLLUX c/o" <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: RSX-DEV AT DEC-MARLBORO Subject: Home repair vs. Phone Center Store depot repair Recently there have been a few references in the Digest about "taking your phone in to be repaired." You don't have to do that if you are renting it from a Bell company. Repair service now tries to get you to do it, but in New York city, the local Communications Workers of America has huge ads on the sides of busses as well as full page ads in the New York Times telling you that you can insist that a repairman be sent to your residence. For many of the readers of this digest, it may be easier to take the phone in than to remove all questionable connections before the repairman shows up. ------------------------------ Date: 15-JAN-82 11:38:58 From: MAYHEM::TELC::GOLDSTEIN "Fred Goldstein" Reply-to: "MAYHEM::TELC::GOLDSTEIN c/o" <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Antitrust consent decree Last week's proposed consent decree between AT&T and DOJ included some interesting wording. An appendix entitled "Phased in (Bell operating company) provision of equal exchange access" included the following: "As part of its obligation to provide non-discriminatory access to interexchange carriers, no later than Sept. 1, 1984, each BOC shall begin to offer to all interexchange carriers exchange access on an unbundled, tariffed basis, that is equal in type and quality to that provided for the interexchange telecommunications services of AT&T and its affiliates. No later than Sept. 1, 1985, such equal access shall be offered through end offices of each BOC serving at least one-third of that BOC's exchange access lines and, upon bona fide request, every end office shall offer such access by Sept. 1, 1986." The next paragraph is more interesting for its implications, that under the above time schedule, each BOC is to " "offer as a tariffed service exchange access that permits each subscriber automatically to route, without the use of access codes, all the subscriber's interexchange communications to the interexchange carrier of the customer's designation. At such time as the national numbering area (area code) plan is revised to require the use of additional digits, each BOC shall provide exchange access to every interexchange carrier, including AT&T, through a uniform number of digits." The above is from the 1/11/82 issue of Telecommunications Reports. In my book, it seems as if the blue book's rther elegant Uniform Numbering Plan is about to be sacrificed on the altar of MCI &Co. Does anyone want to speculate on what a new area code plan will look like? (My AT&T area code is 617, my MCI code is..., etc?) Maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but are 5-digit carrier/area codes really in the public interest? Fred ------------------------------ Date: 15 January 1982 11:33-EST From: Joseph D. Turner <CUTTER at MIT-AI> Subject: [COVERT AT POLLUX: Universal service by OCCs] To: RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO cc: CUTTER at MIT-AI You are pretty much right, in that the rates would become exactly like Bell's: confusing. But what most people fail to realize is that, since the country is so large, someone could make a killing in the small towns and cities, where rates to the "big city" are huge, in addition to the other 9/10s of the country. One other thing I wanted to mention, that was never sent out (or a least I never saw it): I have been privy to test out Custom Calling II in its final form. A friend at Bell Labs out here took me around the place and a day when I had no school, and showed me all the neat things they have. The voice quality on the message playback is very good. It sounds like a somewhat scratchy recording, but very intelli- gible. The message playback function plays back each message, giving the date and time of call, and then the call itself. After all calls have been played, you hang up and they are erased, or you hang on for a second playback. The call answering function allows for two calls to be taken at the same time (i.e. two people can call and leave a message at the same time.) . You can use a standard greeting ("Hello. Fred Fubar can't come to the phone now, but you may leave your name and phone number at the tone. FEEEEEP"), or your own ("Hi This is Fred Fubar. I've just had an unhappy love affair, and I'm drowning my sorrows in drink right now. You can leave your name at the tone, but I'll probably be drunk for the next week. FEEEEP"). Call forwarding is even more fun. You can "tape" a one minute message, and have it "sent" to a phone number <ANY phone number -- we tried it to a relative of mine in Israel and it worked.> at a specified time, AM or PM. Is fun, no? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1982 0917-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Touch-tone telephones, ploarity and assorted goodies One solution to the polarity problem which works quite well, is to put a full-wave bridge rectifier inside the telephone, after the bell takes off. This will ensure (depending on whether or not it is correctly installed) either that the telephone always has the correct polarity, or always has the incorrect polarity for touch-tone. Also, new touch-tone telephones, such as the LED diallight trimline from WECO (not to good for acoustic modems), and the newer Stromburg/Carlson phones don't care about polarity. It is also possible (or at least it used to be) to get a rather bizarre contraption from the teleco called a polarity guard which performes essentially the same function as a full-wave bridge. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1982 1652-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: cutter at MIT-AI Subject: Small towns and economy of scale I don't think that a killing could be made serving the small towns. The reason OCC rates are lower is that OCCs only offer service between points where there are HUGE amounts of traffic. Note: the Custom Calling II feature which sends messages to another number is called Advance Calling, not Call Forwarding. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1982 1716-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: International Phone rates International phone rates are set BOTH by international agreement (not treaties -- only congress and the president can sign treaties) and by the FCC. I'm not sure exactly what part of the rate is set by whom, but, for example, the time of day at which discounts apply seems to be "agreement-related" because, for example, calls to and from France (and most places which were once run by the French PTT) are never discounted -- cost seems to be somewhat FCC related because the FCC just "ordered" a 35% rollback in rates on all IDDD service. If you want copies of the rates, they HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION at the telephone company business office. You probably can't get copies made there. Watch out for getting rates from somewhere like the Los Angeles phone book. Phone books are notoriously out of date, and also won't take into account the fact that there are three U.S. zones to Mexico with different rates from each (something which is not true for many places -- mostly just North, Central, and northern South American points). ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 82 16:29:06-EDT (Sat) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> Subject: "Calling Card" vs rate break I got my new "Calling Card" in the mail the other day, along with detailed and pocket-sized instructions on dialing non station-to-station calls. It seems that soon, when dialing with "O" as prefix, I'll get a second dial tone after I'm through dialing. I can then press "O" again to get an operator if I want to make a person-to-person, bill-to-third-number, collect, etc call. Or I can type in my CC number (14 digits) and the call will complete. I called local TPC (C&P) and they told me in no uncertain terms that there will be NO rate break at all for my pains. The only advantage that I can see is that if I'm making a series of such calls, I only have to enter my number for the first. Subsequent calls can be make (I am told) by pressing the # key and dialing the new number. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 21-Jan-82 00:10:22-PST,14825;000000000001 Date: 21 Jan 1982 0010-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #10 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom:: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 21 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Wiring My Own Outgoing Only Pay Phones Defining Exchange Access Protocols Washington Metro Dialing Area Using Sprint/MCI For Data Calls Query - Dial Pulse Specifications Overseas Modem Usage VADIC 3451 Modem Problems - More Answers Touch Tone Frequency Standards - Query Bell 212 Acoustic Coupler The Case Of The Disappearing Voice Tip, Ring, Ground - Terminology Florida PUC Vs. Independent Carriers Excerpt From AT&T Share Holder Newsletter Re: Consent Decree ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 January 1982 0023-EST (Sunday) From: Michael.Fryd at CMU-10A (C621MF0E) Subject: Wiring my own What are the rules governing adding my own additional wiring to the telephone system in my house? Can I not do anything? Can I add additional outlets? Can I add additional outlets if I restrict myself to using certified equipment? Can I just buy a bunch of splitters and extension cords from Radio Shaft and tape them to the wall. -mike ------------------------------ Date: 17-Jan-82 19:20:29 PST (Sunday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: pay phones cc: Hamilton.ES Since when are pay phones "outgoing only"? Every pay phone I've ever noticed has a number on it, and it is common practice to call someone with a question and have them call the pay phone back five or ten minutes later when they've found the answer. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1982 08:22 est From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-Multics Subject: Exchange access Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston) If access protocols are going to be defined, any chance that they would be accessible to my PBX so that it can exchange control information with the local exchange. This is both information for outgoing calls to allow it to interpret information such as when the other party goes offhook as well as information on incoming calls such as the real calling number so I don't have to use external hunting. I know this is available to Telco Centrexes, but what about other PBX's. And what about my personal computer using Telconet? No need to answer this as I don't really expect people to plan more than six months of technological development beyond a decade ago. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 1982 0908-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Washington Metro dialing area Calls to the Washington Metro area from outside the area may be dialed with either 202 or the correct area code, but not with any other -- there are conflicts. ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1982 17:12-EST From: Cliff Lasser <CAL at MIT-AI> To: G.FIGMO at MIT-AI I have had no problems using Sprint for data communications. My modem, a Vadic 3434 (1200 baud) has worked fine on Sprint calls between Boston and NYC; however, I did have troubles calling San Diego. Cliff ------------------------------ Date: 19 January 1982 1826-EST (Tuesday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz at CMU-10A> Subject: Dial pulsing What are the specs. for telephone dial pulsing? I know that 10 pulses per second is standard, and that some systems support 20pps. Which types of exchange fall into the latter class? Also, why do dialer chips provide both 39/61 and 33/67 make/break ratios? Is one perhaps normally used at 10pps. and the other at 20pps.? Rick Gumpertz ------------------------------ Posted-date: 01-Dec-1981 From: JEREMY BARKER AT ZIP Reply-to: "Jeremy Barker at Zip c/o" <Schriesheim.Mitton at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: Overseas Modem Usage There are two possible reasons why Full Duplex 103a won't work over a satellite circuit. The first is that because of the delay in a satellite link, the circuit always has echo suppressors, these are devices which FORCE the circuit to be half-duplex which is a great convenience for humans but no fun for a modem. You CAN switch off the echo suppressors by sending a special tone (I don't remember the frequency though) to allow FDX modems to work properly. The regular modem knows nothing about this. There may also be a secondary problem, in that not all countries use the same modem signaling frequencies as the 103 - for example in the UK they are definitely different. The solution is to get something which is the same, but then you may fall foul of the regulatory authorities in whateverland as it isn't the same as their standard. As to a 9600baud circuit, here you need a 4-wire circuit. This is handled by a satellite service carrier in the US - try Western Union International, and (usually) the Phone Authority in whateverland. You also will have to get a private 4-wire circuit from wherever you are to the international carrier's terminal office from telco. Be warned such circuits are NOT CHEAP - for example US to UK is something like $60K a year - I'll check on that though. Jeremy Barker ----------------- Posted-date: 30-Nov-1981 From: MARTIN MINOW at PHENIX Reply-to: "Martin Minow at PHENIX c/o" <Schriesheim.Mitton at DEC-Marlboro> Subj: more on the vadic I had the same problem with a 3451 and got a lot of help from the local (Boston) repair office -- have your office get in touch with them if things haven't straightened out yet. In my case, the installer didn't screw the black and yellow leads to anything in the wall outlet, so they floated and shorted out whatever, resulting in the same groundloop problem you mentioned. One other thing -- when the wires got setup right, the Vadic would persist in answering the phone whenever it saw DTR from the terminal, irrespective of the setting of the voice/data switch. I complained to the repair office and they upgraded my modem to have a three position (voice/data/manual) switch. Works fine, except that the DTR light on the modem is frozen on. Can't win 'em all. ---------------------------- Posted-date: 14-Dec-1981 From: JEREMY BARKER AT ZIP Reply-to: "Jeremy Barker at ZIP c/o" <Schriesheim.Mitton at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: DTMF (Touch Tone) keypad frequencies Can anyone help me?? At the place I work in England we have a Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX, it uses DTMF signaling from the phones and I an informed by British Telecom that the DTMF signaling used is "to CCITT standards". As Ma Bell has a reputation for not following CCITT standards, does anyone know if the CCITT DTMF frequencies are the same as those used by a regular Ma Bell Touch-Tone keypad?? Thanks much Jeremy Barker ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1982 11:52:40-PST From: decvax!yale-comix!ima!johnl at Berkeley From: John R. Levine From: The INTERACTIVE Electric Calculator Co., Cambridge MA. Subject: Bell 212 acoustic coupler In this week's Computerworld, Anderson-Jacobson announced an originate only triple modem and coupler for $995. It works either through the handset or directly plugged as any of 212, 103, or Vadic 3400. The common wisdom was that you couldn't run 212 acoustically due to distortion in the handset. Anybody know what they did? There was also some rumor here about a 2400 baud switched network modem. That was probably just their synchronous modem which does run 2400, but synchronous and half duplex, thus making it incompatible with your usual async terminals and computers. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1982 21:17:53-PST From: decvax!genradbolton!rob at Berkeley From: Rob Wood (genradbolton!rob) Subject: Disappearing voice I've been talking to a friend for about 10 minutes when he starts saying "Hello - Hello - Where are you?". All of my yelling does not go through. When he hung up and I called him back he said there was no click or static, it sounded like I just wasn't talking to him. The next time this happened, I ran to my extension phone & picked it up, but no go there either. When it happened again with someone else I knew it couldn't be the other party, but me! On another occasion when it happened, I depressed the switchook and got my 3-way-calling dial tone, then depressed it again to go back and I could again be heard. Any ideas? Repair service says it is the transmitter in my phone. I got another phone & used it, same problem. They want to come out to my house, I would guess the problem is somewhere else. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1982 22:05:43-PST From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley re: "tip"; the name i understand the name for that wire is "bell-ese" for T.P., which is, in turn, short for Talk Path, ie, the wire you talk on; nothing to do with the tip of the telephone jack per se. ernie ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 03:54:07-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Independent carriers The Florida Public Service Commission has filed a complaint against MCI and the other independent long-distance carriers. They say that these companies are illegally operating an intrastate phone system without proper permissions, tariffs, etc. The carriers claim that they're solely an interstate service, and that a call from, say, Miami to Tampa would be routed through Atlanta -- leaving the FCC with sole jurisdiction. One question I have: how much of the actual transmission equipment do these companies own? Or do they lease most of their circuits from AT&T? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 1603-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Charley Brown on the Consent Decree Special Issue -- AT&T Share Owners Newsletter Letter from the Chairman of the Board January 12, 1982 Dear Share Owner: As you undoubtedly know by now, AT&T has agreed to a government- proposed Consent Decree which, if finally approved, will require fundamental changes in the structure of the Bell System. Details are provided in the following pages of this special issue of the Share Owners Newsletter. I am writing to assure you that our decision to take this action would not have been made were we not fully convinced that it is in the long run interests of our share owners and in the national interest as well. It is true that what you now own will be divided in the future. But after the divestiture of the local operating companies you will still hold ownership in the same assett value currently represented in your investment. Your investment will be divided between stock in AT&T and proportionate values in the local ex- change companies that in the future will operate separately from AT&T. Some of you may be wondering about your dividend. Let me point out that AT&T has paid a dividend continuously for more than a hundred years. I see no reason why, as far as AT&T is concerned, the Decree would affect that policy. In some of the news coverage of the Consent Decree, it was implied that we are divesting the least profitable parts of the business. It was suggested, too, that local telephone rates would go up as a consequence of the new Decree. Neither is accurate. The fact is that the Bell telephone companies are financially healthy, well-managed businesses that have wide public support and provide modern, vital and improving services in a growing industry. In each state in which a Bell telephone company operates, it is one of the biggest employers and -- in terms of revenues collected and taxes paid -- one of the major business enterprises. There is every reason for confidence in their ability to continue doing their job successfully, with skill and elan. At the same time, AT&T and the companies that will remain affil- iated with it, freed of the constraints imposed by the 1956 Consent Decree, will surely be a major factor in the competetive, high-technology Information Age markets now emerging. As I said in my remarks at the press conference, it is our intent, and the government's as well, to assure in this era of worldwide compe- tition that the benefits of the Information Age come first to America. In short, both AT&T and the divested companies can look forward to a future bright with opportunities. As for local rates, they can be expected to go up -- but the Consent Decree will not be the driving force. The primary factor that will drive local costs up are inflation and the pressure from competition to force prices toward costs. The spread of competition in all sectors of the telecommunica- tions business eventually will make it necessar to price all services in accordance with their real costs. Local rates necessarily have to reflect changes in the telephone companies' capital recovery and depreciation practices, another fact of life of competetion. This isn't news. We have been saying this for a long time. On the other hand, the local companies as well as state regulators will continue to have an important stake in keeping local rates affordable and the quality of service high. The goal of the Bell people traditionally has been to provide the best possible service at reasonable cost. This restructuring will not change that moti- vation. As the chief executive officer of an enterprise which has long been committed to a systems approach and end-to-end responsibility for service, I would prefer to see all the existing parts of the Bell System remain integrated. But I also know that sooner or later -- sooner more likely than later -- some change was inevitable. And so I have no reservation about telling you -- as well as our customers and employees -- that the Consent Decree is a reasonable and acceptable solution to problems that stand between us and the opportunities of a promising future. When, if in the weeks and months ahead, the Decree is subjected to examination in legislative, judicial or regulatory forums, I hope that the support of our share owners will be as strong -- and, if necessary, as freely stated -- as it has been over the years. Sincerely, C. L. Brown ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 21-Jan-82 20:58:09-PST,16123;000000000001 Date: 21 Jan 1982 2058-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #11 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom:: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 22 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: 5 Digit Area Codes *0 and Speed Calling Lists Local Calling Areas - Canada/SPRINT/MCI Sound Loss Query - Stromberg Carlson/Radio Shack Phones Area Codes Which Share Directory Assistance Sprint Problem Query Reply - 2400 Baud Half Duplex Modem Fix Local Rates Will Go Up Or Sprint/MCI Will Pay More DTMF Frequency Standard - Query Reply The Case Of The Disappearing Voice - Continued Dial-It-Yourself Telephone Calling Card Service Cost Of International Circuits - Quote Correction Folklore - Why "Tip" Outgoing Only Payphones Query - Does The Phone REALLY Provide The Caller's Number? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 1982 08:23:57-PST From: ihnss!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!princeton!jel at Berkeley Subject: 5 digit area codes NYC is close to running out of phone numbers. I believe that I read a proposal for "access codes," to be used to dial between boroughs. This was several years ago, however, and I don't know what has transpired. John Little ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 07:45:37-PST From: cbosg!dale at Berkeley Another tidbit on *0 -- It turns out that a telephone company person called me back the other day and we had a discussion about my attempts to use *0 to flash. It seems that Ohio Bell did not install the necessary trunks, but they also did not disable the feature properly. The result is that such attempts "uses up gobs of ESS cycles" according to my Ohio Bell friend. Needless to say, they are trying to fix the problem (but would not say if they intended to make *0 work or dissallow it without upsetting their ESS. Some info on speed call lists -- I also asked about why the speed call lists could do the things described in vol #4. It seems that each speed call number is assigned a 19 digit register in the ESS. Some of the digits are used as flag words (centrex number, IDDD number, DDD number, etc) This leaves 15 or 16 digits remaining to store the number. BUT, the number you dial is not always the number that gets stored. What is stored is a translated version of the number you dial. This translation can be different for different machines based on routing considerations. As always, things are more complicated than they seem... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 08:08:42-PST From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Local Calling Areas I have been noting the comments on the small size of Local Calling areas in many American towns and how that limits Sprint and MCI. As a Canadian who has spent some time living in Silicon Valley, I must admit I was surprised at the small size of my local calling area. From my home in Sunnyvale, it was long distance to Palo Alto, less than ten miles away. At my mother's home, in Mississauga, a suburb of Toronto, the local area covers quite a distance. You can call to suburbs on the other side of town, well over thirty miles away - there is essentially nobody you want to talk to around TO that isn't free. Sprint and MCI don't offer service to Canada yet - they said so at least when I called them during the summer about it. That's annoying, because calls from the east in Canada to the west in the USA are quite a bit steeper and more time restricted than calls within the country. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 06:09:58-PST From: ihuxs!steffen at Berkeley Subject: Sound Loss on Extension I got my parents an extension phone for Christmas so I could talk to both of them at once. It was a Radio Shack ET400 (I think) that has the push button pulse generation. The phone works fine by itself, but when the original phone is off-hook, the sound volume on the extension becomes very low. Switching the red and green wires didn't help, and the recent discussion of the yellow and black wires indicates that the problem is not there either. The main phone is a Stromberg-Carlson dial phone. Does anyone have any ideas about this problem? Joe Steffen Bell Labs, Indian Hill (312) 979-5381 UUCPnet: ucbvax!ihnss!ihuxs!steffen ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 17:00:17-PST From: ihnss!houxi!houxj!houxf!rosin at Berkeley Subject: Area Code Assumed for LD Directory Assistance The comments about being able to dial without area codes within certain metropolitan areas (e.g., D.C. and environs) brings to mind an unfortunate experience I had trying to locate and call a family in Iowa. Knowing that they had moved from Ames, I called the Ames area directory assistance (515 as I recall) and asked for the "jones" family's new number in their new town, Vinton. I was given a 5-digit number. However, over the next few weeks, no one ever answered 515-<new number>. After writing these folks a letter, I discovered that Vinton is not in area 515 but in a neighboring area! A call to 515 directory assistance brought the response, "you should know what area Vinton is in - after all, you called the correct directory assistance office." Seems two (or more?) areas share one d-a service, without telling anyone that a mistake might arise. Does anyone else know of other such arrangements and/or have you had similar experiences? Had this been a matter of life and death, or economic survival, I would be writing the FCC and not Telecom Digest! [Sigh, they should behave the way the repair service in the LA area does, they ask for the area code and phone number you are reporting -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 0203-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: Phones and modems Motto: Bliss is ignorance Re: SPRINT - The problems I've heard about with their service seem to stem from either a noisy line or usage of 300 baud. Re: 2400 baud and half duplex - The way you get around that is by some sort of kludgey protocol which makes it appear to the user as if his/her terminal is really full-duplex. Don't ask me if you'll be able to tell the difference between 2400 baud with hairy protocol and 1200 baud full-duplex lines. I'm skeptical. --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 0353-PST From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: AT&T They are running a big ad in the papers that says that local service charges will not necessarily go up as a result of the divestiture. Instead, they say, what is assured is that the competing long distance phone services will have to pay the same gateway fees to local operating companies as AT&T long lines--which is not now the case, they point out. Seems to me they cannot have it both ways. MCI, Sprint, et al. pay regular local rates at either end. Either these local rates are ALL too low, or the fees Long Lines pays the operating companies for similar capability are too great, or MCI and friends have selected a more efficient interface. [Hoo-Ray!] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 0900-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: DTMF frequency standard Bell developed the standard for DTMF way back in the late 50s. The first place I had the opportunity to use Touch-Tone was at the 1964 New York World's fair (there were a lot of Touch-Tone pay phones around). Over the next three years Touch-Tone spread rapidly to most No. 1&5 XBar offices in the country. Fortunately, CCITT adopted the DTMF standard without modification. I have signalled directly into our PBX in Ayr, Scotland with DTMF from my telephone set here. It sounds strange to hear the British Dial Tone (a low purr) being broken by DTMF and then ringing British audible ring. For some reason that circuit no longer accepts DTMF. It also doesn't provide dial-tone, so I suspect that the PBX may have been changed out. Saying that Bell doesn't follow CCITT standards is a bit backwards. Bell developed data transmission standards on its own long before the PTTs in Europe even allowed data transmission on the public switched network. Differences in telephone technology in different countries required the CCITT to develop standards which would work on an international basis. This is the reason that the frequencies for low-speed FSK modems are different. The CCITT has now adopted a standard for 1200 baud full duplex which is almost the same as the 212 standard. A good thing, too, because several countries have already started using 212 modems. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 0914-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Disappearing Voice Repair service doesn't understand the concept of a "system problem." As far as they are concerned, every problem is between the subscriber and the Master Distribution Frame. You've pretty much already elim- inated the possibility of it being at your home by going to another phone. One way transmission problems are usually caused by interoffice trunk problems. No. 1 ESS sends a momentary flash down the trunk when you flash for 3-Way-calling; it appears that this is moving contacts in relays in the trunk circuit pack which restores transmission. This kind of problem can take years (I'm not exaggerating) to get fixed. Good Luck. (Are you in the 897 C.O.? If so, I may have some special contacts which could help to get this fixed.) [Thanks also to Ian <Merritt at USC-ISIB> for explaining the problem --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 1035-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Dial-it-yourself telephone Calling Card service I was using the new Dial-it-yourself credit card service on our Denver FX last night. It is really well done. In a previous message I described the operation of the service. That demon- stration was before the service was put into actual use. When your call goes into TSPS, you will hear a new tone, which is the DTMF "#" key immediately followed by a very brief and fading dial tone. During the pre-service demonstration, you then got a recorded voice asking you to enter your Calling Card number. It seems that in actual implementation, that message does not occur. You have to simply know that if you hear the new tone to enter your card. If you don't, or if you dial "0", you will go to an operator. If you want to call the number to which the credit card is issued, you need dial only the last four digits of the credit card. This is the reason RAOs beginning with "0" will appear on calling cards beginning with "6" now. If there is no answer, or after the person you call hangs up, you may dial a "#", and you will be told, "You may dial another number now." At this point you may dial either 0+Number or just Number with the same result. 1+Number is illegal. Likewise, you may dial 01+ overseas number, but not 011+ overseas number. In no case do you get an actual operator through this procedure, although I have heard that there may be a change to the procedure to allow you to dial you calling card and still get an operator for person-to-person calls. Surprising, though. They'd like to make person-to-person go away. This may have been a false story. The rates for using this will, like all phone rates, be regulated by state authorities for instate use and by the FCC for interstate use. In a few states, Bell has already filed special credit card rates. For example, in Massachusetts, you get the DDD rate for credit card calls (regardless of whether it is operator keyed or dialed yourself) but you pay a $0.45 credit card billing charge. From messages in this digest, I presume that North Carolina has done the same thing. Other states may have as well. In a previous message to this digest, I explained that I have a copy of an "illustrative" tariff which shows a significant re-vamping of charges for INTERstate calls. In this tariff, there is a service called "Customer Dialed Calling Card, Station" which is the DDD rate plus $0.50. The next line lists "Operator-Station" as the DDD rate plus mileage-based service charges. The final line lists "Operator-Person-to-Person" as the DDD rate plus $3.00. This tariff is not yet approved. It seems unfair for me to have to pay more to use my calling card simply because some pay-phone at some airport in some small town doesn't have Touch-Tone. The instate tariffs I have seen so far seem to take that into account; the "illustrative" tariff for interstate calls doesn't. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 1041-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Cost of international Circuits The cost of a circuit between the U.S. and the U.K. was guessed yesterday as $60K per year. It is, in fact, $10,400 per month, or $124,400 per year. Plus tax. The satellite carrier gets about 25% of that, with the remainder being split by AT&T and British Telecom for providing the line between your sites and the earth stations. This enormous amount of money AT&T gets for a circuit which would otherwise cost drastically less (depending on mileage, as little as $75.00 per month) is one of the reasons AT&T makes a 200% ROI on international service. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 1151-EST From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C> Subject: Re: Tip, the name If "TIP" stands for "talk path", why is it used to refer to only one wire, and why is the other called ring? I still vote for tip-ring-(sleeve) on a phone plug. (Isn't that how phone plugs got their name?) Gene Hastings ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 0934-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Out-going only payphones Perhaps he meant the Charge-a-call telephones. These have numbers, but can not be called from the outside. Ring-back works fine, and TSPS can recall on the back loop, but calls to them can not be initiated from user phones. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 11:50:55-PST From: decvax!teklabs!tekmdp!azure!randals at Berkeley In-real-life: Randal L. Schwartz Subject: Does the phone REALLY provide the caller's number? Many, many years ago (about 10), I recall reading in the "What's New?" column of Popular Science about a company called "Tele-ident, Inc." or some other such nonsense. This company was claiming that it was marketing a device that could be attached to your phone, and, lo-and-behold! the phone number of the calling party to whom you were speaking would show up in big bright LED numbers! (Maybe they were Nixie or something else back then, but who cares.) Furthermore (and this part may be my memory failing me), it was claimed that you didn't even have to answer the phone-- the number would appear as soon as the ring came in. Now, for you people at TPC... does "The Big Mother" really provide the "callee" a signal that can be decoded containing the "caller's" phone number at the initiation of communication? If so, how come police have such a hard time tracing phone calls? If not, what could "Tele-ident" have been marketing? Also, if so, where could I get the spec on this signal that is sent? If it is private to members of the Big Mother, I will understand. Please reply here (assuming you see this here), or to me directly at decvax!teklabs!tekmdp!randals. Randal L. Schwartz Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon (ORE-ee-gun, not awww-re-GONE!) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 22-Jan-82 23:05:41-PST,13084;000000000001 Date: 22 Jan 1982 2305-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #12 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom:: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 23 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: The Terms Tip/Ring/Sleeve - Where They Came From Outgoing Only Pay Telephones Tele-Ident - Bogus Company Offering Bogus Services Canadian Telephone Rates - Not Higher Than US ENFIA Service - What SPRINT/MCI Pay Ma Bell ESS Routing Algorithms - Another Tidbit On *0 User Experience With Dial Out Modems Problems Using Modems On PBX's 5 Digit Area Codes In Manhattan National Numbering Plan and OCCs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 January 1982 0204-PST (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: several unrelated items Greetings. 1) The names Tip/Ring/Sleeve are definitely derived from the old switchboard plug terminology. 2) In some parts of the country (but apparently only in some) there are paystations that are clearly marked OUTGOING CALLS ONLY (usually a label on the handset). I've never tried calling one of these. I've never seen such a payphone on the west coast -- the last place where I saw such a restricted phone was Columbus, Ohio. 3) I remember that company with their "see the calling party's number" gimmick. They were attempting to sell equipment to telco that would enable such a process. The whole thing was largely bunk. No such service exists now, though once everyone's phone is TSPS'd or ESS'd (and the CCIS network is complete) it would certainly be possible, since CCIS can pass around info like that quite easily. On the other hand, I would NOT expect that information to be made available under any circumstances other than to police or similar agencies. The problem is that there are two privacy issues -- your privacy as a caller and your privacy as a person receiving a call. For example, how would you feel if every store you ever called for info captured your number in a computer and added you to a junk mail/phone list? Things could get out of hand very rapidly. Of course, such capability would make "instant" call tracing by the authorities completely practical, but this will presumably only move the nasty calls even more completely to payphones than they are now. --Lauren-- [Thanks also to Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz at CMU-10A> for commenting on the outgoing pay telephones, and John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> for comments on Tele-Ident, the company offering a device capable of displaying your caller's telephone number. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 0848-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Tip, Ring, and Sleeve Unequivocably -- the names come from phone plugs -- plugs of the same type as a stereo headphone plug. Take a look at one of them; either the normal, big ones for your home receiver, or one of the mini-stereo-jacks for your portable cassette machine. You will see the Tip, with its beveled shape in order to hold the plug in place. Next there is a bit of insulation, separating the Tip from the Ring. Now, one more piece of insulation, and the body of the plug comes along, known as the Sleeve. Also note that in two-party ringing systems there is a Tip party and a Ring party, so-called because ringing is applied between either Tip or Ring and Ground (not Sleeve). If properly wired, Tip is Green and Ring is Red. [Thanks also to Ron G Fowler <rgf@BRL> and "<ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!ber at BERKELEY> for describing the folklore of "tip".-JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 0909-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Canadian telephone rates Not all places in the U.S. have small calling areas. Local regulatory authorities and the telephone companies conspire together to decide what local areas will be like. The Washington, D.C. free calling area is roughly the size that was described for the Toronto calling area. Atlanta's calling area is MUCH larger, over 60 miles across. Call within Canada are not less expensive. I just called an operator in Ottawa and got the following rates: Ottawa to Vancouver 2200 miles $C 2.97 for 3 minutes Ottawa to Los Angeles 2500 miles $C 2.63 for 3 minutes Boston to Los Angeles 2600 miles $ 1.58 for 3 minutes Boston to Vancouver 2400 miles $ 2.65 for 3 minutes Santa Clara to Ottawa 2400 miles $ 2.21 for 3 minutes (Boston rates came from local operator, Santa Clara rates from Santa Clara operator.) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 0916-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: roode at SRI-KL Subject: Rates paid by MCI, Sprint, ITT, & other OCCs They don't get to pay the regular local rates; since they are neither business phones nor residence phones, there is a special kind of ser- vice for them called ENFIA, which was discussed in some recent digests. I believe the rate was about $127.00 per line, and that an increase to about three times that had been filed but not yet approved. Tripling rates is not uncommon. We have a video link between two buildings which cost $1700 when it was installed a little over a year ago. Last year the rate went up to $5100/month. Ouch. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 0919-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Another tidbit on *0 What makes you think translations are complicated. In reality, ESS has to translate everything in order to figure out where it goes anyway. Doing this before storing the number allows the advantage of saving space in the tables etc. As far as that goes, I am not sure the the number is completely translated before it is stored. It is too easily recoverable from memory, and full translation would have the effect of obscuring the original number quite a bit. In any case, lead-in codes such as 1+, 0+, 011+, 01+ etc are definitly not stored. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 at 1643-CST From: wedel at UTEXAS-11 Subject: Auto-dialing modems The Ven-Tel auto dialing modem recently went on State Contract here in Texas. To provide a guide to new users of these things, I developed a 4 page document describing my experience with one of them. That document is available on the UTexas-20 as <cc.wedel>dial.doc. UTexas-20 uses the anonymous login convention. The bottom line on the device is that it seems to work pretty well except when dialing through a PBX. I'd appreciate any comments or other experience report from subscribers to this list. [See below for a better explanation of the PBX problem. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 at 1651-CST From: wedel at UTEXAS-11 (Wally Wedel) Subject: Connecting through a PBX cc: wedel at UTEXAS-11 We have encountered a strange problem with data connections through some of the campus PBX systems here. If anyone has any ideas on what's going on here, I'd appreciate their thoughts. The problem is that between 20 and 25 seconds after establishing a data connection we get a burst of noise on the line which is often sufficient to cause disconnection. My first encounter with the problem was trying to connect into Telenet in Austin. The burst was sufficient to disconnect me nearly everytime. I first suspected that the problem was in their new Vadic triple modems. Since the Vadic automatic disconnect is timed at 24 seconds, it seemed reasonable to suspect that for some reason, the Vadic didn't know it had successfully connected and hung up the line. I eventually gave up using Telenet from my office because of this. Now we have the problem occurring severely on the Vadic triple modem nest which serves our IBM series 1. Two other Vadic triple systems often show the glitch as 1 to 5 garbage characters on our DEC-20s. Some of our GDC 113s also display the glitch as fewer characters. These glitches do not appear when the originating telephone is directly connected to our Centrex system or to Ma Bell. Consequently, I now believe that the PBX is the primary source of the glitch and that some Vadics are particularly sensitive to the noise. Does anyone have any idea why the PBX would be generating a signal in this time range? The PBX is connected into our Centrex system which then goes into Ma Bell. Might we have some intersystem signalling taking place here which is causing the problem? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 21:05:10-PST From: ihnss!houxt!govern at Berkeley Re: 5-digit area codes in Manhattan That would be contrary to standard North American Numbering Plan, and incur all kinds of wrath, not to mention misdials. NYC recently started using N0X and N1X central office codes ( N=2...9, X=0...9 ). Before this, all C.O. codes were NNX --> 640 possible. The telephone switch knew if you were dialing 7 or 10 digits because area codes are all N0X and N1X, while local calls were all NNX. Now you have to dial "1" for 10-digit. The extra codes give 792 possible codes (211,311,411 etc. don't count). When these run out, they may have to SPLIT the 212 area code --yecch! (They agree-- it's really nasty, especially when the rest of the world thinks of NYC as one city instead of 5 boroughs) (But any alternatives are at least as bad -- the new C.O. codes at least delayed the pain) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 22:16:09-PST From: ihnss!...!govern at Berkeley Re: Mayhem-Telc-Goldstein Subject: National Numbering Plan and OCCs The North American Numbering Plan is not necessarily, or even likely, disrupted by allowing MCI, et. al., equal access on a non-access-code basis. So far, MCI, SPRINT, and others have been using Ma Bell's area codes (as does the rest of the world, when calling us), and they will presumably do so in the future -- aside from the confusion of setting up their own, potential customers would probably stick to networks where they know what to dial. Before the flood, the proposed access codes were as follows: ( From the ENFIA B/C tariffs discussed at recent USITA meetings ) At first, 950-10xx , where the xx designates the carrier. Note that how this is routed depends on the 10xx as well as the 950, and the call goes to different OCC switches depending on where the caller is. Soon, from ESS switches, just 10XX -- followed by second dial tone (from OCC switch). This provides the OCC switch with Automatic Number Identification (ANI), so you don't have to dial your ID code. I think the 950-10xx did also, but I don't have the document within reach. Eventually, the second dial tone would be eliminated. The ENFIA B tariff would be for direct connections from a Bell ESS to an OCC switch. The ENFIA C refers to trunks, paid for by the OCCs, between the afore-mentioned switch and other TPC switches -- either with low OCC traffic ( for concentration ) or electromechanical switches (which are too dumb for this fancy stuff). Now that we're selling the BOCs, this will presumably change a bit. My guesses (based on the ruling ) are: 1) Things won't change much for a lot of people: The ruling specifically exempts Telco switches with <10,000 lines or non-electronic switches. Those people will probably keep dialing 10XX or 950-10XX to get non-standard carriers ( Although a Telco could decide to use non-ATT as it's first choice route). 2) AT&T will have to pay the same rates as the OCCs. 3) Telcos may decide what carrier to use based on where you're calling e.g. Calls to Boston use MCI, Washington use SPRINT, Podunk use AT&T. 4) Switch developers, both in Bell Labs, Northern Telecom, and elsewhere will write lots of software trying to implement the "subscriber can designate interexchange carrier" requirements. 5) Public Utility commissions will argue about what this means. 6) Lawyers will make lots of money in the above arguments, financed by taxes and phone rates. 7) For a while, we will have reasonably good access codes for OCCs, for those people who live in high-volume areas. Regards; Bill Stewart, btl-fj, ihnss!houxi!houxt!govern ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 23-Jan-82 21:51:38-PST,3582;000000000001 Date: 23 Jan 1982 2151-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #13 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom:: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-to: JSol at RAND-AI TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 24 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: While Tele-Ident Was Bogus - There Are Alternatives More About *0 - Another Great Debate? Local Access To MCI/SPRINT - Already Similar To AT&T In Some Places ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 01/22/82 09:46:29 From: KRAUSS@MIT-MC Subject: Calling Number Identification--Privacy That Tele-Ident product, that advertised the ability to display the identity of the calling number, was probably a fraud. Calling number identification is not typically available outside of the local central office, where it is needed for billing purposes; even then, it is not offered as a service to subscribers except as part of a 911 package. If want you want is privacy--the ability to decline to answer some calls--there is another alternative that is nearly on the market. A company called International Mobile Machines (that recently had a public stock offering) is getting ready to sell a telephone product called PriveCode that automatically screens incoming calls and only connects those callers that supply a three-digit access code that was previously given to them by the PriveCode owner. The PriveCode unit displays the access code, so if you give out unique access codes to your friends you will know which one is calling. It has the provision to connect an answering machine so that callers without an access code can leave a recorded message. According to the prospectus, the Privecode unit intercepts all incoming calls and a synthesized human voice asks the caller to type in his access code. There is also apparently some voice recognition capability for recognizing access codes spoken by callers who are clling from rotary dial phones. According to the prospectus, the equipment will be built by Timex and marketed by IMM. IMM's phone number is 215-667-1300. ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 1982 1322-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: *0 and extra trunks Your friend at Ohio bell really doesn't know what he's he's talking about. *0 doesn't require any special trunks. Customers in your CO who don't have 3-Way-Calling presumably flash operators in the normal manner when necessary. When you call an operator, you use the same trunks to TSPS that any other customer would. However, when you flash, you get a 3-port-conference bridge which is connected to the TSPS trunk while you are connected to a CDPR (Customer Dial Pulse Receiver). When you dial *0, the receiver is released, you are connected momentarily through the bridge, a short on-hook is sent to TSPS, then you are reconnected directly to the TSPS trunk, dropping the bridge. The SIMPLE translations to accomplish this were discussed in a previous digest. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 1982 16:56:58-PST From: ihnss!mhtsa!allegra!princeton!jel at Berkeley Subject: MCI... access There is a small no-Bell telephone company who offers access to MCI by dialing 6 (instead of 1) at the start of the number. They claimed that this was a simple feature to add. No details, though. John Little ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Jan-82 00:16:43-PST,7100;000000000001 Date: 26 Jan 1982 0016-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #14 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom:: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-to: JSol at RAND-AI TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 26 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: Call Forwarding Not Additive *0 Vs 110 - Sometimes They Aren't The Same PBX Blasting Modem Connections Outgoing Only Pay Telephones The "No-Bell" Prize - Continental Telephone Co. Dial Pulse Vs. DTMF Dialing Dial 1 For AT&T - Dial 6 For MCI *0 Problems In Columbus, Oh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sdcsvax!sdchema!bam at NPRDC An interesting semi-feature of my local ESS, is the way to bypass call forwarding if the phone that is forwarding is in the same center you're calling from. I have my computer answer one line and I have that line forwarding to the regular house line. Normally, some- one calling the computer line would be forwarded to the second line. However, if I'm calling from a phone who's prefix is physically located in the same ESS as my home number, then if I use call forwarding to call my computer (instead of dialing directly), I find that my call forward- ing has been bypassed. A bug or a feature?! It's been very useful.... Bret Marquis sdcsvax!sdchema!bam@NPRDC [That has already been discussed on this digest, refer to the archive now located on USC-ECLB in <JSOL.TELECOM>. Call Forwarding is not additive (i.e. it's not a bug, its a feature, to prevent forwarding loops), unless you are outside the ESS central office. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 05:37:23-PST From: cbosg!dale at Berkeley Subject: *0 clarification I do not intend to start a "great debate". Perhaps I misquoted my Ohio Bell friend. I DO know, however, that from a number of different ESS machines in Columbus, Oh., attempting to use *0 causes a return to the original call if the original call was NOT a TSPS call, and causes the original call to be dropped if the call WAS a TSPS call. When an if the problem is ever fixed, I will attempt to find out just what is wrong and report it here. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 0930-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Re: PBX blasting modem connections What type of PBX system is it? it sounds to me as if there is some problem with the carrier tome beating against the TDM sampling interval. If this is the case, the only solution I can think of would be to use outside lines instead of calling via the PBX system. I need to know more before I can really believe that this is the problem, though. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 25 January 1982 09:28 est From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-Multics Subject: Re: pay phones Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston) Outgoing only pay phones might be justified by disallowing some imagined misuse of the telephone. If you call it back from your unlimited service home phone, for example, your are "cheating" the phone company by not putting little pieces of imitation silver into the coin box. On the other hand, to have my wife get disconnected after spending her last dime (of course, having a $100 bill isn't very useful at an antique coin-required pay phone) and finding that I cannot return the call is not very pleasent. In fact, the pay phone should be viewed more as a public service than a high return revenue source. In fact, it supposedly is as a justification for the fact that a dime is still enough for the first three minutes. So why do the PUC's allow outgoing only phones? I could, of course, think of other silly reasons like perverting the whole phone system to disallow bookies from using pay phones to collect bets, but that is also a silly reason. Is there a rational and justifiable reason for such restrictions on phones? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 0941-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: No-Bell prize I think the No-Bell prize this year should be awarded to Continental Telephone Co. It is the only local operating company I know of which has been able to keep Automatic Electric Director Step working reliably all these years. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 25-Jan-82 14:38:49 PST (Monday) From: Kluger at PARC-MAXC Subject: Pulse dialing vs DTMF dialing Reply-To: Kluger at PARC-MAXC I am interested in learning the fraction of telephone lines (local loops) in the USA that accept pulse dialing alone vs dtmf and pulse dialing. Also, is it true that all local loops that accept dtmf also accept dial pulsing? Any information or comments would be appreciated. Thank you for your help, Larry Kluger ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 16:16:22-PST From: ihnss!houxt!govern at Berkeley Re: Dial-6 for MCI Access John Little reports of a non-Bell Telco offerring dial-1 for ATT and dial-6 for MCI, and says they say it's simple. Well.. yes and no: My guess is they have a small step-by-step operation (i.e. dumb electro-mechanical switches), which requires customers to dial 1 for ALL toll calls - including 7-digit calls, and their local calling area doesn't include any telephone exchanges starting with 6xx. Therefore, they can assign the "6" code to an ENFIA trunk for MCI, and maybe (if they want to get fancy) provide Automatic Number Identification. Many rural independent telcos use similar mechanisms for 5-digit dialing on local calls (Universities too, although you have to dial "9" to get off Centrex). However, this simple Dial-6 access arrangement can't last too long. Either they'll need the 6 code for local telephone calls, or they'll get modern equipment that can handle a 7-digit toll call, and they'll convert to whatever standards the rest of the public network uses (confusing their customers a bit). In the mean time, enjoy!! I'd have to dial 17 digits to get MCI service. John (or anyone) -- do you know which telephone company is offering this? It would be interesting to see their tariffs, and how much MCI is paying them for nice treatment. Regards; Bill Stewart, btl-fj, ihnss!houxt!govern ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 07:33:14-PST From: cbosg!dale at Berkeley Subject: *0 problems in Columbus, Oh. *0 is now working in most places. The problem was two fold. First, from my home ESS office there were some faulty ESS-TSPS trunks which disconnected instead of flashing the TSPS. Second Ohio Bell found that in a number of different offices * was not being translated to 11, and hence 110 would have worked where *0 did not. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Jan-82 22:49:10-PST,8178;000000000001 Date: 26 Jan 1982 2249-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #15 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-to: JSol at RAND-AI TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 27 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Dial 1 For AT&T - Dial 6 For MCI Call Forwarding Feature - Not Loop Prevention More Problems With *0 (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRAUSS@MIT-MC Date: 01/26/82 08:59:15 Subject: MCI Agreement with Northwest Iowa Telco. MCI filed its agreement with Northwest Iowa Telco at the FCC on June 25. Northwest is giving MCI fully equivalent access: trunk side, answer supervision, conversion of dial pulses or DTMF to MF, ANI for billing purposes, and billing services. This is limited to Northwest's customers in Sergeant Bluff, Sloan and Salix, Iowa. MCI customers in Sioux City, a Bell service area, will access the MCI network via EAS trunks from the Northwest switch; Bell is currently disputing this matter. For this service, MCI will do the following for Northwest: -assume all legal costs to defend the agreement against opposition from Bell, both at the FCC and before Iowa state agencies -pay Northwest at business line rates rather than ENFIA rates -pay $3000 per month for space, power, etc. in the Northwest central office to accomodate MCI's microwave and multiplex -pay 12.5% of all gross revenues from calls originated in the Sioux City metropolitan area -pay up to $25,000 for any remaining undepreciated capital investment made by Northwest, if any remains at the termination of the agreement. ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1982 0846-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Call Forwarding The problem discussed has nothing to do with forwarding loops. These are prevented also, bit the feature allowing bypass of the forwarding in progress is to allow the caller to communicate with the destination before setting up call-forwarding there. I have heard that after the CCISnet is complete, this feature will cross C/O boundries, but I'll believe it when I see it. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1982 0859-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: *0 clarification That sounds like a bug in TSPS; not ESS. On all the 1 & 1A ESS machines running current software, *0 from the primary dial-tone will usually cause re-order, and from the secondary dial-tone will re-connect to primary party and release the 3-port circuit. On a TSPS call, TSPS has your line trapped, but can sense reversals. This is the signalling used on local TSPS trunks. ESS handles TSPS trunks specially. When a call is placed to TSPS, the calling number is sent as well as any information about the number called. As soon as TSPS gets the call it puts the line on CPH (Calling Party Hold), trapping the calling line. Initially, A Release-on-request flag is set so that the caller may change his mind and not be stuck listening to a ring until an operator answered and released. Once the operator does answer, however, the flag is cleared and manual release by the operator is required. Where in this system could special trunks make the difference between normal operator flashing working and *0 not? Perhaps you should ask what he meant in more detail. There may be something to whatever he said. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 2136-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: Repair Service Wedgedness [*long* one] Someone was talking recently about how repair assumes that the station itself is bad when confronted with any problem. I recently went through this... I am **still** having that problem dialing 0 and 0+ calls, the one where after the dialing it will sit there and then click and munge its way back to a dialtone. When I recorded this performance through a direct-connected tape recorder, I learned that the call *did* reach a TSPS position, the operator was barely able to do a ''may I--'' before the call was ripped out. So I decided to flame at repair again... this time they sent out some guy to the house to look at the phone. I had already told repair that I had *no* problems dialing any other numbers with 0's in them, and the call *did* reach the TSPS office for an instant, etc, etc... Of course they don't know what an ''office problem'' or a ''bug'' is. So I quick yanked out my ''hack set'' and put in the original rotary piece of junk that was supposed to be there, and the guy came in and tried it out, got the operator without too much difficulty, and then failed. He then replaced the dial because he thought the old one was a bit too slow. Then *just* *somehow* he had no trouble reaching the operator. We agreed that the problem had nothing to do with dial speed, however espscially since I told him that I had no trouble with any other calls involving 0's. He then left, and soon afterward the problem reappeared. After going round and round with repair, and talking to some foreman that purported to be an ESS wizard, I came to the conclusion that it was useless to pursue it any further, and punted for the moment. The foreman's manner struck me as being very guarded about giving information [natch!] but he treated me like I was some kind of real luser, which I didn't like too much. I got the impression that this guy had been in the business too long for his own good. Well, all this coupled with the preceding time, when I talked to some repairman who was physically on my pair fixing it and said he was in **Morristown** got me to thinking. When I talked to that guy the previous time, the story was that there was a cable breakage in Morristown that affected about 10 lines. However, being connected to the 766 [Bernardsville] exchange, my pair should take a more or less direct route to the Bernardsville CO, which is in the *other* *direction* from Morristown! So I began to think about it, and came up with one idea that just might hold water [anybody correct me if I'm wrong on this]: My pair goes to Morristown first, before it goes to me. Another piece of evidence is that I can get about 30 mA and no more out of that line in a direct short, where in other ESSen the Imax can get as high as 50 mA. This would seem to indicate the presence of a *very* *long* hunk of wire in between me and the CO. *Why* does my pair go through Morristown first?? Well, back when I got that line, I used to shut off the ringers electrically. This dropped trouble cards in the CO, and they tried to come out and fix some ''open-line'' problem. The second time they showed up, I told them that it was normal, working just OK, and would they please ignore any further trouble reports that they got on that line, if I needed them I would call. My feeling is that I immediately got branded as a ''hacker'' [In TPC's sense of the word, the bad side of ''hacking''] and they should watch types like me. Another thing I noticed about the 0/0+ problem is that if I go on-hook for an instant at the right moment when the line is trying to reset to dialtone, the line goes completely ''dead'' [No voltage] *but* is tied to the TSPS position. I set up an audio amp that would feed into the line, and could talk to the operator but not hear her [this I verified by telling whatever was out there to call me back, and as soon as the call waiting clicked in, I had line voltage on *both* sides, and a perfect conection to the operator. I am rather confused by all this... it could be malicious or it could be a real problem that they don't know how to fix. I wish I could reach somebody in that damn outfit that could tell me a little more about what was happening. Sorry to bore some of you with all this, but I felt that maybe somebody has some answers. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 27-Jan-82 20:16:01-PST,7648;000000000001 Date: 27 Jan 1982 2016-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #16 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: Telecom: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-to: JSol at RAND-AI TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 28 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Product Query - Phone Sensor Outgoing Only Pay Telephones Query Reply - PBX Disturbing Data Connections Call Forwarding Through Multiple Levels Allowed *0 - TSPS Problems - More Detailed View AT&T Breakup - Multiple Longlines Companies How To Avoid Call Waiting For Data Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jan 1982 0022-PST From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich) Subject: Phone Censor Anybody know how this device works? "At last! A device that "electronically screens" calls. When you push the "start" button on the Phone Censor, it will block all calls (callers hear ringing as if no one is home)-\unless/ the caller uses a special dialing procedure (password) which you convey to friends, family and associates whose calls you don't want to miss. Avoid annoying interruptions from unwanted calls \without/ missing important calls. Phone Censor also replaces your phone's harsh ring with a pleasant chime. And can be set to chime only once on each call so you aren't bothered by continual ringing. What's more, you can block \all/ calls and the automatic "turn back on" feature will remember to turn your phone back on after 1,2, or 8 hours, as you select. Installs in seconds. Comes with 2 AA batteries and complete instructions." This item sells for $70, and sounds interesting, but not indispensable. But how does it manage to give a busy and still detect the special passwords? Does it cheat and actually "pick up the phone" and give a spurious busy signal of it's own? This would be nasty if the caller were phoning long distance! -Rich Zellich ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1982 1905-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Outgoing only Pay phones I have almost never seen these except in places where I suspect that the establishment in which the pay-phone is placed wanted it that way. For example, in high schools and universities. Note also that not all pay phones are PUBLIC phones. Anyone can order a pay-phone -- this is called Semi Public service. Usually the person ordering has to guarantee a certain minimum revenue. This type of phone can be ordered with any restrictions that the subscriber wishes. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1982 1910-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: PBX disturbing data connections We have had that problem with one of our PBXs -- the problem turned out to be due to the disruption on the line when the dial pulse repeater times out and goes away a few seconds after it notices that no more dialing is going on. Modern, digital PBXs can't pass the user's dial-pulses directly through from the input to the output; additional circuitry has to be connected to do that job. If the system supports Touch-Tone, the repeaters can be made to go away with the "#" key in many systems (but, of course, not all). ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1982 1912-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Call forwarding through multiple levels In No. 1 ESS, call forwarding is, indeed, additive. It is not additive when dialing to set it up or if a loop has been created. But No. 1 ESS does (now) support several levels of indirection. I use it every day. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1982 1902-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: *0 Only in No. 2 ESS is it possible for there to be a difference between "11" and "*". Who knows about No. 3 and No. 5. One other thing *0 users should be aware of: There are certain types of TSPS calls which don't allow recall of operator after the operator has pressed release -- this is regardless of whether you are trying to recall with a normal switchhook flash or *0 -- TSPS doesn't know which kind of flash happened. These call types are: 1. Any unanswered call 2. Any 800 call 3. Any "assistance in dialing" call (i.e. the operator gave you the DDD rate -- this includes calls you can't dial yourself, like overseas from an exchange with no over- seas dialing). 4. Any Special Collect (WX, Enterprise, Zenith) call The unanswered call will disconnect when TSPS gets the flash; all other types will ignore the flash and not disturb the connection. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 27 January 1982 08:43-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: multiple longlines companies This concerns the AT&T decision: AT&T's longlines division, among others, will now be completely separate from many of the local operating companies. Or will they? If I now want to place a long distance call through AT&T, arrangements are already made and all I have to do is dial ten digits. If I want to use a competitor to place the same call, I have to arrange for the competitor's service as a separate act from arranging for my local phone service; because the connection between my local phones and the long distance service is less direct I have to dial (in the case of the service I actually use) 24 digits divided among three groups; and the billing is separate. To what extent will this disparity be corrected. Will I be able to file a declaration with the local phone company and arrange to automatically be connected with the longlines company of my choice? Possibly I will be able to dial 1+a single digit+10 digit number and my call will be place using the longlines company of my choice? In any event, if the relationship between the local companies and AT&T is to be properly arms-length, the customer should be making a cognative decision which company he wants to use, either "once and for all" or each time (s)he makes a call. ------------------------------ Date: January 22, 1982 From: Doug Blair Reply-to: "Doug Blair c/o Keith Petersen" <w8sdz@brl> Re: Solving Call Waiting problems The "Call Waiting" feature available on some home telephone lines may cause you to be disconnected if a second call arrives and beeps while you are on-line with another computer system. I have learned that you may avoid this (--IF-- you also have "Three-Way Calling") with the following procedure: 1) Place a call to a number you know is busy or unattended or to your own number. Place this call on hold. 2) Then place a call to your host computer on your remaining line. Any incoming calls will be diverted to the busy signal and will not 'BEEP' you off hook. People at Telco repair board say that with new ESS central offices dialing your own number will not "time out". I have been using this technique to call CBBS and similar systems for some time and it works! Doug Blair (313)-591-1483 (probably busy!!) [This technique has been previously discussed. I personally feel that Ma Bell should allow you to turn off any of the custom calling features at will. Having Speed Calling W/O 3-Way is fantastic for trying to be the n-th caller for a radio station contest. --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Jan-82 00:08:36-PST,9857;000000000001 Date: 29 Jan 1982 0008-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #17 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 29 Jan 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: The Phone Censor (3 msgs) Query - Special Collect Calls Solving Call Waiting Problems (3 msgs) Query Reply - Special Collect, 800 Service, and Remote Call Forwarding New Product Query - The Phone Controller by DICTOGRAPH Dialing One's Own Number On ESS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jan 1982 2048-PST From: Barry Megdal <BARRY at CIT-20> Subject: phone censor To: zellich at OFFICE-3 I talked to the "Phone Censor" people at the Las Vegas CES. The special password required to get the phone to ring is in fact not a password at all. Rather if you want to get through, you call the number, let it ring twice, and then call back within a fixed time window (less than one minute). They claimed this system was better than a more complex scheme where the caller is required to press a certain sequence of touch tones. Its certainly easier for them, but I'm not convinced its better. As far as I know, the Censor never causes a busy, but rather, as you said, when it is "censoring" the caller simply hears ringing as if no one was home. Barry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1982 2137-PST From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich) Subject: Re: phone censor To: BARRY at CIT-20, zellich at OFFICE-3 From past experience I'd say it won't work worth a damn, either. My family used to use a similar code to keep my father from being bothered by customers on Sundays, etc., and we found that you could seldom count on the "rings" the caller heard matching up with the actual rings the callee heard (for reasons discussed in TELECOM not too long ago). -Rich ------------------------------ Date: 27 January 1982 2307-PST (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: call scanner The ONLY way that device can work is to actually answer the phone (thusly charging the caller) and then generating its own simulated ringback tone for the caller to hear. At that point, presumably, the caller can enter his/her code sequence to signal the callee. I suspect such an arrangement might be very upsetting to long-distance callers, or to callers in an emergency situation. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 28 January 1982 00:52-EST (Thursday) From: FEINBERG at CMU-20C To: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Special Collect Calls Howdy! Please excuse my ignorance, but how do Special Collect calls work? I have seen Enterprise numbers in the phone book and often wondered what was going on. Are these services being obsoleted by 800 numbers? --Chiron ------------------------------ Date: 27 January 1982 2251-PST (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Solving "Call Waiting" problems To: w8sdz at brl One problem with this solution is that in many areas, calls that remain unsupervised (that is, unanswered) for long periods of time may be flagged as potential trouble or fraud attempts. It is very unusual for an outgoing call to sit listening to a busy signal for longer than a relatively few seconds, or listening to a recording/operator for more than a few minutes. At the very least, drawing attention to yourself could result in repair persons poking around your line trying to "fix" things, which will probably be ALOT more hassle than the call waiting beeps. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1982 2304-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Doug Blair (Solving Call Waiting problems) One problem with the 3-way solution is that it consumes ESS resources unnecessarily. Tying up a 3-port while not using it may have the effect of getting the telco to add additional conf circuits to the machine, or just preventing some other user from getting one when the 3-way traffic gets heavy. Call forwarding seems to be the easiest solution, in that it doesn't consume a 3-port, and it need-not busy out the line if there is either another line in the house or some recording to which to forward. When I don't want to be called for an extended period, when I leave town, when I have been getting pranked, etc., I often forward my line to an AIS disconnect of my number in some other area-code. This is convincing enough to the casual prank-caller to stop the calls, and it conveys the appropriate message to any friends who might be calling and know that I do this. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 82 7:16:02-EST (Thu) From: Larry Layten <llayten@Darcom-HQ> To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@ucla-security> Subject: Re: Solving "Call Waiting" problems The best way I have found to beat the call waiting problem is to also have call forwarding, and forward your calls to another number. Any incoming calls then will get a busy signal if you are actually using your phone. Larry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 1982 0822-EST From: RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO To: FEINBERG at CMU-20C Subject: Special Collect, 800 Service, and Remote Call Forwarding Special Collect (Enterprise, WX, Zenith) calls work as follows. You, the special collect customer, order a special, non-dialable number and declare which exchanges are allowed to call this number. You specify a real telephone number to be used for calls to this number. Calls to this number are always operator-placed. A caller reaches the operator and ask for the number. The operator checks the multi-leaf for commonly called numbers or calls the rate&route desk. Verification is obtained that the number is valid from the calling exchange, and the real telephone number is obtained, dialed by the operator, and the "Special Collect" key is depressed. Calls are billed to the real telephone number. For VERY low volume traffic, this service is much cheaper than WATS. It, however, is a different kind of service than WATS, since it can be selectively available to different exchanges. The real replacement for this service is called "Remote Call Forwarding," which is a service where you order a real telephone number in a partic- ular exchange, call forwarded to another real telephone number at your actual location. No physical equipment is provided. With Remote Call Forwarding, you get billed the DDD rate for the calls, rather than the operator assisted Collect rate. But RCF is not an exact replacement either, since you need an RCF number in each calling area from which you wish to receive calls (Special Collect numbers can serve many calling areas). Also, if you have to pay a monthly rate which increases based on the NUMBER of SIMULTANEOUSLY forwarded calls allowed. Also no additional equipment for this -- I would think that they would allow as many as you request, assuming you have enough capacity to receive that many calls at the final destination -- but no, they aren't happy to get just the revenue from the two phone calls. A real neat use of RCF is to "back-up" FX lines. Say your traffic study says you have a bit too much traffic for your 3 incoming FX lines. But you don't have enough to justify another FX. Just have your FXs hunt up to an RCF number, which is then forwarded to a regular number in your city. Bingo. Less call blockage. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 1982 1224-CST From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive at UTEXAS-20> Subject: The Phone Controller by DICTOGRAPH Does anybody have any comments, good or bad, about this unit? A magazine ad lists the following features: The Phone Controller by DICTOGRAPH Automatic redialing for busy numbers Stores 30 numbers for one-touch dialing Built in speaker Quarts clock for timing calls Large digital LED display Hold feature & tone dialing Stores over 16 digits for Sprint, MCI, etc. Emergency dialing at one touch Cost: $99. This seems to have a reasonable collection of features, and I'm considering the purchase. I'm not sure what the "hold" feature is supposed to do, except just simulate your putting a hand over the mouth piece? It also mentions "an ingenious lock system to prevent unauthorized outgoing long distance calls". Does anybody know how this works? Finally, it's supposed to have a three position pulse switch to allow connection to any phone system in the world. I assume that two of those positions control the sending of tones or clicks, but don't know that the third option might be... Any warnings, endorsements, or other info would be appreciated. Thanks, --Clive ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 82 21:30:04-EDT (Thu) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel> Subject: calling myself I have two lines, one with speed-calling, and the other with call-waiting. I can not call either phone from itself. I get a recording which states that my call "did not go through as dialed" and advising me to "try again." I can understand not being able to call oneself from a phone with call-waiting, but why can't I dial the other phone from itself? (Before the local exchange got ESS and offered the custom calling features, I only had one phone, and I could call itself and get a busy signal.) Also, is there a file somewhere with the aconyms used here? (ie ENFIA, TSPS, etc). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 2-Feb-82 00:38:17-PST,6105;000000000001 Date: 2 Feb 1982 0038-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #18 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 2 Feb 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Strange Telephone Configurations Query - Devices To Mask First Ring DICTOGRAPH Phone Controller Service Failure - Call Waiting Interference Call Scanners - PriveCode Problem Dialing 0 Solved ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jan 1982 0919-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: 3-position pulse selection switch Some other countries have different pulse formats, for example, in Sweden, I believe that the '0' generates 1 pulse,1 generates 2, 2 -> 3 etc. There is another country (I may have these mixed up) which reverses the dial pulses entirely (i.e. 0 generates 0 generates 1 pulse, 1 generates 10 pulses, etc. <>IHM<> [Ps: This was discussed some time ago either in this digest or in HUMAN-NETS, before this one was formed -IHM] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1982 1427-PST From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW @ SRI-KL> Subject: Delaying telephone ringing... Is there a device on the market that will filter out the first ring of a telephone ? Eg, if the phone rings once, my computer could answer it, and id never hear the ring. If the phone rings twice (presumably because the computer is off), the phone actually starts making noise so that I can answer manually. Thanks Bill W ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1982 21:49:41-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: DICTOGRAPH phone controller Cc: CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20 One possible use for the third position on the dialing option switch is to select 10 vs. 20 pulses per second. Older exchanges can only handle 10; newer ones often accept 20. (unc!chip points out that on many keyboard-driven pulse dialers, such as the Radio Shack phones, changing to 20 pps is just a matter of changing a crystal. I'm not sure if that's prohibited under the FCC registration program, though.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 January 1982 02:45-EST From: Devon S. McCullough <DEVON at MIT-MC> Subject: Solving "Call Waiting" problems I would classify the "Call Waiting" bug as a "Service Failure" and the fact that if I pay for call waiting or call forwarding I can circumvent the problem is not good enough. I vaguely recall that if a "Service Failure" lasts more than a couple of days after you report it, you can't be billed for local service for the entire month in which the failure occurred. Also, sometimes I'd rather get bumped off the modem to take a voice call, sometimes not. I even have code in my terminal to sound an alarm when there is line noise, so if it's unattended when I get a call I'll notice it if I'm nearby. ------------------------------ Date: 01/31/82 12:34:08 From: JAC@MIT-MC Subject: Call "scanners" I can see some potential for the "PriveCode", previous mentioned in the TELECOM digests, in the area of computer security. A common problem for small-company computer owners is that phone hackers have their micro computer call every number on a prefix until it senses a "carrier". Then it records that number and continues. If a device is on the line that pickes up the phone and requests an authorization code before connecting, then the micro will never even know that a computer was there. Also, of course, if you do get the number to a computer, and maybe even a password, that information would be of no value without the authorzation code. It has interesting prospects. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 1982 2308-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: Dial 0 problem fixed! I owe my thanks to John Covert's friend in Denver for making me realize this: The two aforementioned people called me recently. We talked for a while and I described the problem I was having, that of dialing 0 or 0+ calls and getting a dialtone back. We all sat and thought about it for a while, and then in a burst of inspiration the party in Denver asked me if I had any sort of diode in series with the phone. Then I had my flash of inspiration, and it all came clear. I said yes, and that I suddenly realized what was going on. When I dialed into the TSPS office, the *polarity* of my line was reversed. I had a ''protective'' diode in my hack phone, so that if the phone was connected to a line so that the dial wouldn't work, then the whole phone wouldn't work until you reversed the wires. So when the polarity flipped as I arrived at the TSPS board, I effectively hung up on the operator, and didn't hear a thing, but my non-polarity-sensitive stereo interface heard the whole thing, the call reaching an operator and then hanging up. In the same flash I remembered that when I used to work TSPS, some people would call in and complain that they thought that their touchtone dials would not work right, and I [Being a hacker] rather than referring them immediately to repair service, would ask them to punch a couple of numnbers into my ear so I could see if perhaps they had a gronked row or column on the dial. In many cases from ESS offices all I got was the little blips that indicate the dial in reverse polarity. I had forgotten all about that. So apparently on my phone this reversal happens about 80-90 percent of the time. Sometimes I do not get the flip. This will of course be fixed when I build my new phone, one feature of which will be that it is not polarity sensitive, but it will have a polarity switch and indicators to tell me what direction it is at any given time. Let us drink a toast to wedgedness...... _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 11-Feb-82 18:55:00-PST,6296;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 11-Feb-82 1852-PST Date: 11 Feb 1982 1653-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@USC-ECLC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #19 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLC To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Via: Usc-Eclc; 11 Feb 82 20:03-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 11 Feb 82 20:13-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 12 Feb 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Haitus Changing The Dial Pulse Rate On Your Phone Polarity Reversal While Connecting to TSPS Outgoing Only Pay Telephones VADIC Triple Modem Query Phone Internals - Wizard Sought To Repair Phone Glossary Of "Phoney" Terms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Feb 1982 15:59-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLC> Subject: Administrivia This is the first digest in about 2 weeks. There was just not enough material to distribute a digest since the last one (which was distributed on February 2). --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1982 1131-EST (Tuesday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz at CMU-10A> Subject: Dial pulse rate At least one Radio Shack phone (the ET-300) uses the Mostek MK5099 dialer chip. In this case, a jumper from pin 10 to pin 1 of the chip is sufficient to get 20 pulses per second. In other phones which use the same chip a trace cut might also be needed. I suppose a switch could even be installed. In theory, there is a jack on the Radio Shack card for such a jumper, but in some models it is hard to get to. Certainly no new crystal is needed! I too do not know what affect any such change would have on FCC regs. [Most likely, FCC regs would be invalidated if the unit was not repaired at an "authorized service center". Apparently (from the blurb I got with my Stromberg Carlson 2500 set) the Manufacturer decides who is authorized and who is not. --JSol] The chip also allows choosing a dial-pulse make/break ratio of either 39/61 or 33/67. I repeat my earlier query: does anyone know when each is appropriate? What do the appropriate standards say on the subject? Rick ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 1982 1120-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Dial 0 problem In your new phone, I suggest you use one of those neat two-color diodes for reversal detection (step line???? [Reversal??]), and a full-wave bridge between that and the actual hybrid network. In this way, your tones will ALWAYS work, without the benefit of a switch, and you will always know the polarity of the line. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1982 17:12 est From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-Multics Subject: Re: Outgoing only Pay phones They are quite common on the streets in the Boston area. Offhand I can think of one in Somerville, MA at about 1200 Broadway in front of a laundramat. I remember this one because of the frustration of trying to call it. There are many others. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 1982 2347-EST From: Nat Howard <nrh at ESQUIRE> Reply-to: chico!esquire!nrh@UCB-C70 Subject: Vadic triple modems I want to use autodialers with my new (micom) port selector. I'm interested in any recommendations about Vadic, UDS, and other autodialer setups. I'm particularly interested in autodialer systems which are controlled by RS232 instead of, or in front of, RS366 signals. I've already done this once, with the combination of a Gandalf PACX II and UDS autodialer, but now I need 1200 baud, want 3400 compatibility, and intend to use a micom. So much for experience. Please reply to: chico!esquire!nrh and bear in mind that I can't ack replies sent from the ARPANET. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 1982 1513-PST From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW @ SRI-KL> Subject: Phone internals... I have acquired (legally even) an extra telephone for free. It had a funny box for a headset or something on it which I didnt want, so I took off the cover and, noticing that all the little connections were between color coded wires and labeled connectors,, ripped out the headset wires, figuring I could put the thing back together by comparing it with my own working bell phone... HA ! Well, it isnt that bad, and Im hoping someone out there can help me put the pieces back together. Here are my specific problems: My residential phone has a box whereas the new phone has a PC board. Most of the labels are the same though, except for the fact that the new phone has connectors labeled E1 and E2, and the old one has connectors labeled S and T. I assume they corrospond, but which is which? Also, the new phone has a connector on the back of the touch-tone pad that the old phone doesnt have (just one - this is in addition to the (apparently normal) group of wires that come out of the bcak). Anybody know what this should be connected to? Thanks BillW [The "legality" of your phone was probably nullified by your tampering, so don't expect sympathy from the FCC or the phone company. I suspect you need a wizard to fix your phone. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 7 February 1982 15:16-EST From: Joseph D. Turner <CUTTER at MIT-AI> Subject: Terms Shade and Sweet Water, Leafing through the back issues of TELECOM, I noticed a query that had gone unanswered (I believe). The question was hether or not there was a file describing the terms used here on the digest. If anyone is having problems, pick up a copy of "BASIC TELEPHONE SWITCHING SYSTEMS, 2nd edition", by David Talley, along with "BASIC CARRIER TELEPHONY" and "BASIC ELECTRONIC SWITCHING FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEMS", both by David Talley, avaiible from the Hayden Book Co. These three books should give you the "proper" background to understand clearly the terms here. There should be some sort of "glossary" around the net somewhere. (Not that there *is*, just that there *should be*.) ---Cutter--- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 17-Feb-82 03:25:42-PST,7119;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 17-Feb-82 0322-PST Date: 17 Feb 1982 0158-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@USC-ECLC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #20 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLC To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Via: Usc-Eclc; 17 Feb 82 5:00-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 17 Feb 82 5:12-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 17 Feb 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: New Inexpensive Auto Dialing Capability Wizard Requested - Don't Give Up Hope Modem Query - Self-Dialing Or Programmable Modems Query - TPC And "Extra Extensions" Busy Buttons - Speed Calling Alternative ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Feb 1982 1541-MST From: Randy Frank <FRANK at UTAH-20> Subject: new inexpensive auto dialing capability We just got a (preliminary) announcement about an autocalling option for the Vadic 3450 series originate only (triple) modems. Evidently all 3450s being shipped from the factory as of this date can be upgraded by adding a rom; units already in the field will have to be returned to the factory for a retro-fit. My understanding is that the added charge is $75 if ordered as an option on new 3450s, and a $100 charge to return existing modems for the upgrade. According to the preliminary data sheet, this option adds the following features: Up to 60 digits can be stored internal to the modem, split across up to 10 different numbers; each internal number can then be dialed using a short "escape" sequence. The internal numbers are loaded by the DTE (terminal) over the normal EIA serial port. The internal numbers stored can be displayed on the DTE under command. Alternately, a telephone number can be sent down for immediate dialing. Autobaud of the terminal is available, overriding the HS (high speed) switch on the modem (300 or 1200 bps only) A "pause" escape character can be inserted in the number, allowing for multiple dial-tone systems (centrex, non-Bell carriers, etc.) A re-dial last number feature is available. With this option, a 3450 can be placed on a phone circuit without any other phone instrument. The 3450 loads the line to initiate dialing, and then switches to data mode on carrier, or alternately times-out. Main losses (my opinion) Dialing is pulse only, 10 pulses/sec, so long numbers may be slow. Dial tone signaling does not appear to be available as an option. Internal number storage is in volatile memory, with no battery backup or alternate available. The document I have is somewhat ambiguous on how you get into "talk to modem" mode. I would assume that if carrier detect is off, then ascii data is interpreted by modem, otherwise it goes over data line. The modem responds with ascii string "failed call" or "on line" after dialing attempt, so one could supposedly use this as an ACU system on a host, although clearly this system id designed for terminal based auto calling. There are other ascii responses from the modem for other situations, so a host based autocaller would have to be somewhat intelligent in order to recover from errors. The final spec sheet is supposed to be available shortly. We've been told that first shipments (as well as first retrofit) is scheduled for late March. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 1982 2132-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #19 cc: BillW at SRI-KL Motto: None Don't give up all hope yet; there may be some books in the local public library which would have information on the subject. If not, an electronics store might have some information. I DO know, though, that your problem isn't unique. When we were buying phone equipment at a store called "The Phone Company" (NOT Ma Bell -- THIS store is in the Town and Country Plaza in Palo Alto), the older versions of the touch-tone phone were on sale for about $20. less than the newer one. Perhaps someone there might be able to help you. If not, and you can't get your phone fixed, I'm sure they'd be happy to sell you a phone... --Lynn ------- Date: 13 February 1982 07:29-EST From: Peter J. Castagna <PC at MIT-MC> Subject: Self-dialing or programmable modems I would like to get together a list of modems that do their own dialing, and to find out whether these modems work by dialing-pulse generation, by dtmf, or by both. I have trouble deciding whether self-dialing is a useful feature (except in that it makes a phone unnecessary) especially in the case of someone who would normally use the phone at other times for talking. I personally would much rather have a programmable phone... Yours, PC ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 82 17:03:11-EDT (Sun) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel-Relay> Subject: query: "bell check" I've heard that TPC can find out how many phones you have connected by calling you and measuring the impedence that the bells draw, or some such...any truth to this? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 82 8:20:11-EST (Tue) From: John W Kinch (REB/VLD) <kinch@brl> Subject: "BUSY BUTTONS" I recently received a brochure from JS&A Group, Inc in Northbrook, IL describing something they call "Busy Buttons". While it is quite expensive, it seems to offer quite a few features that would be helpful to those of us who cannot get Custom Calling Features from the phone company. The flyer says it will store up to either 176 or 93 numbers of 32 digits each (depending on the model) for speed calling and will support a version of camp-on for BUSY and DA. If a number is busy, you press * and this equipment will redial the number 10 times the first minute and then once every two minutes thereafter until it reaches your party. If there is no answer, it will redial the number every 10 minutes for up to 10 hours. The brochure says you may receive calls during the time camp-on is in effect. It does not say you can place more calls or that you can camp-on more than one number at a time. It also does not state how camp-on is canceled if one wishes to do that. The big advantage this equipment seems to have over most dialers is that only one is needed to cover several phones on the same line. It is not clear to me now this would work without insert- ing it in the main phone line so that it would control the line; howev- er, the brochure states that it "plugs into the back of any telephone in your house". It is physically described as a "miniature computer in a small black box" measuring 1 1/2" X 5" X 5 3/4". I would appreciate receiving any comments readers of this list may have concerning such a device. Thanks--John ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Feb-82 00:22:26-PST,5795;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 26-Feb-82 0019-PST Date: 25 Feb 1982 2308-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@USC-ECLC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #22 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLC To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Via: Usc-Eclc; 26 Feb 82 2:10-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 26 Feb 82 2:22-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 26 Feb 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: VENTEL - Autodial Modems AT&T Divestiture Revisited Query - Availability of WE 5000 Series Tel. Sets S & T Terminals Query - Purchase Of Telco Repairmen's Phone Set Ringback Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoffrey C. Mulligan (AFDSC, The Pentagon) <GeoffM@RAND-AI> We have recently installed about 20 VENTEL auto-dialer modems. The modems run both 300 and 1200 (Bell 212 protocol) baud. By typing two carriage returns it will detect if you are running at 300 or 1200 baud and automatically switch. If you are running with even, odd, space, marked or no parity, 7 or 8 bits/char it will automatically adjust. It can either pulse at 10 or 20 pps or use tones. It can store up to 5 numbers, wait for another dial tone or blind dial (just dial without waiting for any dial tones). You can link one number to another; therefore, if the first is busy or will not answer it will try another number. It connects directly to a standard voice jack and connects to your terminal through an RS232. It saves your last dialed number, the 5 stored numbers, the terminal parity, speed and bits/char in some type of non-volatile memory. It will re-dial the last number once or continue until answered. We have had no problems with them since they were procured a couple months ago. About the only problem I have found with them is that if the remote system does not drop the carrier the unit will not return to command mode. To do so you must press in the Analog-Loopback button. Other than that I have found the modem to work very well. geoff ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1982 20:39:51-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: AT&T Divestiture AT&T announced a tentative plan for divestiture under the new consent decree. There would be seven holding companies, each of which own one or more of the current operating companies. The intention is to make each of the seven approximately equal in assets and financial strength. The regional companies would be organized as follows: * Southern Bell and South Central Bell * New England Telephone and Telegraph, and N.Y. Telephone Co. * Bell of Pennsylvania, Diamond State Telephone Co., Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Cos., and New Jersey Bell. * Illinoi Bell, Indiana Bell, Michigan Bell, Ohio Bell, and Wisconsin Telephone Co. * Southwestern Bell * Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., Northwestern Bell, and Pacific Northwest Bell * Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. and the Bell Telephone Co. of Nevada (wholly owned by Pacific but considered separate in the proposed settlement.) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 82 11:25:21-EST (Mon) From: John W Kinch (REB/VLD) <kinch@brl> Subject: Availability of WE 5000 Series Tel. Sets Last year Western Electric announced a new TOUCH-TONE(R) only version of the "Touch-A-Matic"(R) dialer telephone set called the 5000S series sets with the WE designation of 5001T01A for the desk version and 5011T01A for the wall mounted version. I have been having a running fight with the C&P (Chesapeake & Potomac) Telephone Co. (MD,DC,and parts of VA) trying to get one of these set. C&P is adamant that these set are not and will not be avalable in this area. Does anyone know in what parts of the country these sets are available? Can anyone think of any "good" reason why C&P should refuse to supply a WE produced piece of equipment? Can anyone suggest any way I could change their mind. This set, for those that haven't seen it, has the newly designed M1A Hand set, a new design dial and an electronic tone ringer. This unit stores 12 numbers. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1982 0729-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: S & T Terminals The S & T terminals are not connected to anything inside the network. They are simply tie-down point for the connections between the DTMF dial and the transmitter and receiver. E1 and E2 are almost certainly the same. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1982 1723-MST From: Randy Frank <FRANK at UTAH-20> Subject: Query - purchase of telco repairmen's phone set Does anyone know where ordinary individuals can purchase the "standard issue" handsets that teclo repairmen carry: those self contained handheld units with aligator clips for debugging phone circuits. Any pointers would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1982 19:24:05-PST From: decvax!yale-comix!ima!johnl at Berkeley From: John R. Levine From: The INTERACTIVE Electric Calculator Co., Cambridge MA. Subject: Ringback How do you get a ringback in Cambridge, Mass? I'm moving some phones around and it would be helpful to know. (I already know that 200-555-1212 tells you your number.) If it makes a difference, the phones are in the 864 and 491 exchanges. [Normally you can easily dial the operator and ask him/her to call you back. Most of the time they are most willing to do it. --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Mar-82 17:08:05-PST,11217;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 1-Mar-82 1704-PST Date: 1 Mar 1982 1418-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@USC-ECLC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #23 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLC To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLC Via: Usc-Eclc; 1 Mar 82 17:20-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 1 Mar 82 17:35-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 1 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Misnumbered Digests Query - Turning Off The Bell Query -- Permissive Vs Programmable Query Reply - Purchase Of Telco Repairmen's Phone Set More On AT&T Divestiture Cellular Mobile Phones Telephone Equipment Availability Butt-ins - Where To Purchase Them (4 Msgs) Network Blocks Aren't All Made The Same ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Mar 1982 13:15:00-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLC> Subject: No Missing Digest (V2 #21). I misnumbered friday's digest, therefore there was no issue of V2 #21. Today's issue is #23, right behind Friday's #22. Before that was #20, transmitted on Feb 17th. Cheers, JSol ------------------------------ From: JAC@MIT-MC Date: 02/26/82 01:26:17 Subject: Ringing of telephones What is the easiest way, short of unplugging a phone, to turn off it's ringer? -- Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1982 1851-EST From: Nat Howard <nrh at ESQUIRE> Reply-to: chico!esquire!nrh at UCB-C70 Subject: Query -- Permissive vs Programmable To: telecom at UCBVAX I know the difference between a "permissive" (-9dB) connection to the phone network, and a "programmable" connection, but I don't know how much benefit is gained by going with the programmable connection. We've always used permissive connections in the past (why hassle?), but does anyone know just how much advantage a programmable connection is? I am thinking here about connecting Vadic 3480's or 3450's with the autodialer option to either the CO or our Dimension PBX. - Nat Howard chico!esquire!nrh ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1982 1414-EST From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C> To: FRANK at UTAH-20 Subject: Re: Query - purchase of telco repairmen's phone set Cheap way: take a trimline (or local equivalent) handset, a handset cord, a minibox a spst switch and a pair of clipleads, and combine in the following manner: Install in the minibox the switch with the capacitor across its contacts. Run the handset cord and the clipleads into the minibox. Connect one cliplead to one side of the line (from the handset), connect the other cliplead to one terminal of the switch, and the remaining wire from the handset to the other side of the switch. ------------------- spst sw | |---------------*---*\*--*------------------< | Handset | \ |---||---| \ | | Handset cord 1uf capacitor clipleads | | / / | |-----------------*--------------------------< ------------------- \ joint Closed and open correspond to talk and monitor on a commercial test set. If you have room, and don't plan to return the handset to ordinary service, you can put all the junk inside the main body. For a "real" one, try the following: GTE makes a copy of the WE one, should be available through distributors. Ask GTE or ask Graybar (if there's one near you). A unit that looks like what you'd get by doing it cheap, but that handles TT and DP is availabel from Jensen Tools, 1230 S.Priest Dr. Tempe, Az. 85281, 602/968-6231: "Metro-Tel Lineman's Telephone Handset" #HA796B911 $165.00 Cord with clips, HA796B142, $21.00 Modular cord, HA796B144, $4.00, Cord with 310 plug (3 cond. 1/4" phone) HA796B143, $13.00. Jensen also has mice (warbling tone generators for tracing wires) and bullet probes (inductive pickups for other end of same). Jensen's prices tend to be high. Dracon makes a unit that looks like the traditional one, but has a pushbutton dial that generates TT or DP. Also has indication of line polarity. No idea of price, check with Dracon Div. of Harris Corp. 9541 Mason Ave. Chatsworth, Ca. 91311, 213/882-8595. Traditional bullet probes (requiring a butt set) are avaiable from Forward Radio Supply co. 855 Conklin St. Farmingdale, NY 11735, 800/645-9518 for $21.00 (Cable Identification Probe, WG-8629) (Jensen's bullet probes inlude a crystal earphone.) Gene ------------------------------ Date: 27 February 1982 10:07-EST From: Peter J. Castagna <PC at MIT-MC> Subject: AT&T Divestiture The digital radio business (Collins Radio, Nippon, and my own Raytheon Telecomm) which used to supply 90-megabit/sec data links, is now "closed for the season". Research and design on digital radios (modems) has been shut down at all the major commercial producers. It seems that the Bell System (that poor, hard-pressed long-lines company) has procured an agreement with the old "your local phone company"'s that any equipment for long-lines must be bought from Western Electric. Nobody's pressing it, because Bell will of course cheerily pay the fine in ten years after the next court decision. In case you hadn't heard, this whole divestiture thing is the greatest thing that ever happened to Bell; by removing from it the need to service the local subscribers it has in effect removed the caps from Bell's fangs. I'm sorry if my flaming offends those from Bell Labs on the mailing list. Any incoherence I explain as due to some immediate fear for my job (designing digital radios). ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1982 14:38:53-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Cellular mobile phones The FCC has voted to make permanent its order allowing development of the "cellular" system for mobile phones. The cellular system uses a large number of relatively low-powered transmitters, plus some fancy logic to allocate unused frequencies. It should permit a tremendous expansion in the number of mobile phones available. ------------------------------ Date: 27 February 1982 17:32-EST From: Randall C. Gellens <RCG at MIT-AI> Contenental, a non-bell oc serving the next county in No Va, is selling ITT "Trendline" phones for $15.99, in both desk and wall models, in a variety of colors, and in both pulse and tone. They are only a few minutes from DC, and they take VISA and MonsterCard. It seems they are no longer leasing "trendline" phones (they are the same as WE's "Trimline") and so are selling their stock of rebuilt and new ones. Being non-bell, everything is just slightly different from what I am used to...besides the trimline/trendline, their store is a "phone fair" instead of a "phone center"...also, they told me their monthly rate for unlimited calling with tone was about $10...I pay almost $20 for the same serice from C&P.... They even threw in free some adapters and stuff so I could connect it without having to buy things from RadioShack. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1982 00:37:12-PST From: decvax!duke!chico!harpo!ber at Berkeley Subject: purchasing telephone craft sets (Butt sets). Dracon, a division of Harris, makes a beauty for a little over a hundered dollars. It does pulse and tone. It's only short coming when compared to the Weco rotary model, is that you can't use it as a wheel chuck (not quite as solid). An issue of telephony will lead you to other vendors of handsets. brian redman ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1982 09:02:51-PST From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley Subject: Lineman's Test Set. One of the little handsets telco people carry around is avail- able from Techni-tool, 5 Apollo Rd, Plymouth Meeting PA 19462- 0368, (215)- 825-4990. The "TS-21" lineman's test set will do dial-pulse or tone dial- ing, polarity indication, etc. etc. It comes in a neat little package with the dialing buttons on the back of the earpiec, and has a 4 ft cord with alligator clips. The only drwback is the $245.00 price tag. A large catalog of all sorts of goodies is readily available.... --berry P.S. "feminists" may be intersted that "Pursuant to the Equal Opportunity Clause and Executive Order #12138, Techni-Tool is certified as a woman-owned business." ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 0523-PST Sender: WAUGH at OFFICE-3 Subject: TELCO REPAIRMEN'S PHONE SET From: GOREE WAUGH (OFFICE-3) To: FRANK at UTAH-20 You can purchase a "hand test set" with standard and touch tone testing ect.. from Metro Tel Copr, 15 Burke Lane, Syosset, NY 11791, phone 516/364-3377, (model MT-911G). Hope this will help you. Regards, Goree ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 0621-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Repairmen's phones From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Frank at UTAH-20 Dear Frank (and the list), The 1982 Winter catalog of Jensen Tools, 1230 S.Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281, (602) 968-6231, has repairmen's phones listed as follows: Metro-Tel Corp. Lineman's Rotary/Tone Handset with modular connector. Cords (with modular, aligators, or 310 connectors are extra, and seemingly far overpriced at $5-$25). Basic unit is in an orange case arranged like a princess phone handset. $185.00 (Stk # K796B911) Metro-Tel Corp. Lineman's Rotary Handset with attached cord with "piercing clips". Traditional style with dial on back of handset. $69.95 (Stk # K796B011) Dracon Rotary/Tone Lineman's Handset, with a touch pad on back of a blue handset, with "piercing alligator clips". A modular adaptor is available at $8.50. $245.00 (wow!) (Stk # K237B021) The Telecommunications Equipment section of the catalog also offers Tone Test Sets, Tone Generators,, Line Aids, special-purpose hand tools, and test meters & checkers. I've been getting Jensen's catalog for some years now; this is the first time I've actually noticed this sort of thing in it. It is a well-known source for tools and electronic production aids. They'll sell to anybody with the money and take credit cards. Hope this info is of use. Those prices seem outlandish to me, but I guess they might be justifiable if the gear is really ruggedized. Will Martin USArmy DARCOM ALMSA ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 0136-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: More differences It seems that the 425K network block does *not* have a capacitor between F and RR terminals... Apparently the K version is designed for use with Touchtone dials which didn't need a capacitor between dial contacts that the 425B provided. I found this out the hard way when I wanted to use that capacitor, and found that I had a K-type network in the circuit. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 2-Mar-82 05:02:32-PST,11431;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 2-Mar-82 0459-PST Date: 1 Mar 1982 2041-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #24 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Via: Usc-Eclb; 2 Mar 82 5:36-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 2 Mar 82 5:41-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 2 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Comparison Of Long Distance Service Rates Customer Dialed Credit Card Calls Query Reply - Permissive Versus Programmable Connection Phone Service Cost Difference - You Get What You Pay For (?) New Racal Autodialers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 February 1982 00:21 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Long promised Long Distance comparison Here it it, at long last. Comments are appreciated. Comparison of Alternative Long Distance telephone services. SPRINT Rates are based on time and mileage according to the Table. Calls are billed in one minute increments without any setup or termination charges. Day rates apply from 8am to 5pm local time Monday through Friday. All other times are Night rate. The service comes in two flavors, Home-Sprint and Business Sprint. Home Sprint has a $5/month fixed charge, plus calls and is available only when night rate applys. Business Sprint is available 24 hours, has a $10/month fixed charge and a $25 minimum on calls ($35 total). SPRINT has local sales telephones in most large cities. Look in the white pages for "S P Commmunications". MCI The first of the alternative services. It looks an awful lot like SPRINT. Rates are based on time and mileage according to the Table. Calls are billed in one minute increments without any setup or termination charges. MCI uses the same time of day chart at AT&T. | Mon - Fri | Saturday | Sunday | +---------+-----------+------------+----------+ | 8:00 AM | | | | to | Day rate | Night rate | | 5:00 PM | | | +---------+-----------+ +----------+ | 5:00 PM | Evening | | Evening | | to | Rate | | Rate | |11:00 PM | | | | +---------+-----------+ +----------+ |11:00 PM | | | to | Night Rate | | 8:00 AM | | +---------+-----------------------------------+ MCI maintains sales telephones in most major cities, look in the white pages for "M C I". AT&T The venerable Ma Bell. Included for comparison. The rates used in the table are for the second and subsequent minutes of the call. There is a call setup charge ranging from $.16 to $ .20 added to the first minute. ITT This is one of the most difficult companies I have ever had to deal with. Getting information from them is like pulling teeth. I have given up on trying to get a rate table. The service comes in two flavors, City Call I and City Call II. City Call I is very similar to the 24 hour versions of SPRINT and MCI. There is no registration charge and a $5.00 monthly fixed charge. They use the AT&T time of day table but without the evening rate niche on Sunday evening. They do not appear on the table because of the lack of rate vs. distance information. What they will tell me is cost ranges. For day rates: $.3350 to $.4650/minute. Evenings: $.1170 to $.1630/minute. Nights: $.0840 to $.1160 City Call II is a bulk billing service that is available 5 PM to 8 AM weekdays, plus Sundays and holidays. There is a $5.00 fixed monthly charge. City Call II does not provide an itemized billing. The rates are independant of distance. Charges are $14.00 for the first two hours per month (billed even if not all used), and $3.50 per each extra half-hour. The charges shown on the table are calculated from this at $.1167/minute. Calls are measured to the next minute. None of the ITT services are chartered for in-state calling. They work only for out-of-state calls. AMERICALL I have little information on this service. They are useful only if you reside in the Washington, DC local calling area. If you do, call them at 202-737-4565 for information. And finally, The Table: Cost per MINUTE, Day rate Mileage | Range | AT&T | SPRINT | MCI | ITT I | ITT II | -------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------+ 1-10 | | $.0950 |$.0880 | ??? | N/A | 11-16 | | .1400 | .1144 | ??? | N/A | 17-22 | | .1600 | .1320 | ??? | N/A | 23-30 | | .2100 | .1672 | ??? | N/A | 31-40 | | .2500 | .1936 | ??? | N/A | 41-55 | | .2800 | .2288 | ??? | N/A | 56-70 | | .3000 | .2464 | ??? | N/A | 71-124 | | .3300 | .3072 | ??? | N/A | 125-196 | | .3550 | .3216 | ??? | N/A | 197-292 | | .3750 | .3392 | ??? | N/A | 293-430 | .4200 | .4000 | .3616 | ??? | N/A | 431-925 | .4200 | .4050 | .3664 | ??? | N/A | 926-1910 | .4400 | .4200 | .3840 | ??? | N/A | 1911-3000 | .4600 | .4400 | .4000 | $.4650 | N/A | -------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------+ Cost per MINUTE, Evening rate Mileage | Range | AT&T | SPRINT | MCI | ITT I | ITT II | -------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------+ 1-10 | | $.0360 |$.0424 | ??? | .1167 | 11-16 | | .0390 | .0619 | ??? | .1167 | 17-22 | | .0495 | .0702 | ??? | .1167 | 23-30 | | .0602 | .0900 | ??? | .1167 | 31-40 | | .0800 | .1058 | ??? | .1167 | 41-55 | | .0920 | .1217 | ??? | .1167 | 56-70 | | .0970 | .1295 | ??? | .1167 | 71-124 | | .1000 | .1409 | ??? | .1167 | 125-196 | | .1160 | .1485 | ??? | .1167 | 197-292 | | .1190 | .1565 | ??? | .1167 | 293-430 | .2800 | .1200 | .1680 | ??? | .1167 | 431-925 | .2800 | .1270 | .1687 | ??? | .1167 | 926-1910 | .2900 | .1290 | .1768 | ??? | .1167 | 1911-3000 | .3000 | .1310 | .1846 | .1630 | .1167 | -------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------+ Cost per MINUTE, Night Rate Mileage | Range | AT&T | SPRINT | MCI | ITT I | ITT II | -------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------+ 1-10 | | .0360 | .0300 | ??? | .1167 | 11-16 | | .0390 | .0444 | ??? | .1167 | 17-22 | | .0495 | .0504 | ??? | .1167 | 23-30 | | .0602 | .0646 | ??? | .1167 | 31-40 | | .0800 | .0760 | ??? | .1167 | 41-55 | | .0920 | .0874 | ??? | .1167 | 56-70 | | .0970 | .0930 | ??? | .1167 | 71-124 | | .1000 | .1012 | ??? | .1167 | 125-196 | | .1160 | .1066 | ??? | .1167 | 197-292 | | .1190 | .1124 | ??? | .1167 | 293-430 | .1700 | .1200 | .1206 | ??? | .1167 | 431-925 | .1700 | .1270 | .1211 | ??? | .1167 | 926-1910 | .1800 | .1290 | .1269 | ??? | .1167 | 1911-3000 | .1900 | .1310 | .1325 | .1160 | .1167 | -------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------+ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 10:33:27-EST From: csin!dee at CCA-UNIX Subject: dialed credit card numbers Last week I make a phone call from a pay phone at the TWA terminal at Washington National Airport. After dialing 0-xxx-xxx-xxxx there was a funny brief tone and a recording telling me to dial my credit card number or 0 for operator. I dialed my credit card number as requested and my call went through. Donald Eastlake ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 2000-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Permissive versus programmable connection What the programmable connection gets you is very simple: If your device is designed to be used with the programmable connection, it *MUST* be connected through the programmable jack. The programmable jack can do one, and only one thing: insert loss between your device and the loop to the central office. Why would one want to insert loss? With a device that is designed for the permissive connection, one wouldn't -- the device is putting signals on the line at a permissively low level already. But if the device provides line signals at a higher than permissive level, then your local telco will install a programmed jack and will set the re- sistors inside the jack. The resistors will be set based on the length of, and loss in, your loop to the central office. Thus, when you reach the central office, your level will be the same as for a device with a permissive connec- tion with typical loop loss. The bottom line: You only want the programmed connection if (1) you have a device which can apply the higher signal level (if it can, it must have a keyed plug which will only fit into a key-wayed jack), (2) if you have a lossy loop to the CO (as determined by THEM, not you), and (3) if you want to pay the extra money for the programmed jack and the "engineering" associated with determining what to set it to. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 2003-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: $10 in rural Va vs $20 in DC calling area Your service is not the same as the rural telco provides. Think of how vastly many more telephones you can reach for free. And be glad you can still reach them for free, you are in one of the last cities where the kind of service you have is still available. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 17:56:19-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!taylor at Berkeley Date-Sent: Mon Mar 1 15:30:43 1982 Subject: New Racal Autodialers The new Autodialers for Racal Vadic 3450 series modems was recently discussed here. A question came up recently which I hope someone can help with. In particular, is there a limitation on how fast the escape sequence for dialing can come from the 'terminal'. We would like to 'download' the dialing escape sequence from our 'Dataswitch' port selector, which is fairly easy, except that the downloaded message must be sent with no pauses between characters. Consequently, a number sent from a 1200 baud terminal will be sent at 1200 baud with no pauses between each character, and we have seen other systems which choke on this. (The answer to this might also be of interest to the person who was looking for an autodialer for his micom port selector.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 4-Mar-82 16:29:29-PST,10004;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 4-Mar-82 1628-PST Date: 2 Mar 1982 1845-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM.USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #25 Sender: JSOL.USC-ECLB To: TELECOM.USC-ECLB Reply-To: TELECOM.USC-ECLB Via: Usc-Eclb; 3 Mar 82 12:21-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 3 Mar 82 12:39-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 3 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Rate Comparison Rebuttals (2 Msgs) Surcharges For Upgrades But Not Downgrades How To Stop Your Phone From Ringing (4 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 2 March 1982 09:23-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: ITT's rates (per my own experience) I've been using ITT I service for a few months now. Almost all of my calls exceed 1911 miles . I nearly always use the night rate, and when I do they charge me 8.2 cts/min. I agree that getting info out of them isn't easy, and unfortunately you didn't get accurate information. When I was setting up the service I called them and they told me that ITT II worked from 8PM-8AM and all day Sat. & Sun., at a price per month of $15, which includes two "free" hours, and $2.50 for each additional half hour. I knew that almost all my calls would be maximum range, so I selected this service. They later suggested I switch to ITT I. I did this because when I called them concerning this suggestion they said they had reduced their per-minute rate to 8.2 cents from 11 or so. They like to specify their rates as a percentage discount off AT&T's day rate. If I remember correctly, it goes like this: 8AM-5PM M-F 20% off 5PM-8PM M-F 50% off (of DAY rate) 8PM-11PM M-F 60% off 11PM-8AM M-F, all day Sat. & Sun. 80% off I cannot vouch for the 5PM-8PM rate, but rough calculations from bills make the other three rates look approximately correct. I can also vouch for the 8.2 cent figure. I can also vouch for the fact that it's hard to get info out of them, but the way I proceeded was to have a salesman call me BACK. The people you get when you call the 800 number that AT&T information gives you don't know anything. Someone who CAN answer questions calls back approximately one day later. The rates you were quoted are substantially higher than my bills. This is also true about ITT II, which I'm not using but I presume that the $2.50/half hour figure was accurate. My last bill didn't include any notice of an increase. If I get such a notice I will let everyone know. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 2 March 1982 1205-PST (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: long distance comparisons That comparison chart should really have included a "quality" factor -- since most of the alternatives to Bell are generally awful in one way or another. Problems that often result with these alternatives include: 1) Inaccurate billing (even makes General Telephone look good!) 2) Terrible circuit quality (hiss, echo, reverse path audio blocking even on short paths [a function of cheapo echo suppressors...) 3) Poor call setup reliability -- often a call must be placed several times (or more) to complete. Some of these problems may be reduced when the "equal access" provisions of the new decree are enacted (if ever), but I expect major quality differences to remain. (I've spent considerable time in a major MCI center, and their whole plant and technical operating "philosophy" was junk. --Lauren-- P.S. I have actually had to ask some callers over MCI or SPRINT to call me back DDD if they wanted to talk, because I simply was not willing to put up with the terrible circuit quality of the alternative they were using. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 2 March 1982 11:29 est From: York.Multics at MIT-Multics (William M. York) Subject: service level change surcharges Can anyone with an understanding of telephone service regulations tell me how New England Bell rationalizes charging customers for a increase in their service level, but allows service downgrades at no cost? This seems to create a potential well around the cheaper services. If you ever order a new line and are unsure of the level of service that you want, guess high -- you can lower it at no cost later. (by "service level" I mean metered calls vs. unlimited local calling vs. unlimited metro area calling, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: 1 March 1982 1957-PST (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: silencing bells For total silencing of bells, you can simply lift and "store" (that is, wrap in tape or something insulating) one of the bell leads (it matters very little which in most cases) -- or you can add a little toggle switch if you want on/off control. This "non-mechanical" technique completely removes the bell and associated capacitor from the circuit. For quickie jobs, there is a "mechanical" technique that comes in pretty handy sometimes. I've never tried it on other than ordinary 500 sets or 2500 sets (or similar units) -- these are all ordinary "desk" telephones. The method relies on the mechanical construction of the ringer in these units. On removing the shell from your set, you'll note the ringer "loudness" lever on the bottom of the phone simply rotates one of the gongs so that it is nearer/farther from the clapper (the gongs are mounted off-center specifically to allow such changes and adjustments). In a standard 500/2500 set, there is a little metal tab which prevents the gong from rotating "too far" toward the clapper. If you simply bend this tab outward by a quarter inch or so, the gong will be free to rotate (via the loudness lever) all the way over against the clapper! Assuming that the OTHER gong is already near the clapper (you can loosen the screw and rotate it by hand if it's not), you should now be able to adjust the loudness down to silence (or very, very nearly so). Of course, you can always turn it back up if you want to hear the ringing again. --Lauren-- P.S. Personally, I hate rings -- I much prefer bell chime units for all ringing signals. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 18:13 PST From: Pasco at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Ringing of telephones Jeff, Obviously, the easiest way to disable a ringer IS to unplug the phone. But it's not real hard to disable the bell and still USE the rest of the phone. This is useful if: 1) You want a bedroom extension which won't waken sleepers when others in the house receive calls, 2) You have a bootleg extension which you don't want the telco to find out about. Loosen the two screws on the base of the phone securing its case, and remove the case. Find the wires leading from the bell's coils to the NETWORK (the mysterious box full of analog circuits). There will be either two or four depending on the type of phone you have. At the network end, loosen the screw securing any ONE of them, remove it, and tighten the screw on any remaining wires. Tape over the end of the wire so it doesn't short to any unwanted terminals. Write down (on the tape) which terminal on the network it was connected to so you can put it back when you want. Reassemble the phone. - Richard Pasco ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 82 9:21:37-EST (Tue) From: John W Kinch (REB/VLD) <kinch@brl> Subject: Silent Ringers Most (probably all) standard telephones produced by Western Electric have a internal adjustment to the ringer volume control that will allow the ringer to be silenced. In the 500 and 2500 series sets, this is usually accomplished by bending a brass stop to allow the control to move to the silent position. In phones that use the P Type and M Type ringers (AC and AD Bases used in Trimline sets, the standard 255X wall mounted TT sets and some Princess sets), a screw that can be removed through the top of the gong ordinarily prevents the volume control from being moved into the silent position. If you want to turn the phone completely off, I recently saw a modular cord that can replace the standard wall cord and has a switch near the end that would plug into the phone. This cord was available at Radio Shack for something like $7. As a final resort, although I suppose it is completely illegal, you can permanently disconnect the ringer leads from the network inside the set. ------------------------------ Date: 2 March 1982 18:28-EST From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI> Subject: Unringing your phone cc: JMTURN at MIT-AI Shade and Sweet water to you, Disconnecting the ringer is one of the easiest hacks you can do with your phone. First, open up the set and find the ringer. It will have two wires running from it, these are the infamous tip and ring (btw, the reason they are called tip and ring is a real piece of telephony trivia, anybody else know?) In theory, these wires run straight to the jack, but in reality, they have to pass through a cut-off switch that is part of the switch hook. All you have to do is disconnect the wires at either end. It is a good idea to take a multi-meter, and get the resistance over the ringer (after the wires are removed), and place a similar load across the wires, so Ma Bell will be happy with the load when she tries to ring the bell. I have no idea if the load is actually needed, but a lack of it may indicate that the phone is not in socket. If you do this, the phone will operate properly, but will not ring . James P.S. The wires leading from the ringer are (in AT&T equipment) the hardest to find, especially in the 500 sets. Look hard, and you may have to remove the ringer to see them. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 5-Mar-82 23:08:20-PST,8710;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 5-Mar-82 2304-PST Date: 4 Mar 1982 1927-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM.USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #26 Sender: JSOL.USC-ECLB To: TELECOM.USC-ECLB Reply-To: TELECOM.USC-ECLB Via: Usc-Eclb; 6 Mar 82 0:13-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 6 Mar 82 0:23-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 5 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Novation 1200 Baud Modems Alternate Long Distance Systems - Revisited Western Electric 68A Test Set Unringing Your Telephone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 March 1982 14:21-EST (Thursday) From: HALVOR at MIT-ML Subject: Novation 1200 baud modems The CPU shop (Charlestown, Mass.) claims to sell Novation 1200 baud modems for $480. Does anybody have any experience with these modems? I could not get any information from the CPU shop about the specifications. Are they Bell and Vadic compatible? And finally, are there other 1200 baud modems at this price (CPU said they only carry the Novation). ------------------------------ Date: 3 March 1982 21:53-EST From: Cliff Lasser <CAL at MIT-AI> Does anybody have an experience with using MCI, or ITT with 1200 baud modems? My experience with Sprint has been reasonably good: On calls between Boston and NYC I rarely get a bad connection. However I have yet to get one that works at all between Boston and San Diego, but even regular Bell gives my modem (a Vadic) trouble on those calls. Cliff ------------------------------ Date: 3-Mar-82 12:35:53 PST (Wednesday) From: Gobbel at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #25: long distance comparisons cc: Gobbel.PA I was a Sprint user for about a year (until the person I used it for moved), and I was very impressed with the quality of the service - consistently much better than Bell's in every respect: no trouble getting through, good connections with no echo (a major problem with Bell), etc. All of my calls were at night, and almost all were from Palo Alto California to Buffalo, New York, so this could have been an artifact of the circumstances, but as I've said, the service was quite good. -Randy ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1982 10:14 EST From: Denber.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: What IS That Thing??? A friend (?) was having a garage sale and offered me for free something called a "Western Electric 68A Test Set". Well the price was right and I'm always a sucker for such items, but I haven't the faintest idea of what (if anything) this boat anchor is supposed to do. It looks about early '50s vintage, measures around 20 x 16 x 8", and weighs a good 50 lbs. It has two (SPDT & DPDT) switches labelled FREQ with "39.85" on one side and "28.15" on the other, a knob only marked GAIN in the center, two banana jacks marked INPUT on the right, and what looks like an octal tube socket on a threaded base and a large 5-pin connector on the left. There's a yellow tag on the side that says "Bell Telephone Labs, Murray Hill, N.J.". That's all. If I plug it in my phone line, will I get Brezhnev on the other end? - Michel ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1982 19:16-PST From: The Moderator (Guess who!) <TELECOM-REQUEST at USC-ECLB> Subject: SPOILER WARNING!!!!! The following messages deal with the issue of how to make your phone stop ringing. They are the last messages in this digest. Readers not interested in reading this discussion should stop reading here. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 13:10 PST From: Pasco at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Unringing your phone To: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI> Reply-to: Pasco.PA@Parc-Maxc James, A multimeter will not tell you what value resistor would "simulate" a bell, even if that were necessary. There is a capacitor in series with the bell electromagnet. In many phones the capacitor is in the "Network", in others it is a separate component. This capacitor serves two purposes: 1) Block the DC line voltage, so the phone presents no DC load to the line when hung up, 2) Establish a series-resonant circuit with the inductance of the electromagnet. This resonance is at 20 Hz, so the reactance of both devices disappears and there is maximum energy transfer to the bell at ring frequency. (There is also a mechanical resonance in the ringer, also at 20 Hz. In fact, some party lines use frequency-division multiplexing for selective ringing). The AC impedance of the ringer is a function of frequency, and its value at DC is nowhere near its value at 20 Hz. Is it illegal to electrically alter the bell circuit? Certainly Ma Bell wouldn't want you performing surgery on phones She owns; but if it's your phone that's another matter. Other than to enable remote electrical counting of phones, I can't think of a good reason the ringer would need to be electrically present. - Rich [Yes. Anything the customer does to their own phones effectively cancells out the FCC registration. The FCC has not given blanked permission for "ameteur" phone mechanics to go around poking their fingers in the telephone network. All it has done is given permission for companies who wish to manufacture telephone equipment the authorization for their customers to connect it to the telephone company network. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 3 March 1982 1311-PST (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: silencing Trimlines I strongly recommend AGAINST removing the center screw from Trimline ringers! Those ringers are VERY finicky, and they can be very difficult to adjust properly if you ever want them to ring decently again. Removing that screw loosens the body of the gong from the mounting bracket, and often allows the bell to rotate during ringing -- which results in highly variable loudness and ring quality. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 3 March 1982 17:26-EST From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI> Subject: Unringing your phone and headsets again Shade and Sweet water to you, I stand corrected. Measuring the load across the bell and replacing it with a resistor is as useful as testing the DC load across your TV and expecting that to be the operational characteristics at 60hz AC. Bell current is AC. I have been informed that just losing the bell circuit altogether is safe. BTW, I just (today) had my new phone service installation completed, 6 weeks+ after it was promised. First they had trouble running the second line into the house, then they discovered that the cable I had been assigned was in use, then then found out that there were *no* free pairs by my house, and finally got their act together yesterday and got my service going (forgetting to leave my special set, of course). The set is a 500 (I think, the innards looked 500ish), but with the headset frob. The headset is a beaut, the pinhead variety. I will end up paying a $16 one-timer (the hacks needed to make a 500 talk to a headset are non- trivial), and a $1-2 charge/month. *sigh*, I just discovered that the polarity is ass-backwards on my line, and touch-tone won't work. Switched the polarity on the incoming line, no problems. Those who have had problems communicating with Ma Bell may be interested to know that during the entire 6 week period, the service rep assigned to be kept in close contact, informing me of what was going on, and making sure I was having no problems. When I just told her that the installer had fukt up and reversed the lines, but I had toggled them, she said "Oh, it's good you're such an expert, I would have had to send out a repair crew tommorow". It's a pleasure to work with someone who knows what the hell they are doing, and respects people who know what they are doing. It almost makes up for the abomidible lag time in getting the serive. James ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 2111-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Shutting off the ringer Most of what was said here so far is fine -- with one exception: DON'T REPLACE THE L-C LOAD OF THE BELL WITH A R OR R-C LOAD! Doing so is sure to attract attention, and might prevent the completion of calls. What the Bell documentation says (for the model 500 set) is: To permanently silence ringer: Move the Black ringer lead to the A terminal on the network. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 7-Mar-82 22:28:25-PST,7598;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 7-Mar-82 2225-PST Date: 7 Mar 1982 2030-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@Usc-Eclb> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #27 Sender: JSOL at Usc-Eclb To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Reply-To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Via: Usc-Eclb; 7 Mar 82 23:30-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 7 Mar 82 23:41-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 8 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: MCI Complaints Query - Telephone Headsets - Star-Sets Service Charges - Doesn't Cost To Reduce Service Novation 1200 Baud (202) Half Duplex Modems (3 Msgs) UDS Bell 212 Compatible Modem Silencing Ringer RF Interference - Picking up AM Radio on the Telephone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 March 1982 03:06-EST From: Anthony Della Fera <ADF at MIT-MC> Subject: Mixedup Communications Inc. (MCI) cc: ADF at MIT-MC Greetings! In regards to the recent discussion of MCI rates and quality, allow me to add my two cents and recount my latest battle with the folks over at Microwave Communications Inc.: Last November (1981) I received my usual bill only to find a charge for a $65.00 call to a number which I know only took 2 min.. The call was from Boston to New Jersey and was among my usual calls from Mass. to home which average from $0.50 to $6.00. Upon calling MCI I was told I was probably charged for what they called 'computer run-on' and that the situation would be rectified. The next month (Dec.) the call was again present on my bill but now as an unpaid balance! I again called MCI and told them to remove the charge before it appeared on my TRW credit rating as a delinquent bill. In January it was still on my bill! At this point I was told that in order for them to remove the charge they would have to delete my account and refile me for another one! For two weeks I was without MCI service untill the new account was established. You can't believe how good it was to see the clean white sheet without the $65.00 overdue notice on it! Has anyone else had a similar experience with Mixedup Communications Inc? Cheers Tony... P.S. If you can afford it, don't ever get MCI service! Unfortunatly some of us can't. ------------------------------ Date: 5 March 1982 03:10-EST From: Anthony Della Fera <ADF at MIT-MC> Subject: [ADF: Tele head-sets] cc: ADF at MIT-MC Greetings! Does anyone know anything about those micro head-sets used by the phone co.? I think they are called Star-Sets (tm). What I would like to do is attach one to my other line so that I can type and talk at the same time. Where can I get one and how much do thwy cost? I specifically mean the small behind the ear mini-mic model. I will need info on how to connect the thing also if possible. Telephonically yours, Tony... ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1982 19:45:51-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Date-Sent: Fri Mar 5 19:27:19 1982 Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: service charges I've always assumed that it's a regulatory requirement that there be no charge for downgrading service; otherwise, people might feel they were *forced* to stay with the higher-priced variant. ------------------------------ Date: 5 March 1982 2328-PST (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Novation modems All of Novation's current 1200 baud modems are 202 type -- that's 1200 baud HALF DUPLEX. These are not compatible with either Vadic 34XX or Bell 212A 1200 baud full duplex modems. My friends at Novation (I worked there many years ago) tell me that they will introduce a 212 style modem sometime soon. It will probably be priced in the same range as most other 1200 baud full duplex units. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 1982 1202-PST From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: silencing ring The instructions that came with my ITT 500 set also said to transfer the black ringer lead to the "A" terminal on the network. ------------------------------ Date: 7 March 1982 00:54 est From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: Novation 1200 baud modems Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston) To: HALVOR at MIT-ML Yes, the Novation Apple-Cat is Bell and Vadic compatable, but... Now that I have answered the question you wrote, I will answer the question I think you meant to ask: That Novation is NOT Bell 212A nor Vadic 3400 series compatable at 1200 bps. It is compatable at 300 and is compatable with Bell 202C (I think that is the correct model) as well as Vadics that support that protocol. They do not support the reverse channel but do have support for an externally connected Bell 212A with a reasonable amount of control. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 1982 22:21:51-PST From: ucbcad.quarles at Berkeley Subject: Novation 1200 baud modems There are two possibilities for the Novation 1200 baud modems you have seen. I don't think you want one in either case. One possibility is that they are the bell 202 half duplex protocol, the other is that they are the new bell 212 product that Novation is not yet making. I found a similar ad about six months ago, and called Novation directly for some information. Novation was very interested since the ad was for 'Novation 1200 baud full duplex bell 212 modems', and they didn't make one. They said they had one in the planning stages, but probably wouldn't even have prototypes out until at least the end of 81, and didn't expect to be selling them until ~June. I believe the price I saw was also in the $450-$500 range, so this may have been the same ad you have. ------------------------------ Date: Sunday, 7 March 1982 01:33-PST From: pur-ee!malcolm at Berkeley Re: 1200 Baud Modems (I don't know where to send this article. Why don't you list the address to send articles to in the header?) [You should send this to TELECOM@USC-ECLB, the header *does* tell you where to send submissions to TELECOM --JSol] UDS has just announced a Bell 212 Type (1200 Baud asynchronous) for about $500. It is line powered (a innocent way to say it sucks power from your terminal.) The specs I have say it is both an originate// answer modem (won't auto answer) Seems reasonable. Perfect for a poor grad student that wants to talk to UNIX. Has anybody had any experience with Universal Data Systems? The modem (UDS 212LP) will be available sometime in April. Malcolm Slaney decvax!pur-ee!malcolm ucbvax!pur-ee!malcolm ------------------------------ Date: 7 March 1982 1656-EST (Sunday) From: David.Anderson at CMU-10A Subject: AM on phone lines I recently noticed an interesting effect while playing around with my phone. If I diconnect either Tip or Ring, I pick up a very clear signal from one of the local radio stations. Since I don't have a radio, this could be useful, but what's going on? My only explanation is that the remaining line acts as an antenna, and that the length of this line must be in some way related to the frequency of the particular station that I receive. Can someone more knowledgable in this area comment - I'd also like to know how common/unusual this is. Cheerios, --- dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Mar-82 02:19:29-PST,8584;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 9-Mar-82 0218-PST Date: 9 Mar 1982 0046-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@Usc-Eclb> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #28 Sender: JSOL at Usc-Eclb To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Reply-To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Via: Usc-Eclb; 9 Mar 82 3:46-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 9 Mar 82 3:50-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 9 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Administivia -- Strange Headers 1200 Baud Modems Operator Headsets Tele Head-sets Novation 1200 Baud Modem Crank Calls Plantronics Star Set (tm) "Trendline" @ $15 Line Powered Modems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Mar 1982 2101-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia BRL was doing strange things to the header of TELECOM digests. This has been fixed now. Apologies to all who were affected. --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 8 March 1982 01:17-EST From: Frank J. Wancho <FJW at MIT-MC> Subject: 1200 Baud Modems To: pur-ee!malcolm at UCB-C70 cc: FJW at MIT-MC We run UDS modems exclusively here, mainly because of the rather poor reliability of the VADIC modems we originally had to play with. At 1200, we use UDS 12.12 modems, which are yet another modem protocol incompatible with either BELL 212 or VADIC 34xx, and have used them continuously for about three years or so. The noise characteristic is not like VADIC's extension of the BELL 103/113 in that I NEVER get a DEL as a noise character! As for their version of the BELL 212, I would expect the same high quality construction as we have experienced with their other modems. --Frank ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 1982 0202-EST From: Bob Iannucci <IANNUCCI at MIT-XX> Subject: Operator headsets re: typing and talking simultaneously - last year I invested in a behind-the-ear style headset and freed myself of the classic neck pains that one gets while attempting to get maximum advantage out of two phone lines (voice + data). The set that I settled on is made by Plantronics, Inc. of Santa Cruz. They manufacture (at least) two electrically equivalent models - the StarSet (R) Classic (basic behind-the-ear type), and the StarBand 50 (R) Headset (this one is designed for those who wear glasses - clips to the frame). My overall impression is very favorable. Inbound audio is excellent, and outbound audio is reported to be notably clearer than carbon microphones (no big surprise). The "starter set" includes the headset assembly, an assortment of earpieces (varying sizes), coiled cord (about 20'), and a "standard" operator-style connector. They also market a JackSet with a cutover switch so that a 500 set (or equiv.) can be easily adapted for headset use. The whole thing carries a limited two year warranty, and a hefty price tag. The starter set is on the order of $100, and the JackSet (a TRUE ripoff) is around $50. I got mine throught EDS Communications in Johnson City, NY (who ordered from North Supply, I believe). While headsets are terrific for those marathon type/talk sessions, they are a real pain for normal telephone use (putting them on in a hurry is impossible, especially if one wears glasses). DO NOT plan on using a headset exclusively - a modified 500 with normal handset intact (kept close to your terminal) is the best approach. Bob Iannucci ------------------------------ Date: 8 March 1982 10:27-EST From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH at MIT-MC> Subject: [ADF: Tele head-sets] To: ADF at MIT-MC cc: STEVEH at MIT-MC The company that makes the Star-Sets is Pacific Plantronics. I think that the price is around $100, but I haven't looked at prices in some years . Unfortunately, I have no info on how to connect them, since I used them in a theater as an intercom. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 1982 07:44:10-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Date-Sent: Sun Mar 7 19:06:07 1982 Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Novation 1200 baud Cc: HALVOR@MIT-ML The standard Novation 1200 baud modem is 202-compatible, not 212 or Vadic; hence, it's almost useless for most timesharing system. I'm told that there's an upgrade they make, to supply 212 compatibility, but that it's sufficiently expensive (around $350) as to make the whole thing a bad deal. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 1982 07:44:43-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Date-Sent: Sun Mar 7 19:17:49 1982 Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Crank calls My parents (in N.Y.C.) having been having trouble with obscene calls on their unlisted line at 3am. This has been going on for several weeks, and the phone company seems quite disinterested in doing anything . Presumably, they'd change the number, but that would be a major hassle for callers, of course. My parents would like them to trace the call -- they have a second line they could use to alert whoever does such things -- but all N.Y. Bell has done so far is send them a form to fill out. It might be technical -- I'm pretty sure it's a cross-bar exchange, and I thought it had been mentioned previously that it was hard to trace calls on such COs -- but I suspect it's inertia. Anyone have any suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 1982 0915-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Plantronics Star Set (tm) To: ADF at MIT-MC Star sets are avalable for purchase by special order from most of the 'local phone stores'. By this I mean the private ones; not the ones run by BellCo. They may also be purchased directly from companies such as Graybar electroics or North Supply if you have an account. In fact, I think Graybar deals with the public directly... I am not sure. In any case, the cost is about $100 to $140, depending on which model you get and where you buy it. Connecting it to the telephone can be done several ways: The telephone company will (for a fee) install a standard headset connection into your telephone set into which you can directly insert it. A jack kit is available from plantronics which is essentially a parasite on the side of the phone with a switch for handset /headset operation. You can also connect it yourself. The same wires which connect to the handset are also used to hook up the headset. Good luck...... <>IHM<> Ps: I have a StarSet at home which is connected via the handset wires. It works quite well. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 82 23:15:57-EDT (Mon) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel-Relay> To: GEOFFM at Rand-Ai Subject: "trendline" @ $15 An asside: my recently purchased trendline has developed an annoying bug: it will on occasion lose volume, and I won't be able to hear myself or the other party. Using another phone (in another room) solves the problem. After a few minutes the trendline is fine again. Contenental sold it making damm sure I understood that it was a final sale; no refunds, exchanges, or repairs. --randall ------------------------------ Date: 9 March 1982 01:41 est From: JSLove at MIT-MULTICS (J. Spencer Love) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #27 Re: line powered modems The line powered modems I have known didn't suck power from the terminal. They take their power from the phone line, the same as a touch tone pad. This is an innocent way of saying that they blow dead bears (really). At the *slightest* provocation, they would hang up the line. Of course, they will still work during a power failure, but chances are your terminal won't (unless it is powered by internal hamsters). I don't know if the UDS modem mentioned has this property, but it is something I would check for when considering the modem. For example, try dropping a book on the table next to a dialed up modem, to see if the relays open from the shock (a 10ma current source doesn't provide a lot of power). Or try picking up another phone on the same line and see if it drops the connection. Or try it on a noisy line and see how long the connection lasts. -- Spencer ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Mar-82 22:43:42-PST,9499;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 9-Mar-82 2239-PST Date: 9 Mar 1982 2045-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@Usc-Eclb> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #29 Sender: JSOL at Usc-Eclb To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Reply-To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Via: Usc-Eclb; 9 Mar 82 23:46-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 9 Mar 82 23:51-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 10 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Headsets, And Other Things Crank Call Prevention Line-Powered Modems And Crank Calls Call Tracing Disconnecting The Ringer Star Sets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Mar 1982 0350-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: headsets, and other things Complaint: RFI Originating-Toll-Center: Shire Test Board Watchword: Feep I just got through wiring a headset into my new fone. All the Bell headsets, be they Star or otherwise, come with two 1/4" phono-ish plugs mounted in a block. This mates with a pair of standard 1/4"jacks, mounted, uh, 5/8" apart [As I remember]. The wiring is quite simple... the mike is connected across the Tips of the plugs, and the earpiece is connected across the Sleeves. Therefore to wire it so that it works like a handset, you common tip and sleeve of one of the jacks and run that to R on the network block, and then the tip of the other one goes to B and the sleeve of the other one goes to GN. This way you can plug the headset in either way, and it won't matter as far as its components are concerned. Re: Radio noise on your line: Gee, I remember that. In cities, especially, where you are close to various transmitters, you get a lot of that. One side of the line will definitely pick up radio signals, and thru miscellaneous spacing of other wires, the RF will find some way to be filtered down to audio and partially rectified, and you hear it on the line. This phenomenon was especially noticeable in Hoboken, which is across the river from NYC and all its powerful AM transmitters, and even with the phone connected you could still notice a little of it. If anyone has a more scientific explanation of why you hear the radio signal, I'd be more than happy to hear it, as my explanation is not all that clear. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 9 March 1982 1047-EST (Tuesday) From: Michael.Fryd at CMU-10A (C621MF0E) Subject: Crank Call Prevention An expensive (but effective) way of discouraging crank callers is to buy (or borrow) an answering machine. That way, when the idiot calls up at 3am, the only one he wakes is the answering machine. Since he is no longer waking anyone up, it's no fun anymore. -Michael Fryd ------------------------------ Date: 9 March 1982 0319-PST (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: line-powered modems and crank calls My two cents on line-powered modems: STAY AWAY! If you always have clean connections and have a nice short local loop, they're not too bad, but in many "real world" situations they can be alot of hassle. Now, on to "crank calls". Generally speaking, telco is not under any statutory requirement to deal with merely BOTHERSOME calls in any PARTICULAR manner. Offering to change your number (at no charge) is a perfectly valid and typical solution. If they try to charge you for this, THEN you have something to complain about. If calls are more than a hassle -- if they are THREATENING you or your property, then they fall into another catagory and the police will normally be informed. Under these conditions, an effort will usually be made to determine the origin of the calls (good luck -- they usually come from paystations anyway...) Often merely bothersome calls are from kids playing around in the middle of the night. If they find a good audience, you can be sure they will call back! Answering machines are also good targets for these sorts of fun-loving fugitives from the video arcade. The best way to deal with such calls (including obscene ones) is, of course, to hang up IMMEDIATELY. Don't yell or threaten -- it only feeds the caller's ego. If they have a habit of calling back, you can take the phone offhook for awhile after making sure it has cleared (all but very old SXS offices will clear within 30 seconds or so). Timing this right can be a bit tricky, but it can be done. Usually the callers get tired and move on to another randomly selected number after they've ceased getting their jollies from you. Under a full CCIS implentation, it will be POSSIBLE to "instantly" trace calls -- but such tracing won't do a hell of alot of good if a payphone sits at the other end. Various automatic call screening features will also eventually appear with CCIS -- but these will also tend to screen out other "new" callers you might well want to hear from! In short, the best way to deal with crank calls is to ignore them to the greatest extent possible. If they are threatening, however, make that clear and you can be sure that telco will take the matter a bit more seriously. --Lauren-- P.S. Over the years that I've used answering machines on some of my phone lines, I've gotten some GREAT calls. Occasional spates of crank calls -- but they always die out. The best calls are from people who leave complex messages for someone else -- not realizing that they had reached a wrong number. In a couple of cases, these messages were really amusing. It's amazing the intimate things that some people will say to a machine... --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 1982 08:02:51-PST From: mo at LBL-UNIX (Mike O'Dell [system]) Subject: call tracing Southwestern Bell has a simple hack for cross-bar office to trace every call made to a certain number. It uses the automatic retry facility in the cross-bar CO. Essentially, a call connect will attempt to make about 3 times. The hack is to install a relay on the traced line so it never makes the first time. This causes a trouble card to get punched, and the call goes through on the later attempts. With the trouble cards, you have a complete record of all incoming calls to the modified line. I know of this hack because I was aquainted with the lowly CO relayman who invented it. I know it got significant use in CO's around my home state (Oklahoma). Whether NY Bell knows about it is unknown, but it IS possible to do. I have found when dealing with TPC to never ASK whether something is possible. Tell them it is possible ("I know someone who had it done...") and that they should go find out how to do it for you. Even better is to tell them how to do it. Good Luck. -Mike ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 1982 17:03:20-PST From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Date-Sent: Mon Mar 8 15:09:05 1982 Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: disconnecting the ringer I have heard (but have been unable to verify) that the standard Bell method of disconnecting the ringer -- moving the black wire to terminal A -- is intended to preserve the verifiable electrical properties on the phone. That is, if your intent in disconnecting the bell is to avoid detection of the phone, that method might not work. Now -- is this accurate? The diagrams I have access to don't give enough information. ------------------------------ Date: 9 March 1982 15:43-EST From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI> Subject: star sets As I stated in my orignal message, a Plantronics Star-Set is available from Ma Bell herself, modulo the hefty price tag, for a $16 additional installation charge and insignificancies a month (I believe it is the same monthly charge as a headset jack alone). The nice thing is that the Bell flavored set has a switch (rotary) mounted next to the 1 on the key-pad. If you turn the switch to ON, the headset cuts in and the phone goes offhook. Set the other way (OFF), the headset is out of circuit, and the phone is on-hook (unless the real switch-hook is open, ie, you're using it with the normal handset). These days, there are still two flavors of headset made by Plantronics, a clip on the ear/eyeglass model, and a 2 reciever headband (like headphones) set. Bell sells the clip-on. You may have to try a while to get your local clone center person to believe such a thing exists, but it is sold... BTW, I find I use the headset for outgoing calls, and the normal set for incoming, switching to headset if the conversation stretches on... I find I can get the thing on in about 20 seconds, so it isn't much of a lose. Oh, one other advantage of a 500 w/headset jack over a hardwired headset (hooked to the headset wires in the phone) is that I can just yank out the plug and drag the set accross the room without the headset. One last thing, the speaker quality is good, and they give you 5 earplugs in varying sizes so they're comfortable. The only thing with the mike is that A) It is a hollow tube so I have been told it adds a *slight* hollow sound to my voice, and B) You should mount it slightly below or above your mouth so spittle doesn't make your conversation sound like the Dresden bombing. James ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 10-Mar-82 21:38:50-PST,4489;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 10-Mar-82 2135-PST Date: 10 Mar 1982 2039-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@Usc-Eclb> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #30 Sender: JSOL at Usc-Eclb To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Reply-To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Via: Usc-Eclb; 10 Mar 82 23:39-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 10 Mar 82 23:41-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 11 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Crossbar Exchange Trouble Tickets Ringer Disablement Gandalf LDS 120 Vs Gandalf LDS 100 How To Discourage A Crank Caller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 March 1982 2326-PST (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Crossbar exchange trouble tickets To: mo at lbl-unix Golly, I know an even easier way to drop trouble tickets for all incoming calls. In many cases, on non-party lines, simply shorting tip to ground (and leaving it that way at all times) will do the job. In many Crossbar offices, the marker checks for such conditions during call setup, and will drop the ticket when it finds this situation. Calls will generally be able to come in normally, but there will be a fair amount of hum on the circuit (them's the breaks!) Of course, the whole trouble ticket business won't do you any good at all unless the caller is within your local CO! If he/she is calling from any other central office, the ticket will simply show an incoming trunk group which won't be of that much help in tracking down your culprit. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 1982 0423-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: Ringer disablement Source: Hacking Why: Standard Practice This myth about moving the black ringer wire to terminal A is probably simply removing the ringer from the circuit. The ringing capacitor is between A and K on the network block, therefore if you move the black wire [which connects to the line, I assume] and put it on the ringing capacitor lead, you essentially have disconnected the entire ringer network. _H* [Thanks also to John Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> for explaining A lead] ------------------------------ Date: 10 March 1982 10:01-EST (Wednesday) From: HALVOR@MIT-ML Cc: LFG.KRIS at MIT-SPEECH Subject: Gandalf LDS 120 vs Gandalf LDS 100 We have 2 four conductor unloaded mettalic circuits connecting 2 terminals with a computer approx. 300 feet away (as the crow flies). The cables are 1500 feet max.. When MIT Telecommunications first stretched the lines for us we were told we needed GANDALF LDS 120 modems. These worked well (with a minimal amount of noise on the line) until one unit broke. As an interim measure we put in two LDS 100, (linedrivers), to replace the equipment on the line with the defective 120. The line with the 100 worked just fine. But, the second line with the 120's still on them was now useless due to cross-talk(?) from the 100 (linedriver circuit). Our fix was to replace the second set of 120's with 100's as well, and this has now worked better than the previous arrangement for 6 months. I have the following questions: Do we really need modems (120's) or linedrivers (100's) on such a haul, given the restriction that we cannot have drawn anything but 4 conductor lines? Are there any reasons why, in the future we shouldn't use LDS 100s for additional lines of this type? Why weren't the LDS120's able to coexist with the 100's. Gandalf's rep in the Boston area simply said that the two types were intended for different uses (one being a modem the other a linedriver) so they weren't constructed to coexist. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 10 March 1982 10:02-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: how to discourage a crank caller cc: King at KESTREL If you don't mind doing it, turn off your bell at night when you retire. Do this every night until you judge that the caller would have called you about five times had he been getting through. I know it makes many people somewhat nervous to be so out of touch every night for a couple of weeks, but when was the last time someone REALLY had to contact you at 3:AM? In a TRUE emergency the police will come to your door, or your caller can send a telegram. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 12-Mar-82 02:08:17-PST,4080;000000000000 Mail-from: ARPANET site BRL rcvd at 12-Mar-82 0206-PST Date: 12 Mar 1982 0114-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM@Usc-Eclb> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #31 Sender: JSOL at Usc-Eclb To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Reply-To: TELECOM at Usc-Eclb Via: Usc-Eclb; 12 Mar 82 4:12-EDT Via: Brl-Bmd; 12 Mar 82 4:21-EDT TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 12 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Crank Callers Radio Noise, Audio Rectification & Susceptibility To RFI Telephones Vs. Telegrams ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Mar 1982 0137-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #29 Motto: None To get the crank caller to cease and desist, call the police. It sounds as if the phone company didn't. If the police (as they often are in NYC) are disinterested ("we have BETTER things to do with our time"), hit the PUC. The New York PUC is often more reasonable to deal with than Ma Bell. --Lynn (a former New Yawker) ------------------------------ Date: 11 March 1982 09:24-EST From: Jeffrey Krauss <KRAUSS at MIT-MC> Subject: radio noise, audio rectification & susceptibility to RFI The long telephone loops of course act as an antenna and something in the telephone circuitry (either in the station set or in the central office) does a magical job of converting the RF from the radio station into audio. Audio rectification is apparently not a well-understood phenomenon. The subject has grown in importance over the past decade because of audio rectification in home stereos, public address systems and electronic organs. The culprit has been land mobile transmitters in most cases, and particularly CB transmitters. CB can cause this kind of interference even when it is operating on frequency and at the legal power limit (as distinguished from out-of-band or overpower transmissions.) The FCC has an investigation underway on the susceptibility of electronic equipment (primarily consumer electronics) to interference due to legally-operating transmitters (Docket 78-369, Notice of Inquiry released 11/14/78, Further Notice of Inquiry released 7/16/81). The biggest cause of problems is TV receiver overload caused by a nearby CB transmitter, but audio rectification is also a significant problem. The pressure on the FCC to "do something" hascome from the ham radio community. They don't like being blamed for problems that arise because of poor electronic equipment design that doesn't adequately reject interference such as front end overlaod and audio rectification. The hams have got Se. Barry Goldwater, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, to intorduce a bill, S.929, that would give the FCC authority to regulate the interference susceptibility of consumer electronic equipment. S.929 passed the Senate late last year, but the House has no interest in the subject. The FCC doesn't want this additional authority, which would result in huge cost increases in consumer electronics (you get increased protection whether you want it or not) and a big impact on the FCC's enforcement resources (can you imagine the FCC confiscating electronic organs because they receive too much interference?!) ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 11-Mar-82 11:50:48 PST (Thursday) From: Murray at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #30 cc: Murray.PA With the possible exception of locations in large cities, I don't think telegrams are an interesting alternative to telephones. About 6 years ago, when I was working in the Boston area, a west coast company with a contract with us was trying to get in touch with their local service man. He lived about 50 miles west of Boston. The storm had killed his phone, so they tried to send him a telegram. The best the telegraph people could do was to put a note in the mail. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 16-Mar-82 18:19:21-PST,10976;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 16-Mar-82 18:18:41 Date: 16 Mar 1982 1818-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #32 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 17 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: Administrivia Phone-Mate SAM Answering Machine How To Eliminate RFI Interference On Your Phone ENTEL -- They Make General Telephone Look Good! Door To Door Salesman Leaves Bogus Number - "prank?" Dial-Up Calls Coming To Airlines. UDS Line Powered Modems ITT Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 March 1982 17:50-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia - Distribution Host Changes Effective with this issue, USC-ECLB will be distributing TELECOM to the ARPANET community. There is a chance that your digest may arrive truncated. If this happens, please send mail to me at TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB and I will send you another digest. I will also put your host in a table of hosts which this happens to. There is a way for the software to be more careful about delivering to your host, and the truncation problem should only be temporary. You will be able to tell that you got the whole digest because the last 2 lines of the digest are "End of TELECOM Digest", followed by a line of *'s underlining the previous line. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 12 March 1982 09:46 est From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Phone-Mate SAM answering machine From 'The Sharper Image' catalogue, page 6 describing ''the newest--and smartest--telephone answering machine available'': ''SAM's remote retrieval feature allows you to call from any phone in the world for your messages. Unbelievably, it even lets you know *before* it answers if there are no messages; you hang-up and save long-distance charges.'' I'll say it's unbelievable. Does anyone know anything about how (or if) this thing works? The ad call this machine the Phone-Mate SAM, containing the new MICOM IV(tm) microcomputer. Chris Jones ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 1982 10:51 EST From: Denber.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #31 You can often eliminate RFI on your phone line by connecting a 0.01uF disc capacitor across the handset microphone terminals (a convenient spot). - Michel ------------------------------ Date: 14 March 1982 2222-PST (Sunday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: ENTEL -- They make General Telephone look good! n038 1237 14 Mar 82 BC-ARGENTINA-PHONES(COX) 2takes By CATESBY LEIGH c. 1982 Cox News Service BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Three weeks ago last Wednesday I was sitting in my apartment making telephone calls when suddenly my phone went dead. A sense of dread crept upon me as I unscrewed the components and realized I had no idea what was wrong. I was a telephoneless reporter, naked in the wilderness. The janitor in my apartment building told me to call 114 to get the repair service of the state phone company, Entel. I went over to a fellow journalist's office and did so, being assured by a soothing computerized voice that Entel would promptly fix my phone. But all hopes that my problem would soon be solved literally drowned as a weekend of downpours descended on this capital three days later. Some 33,000 phones in the area were put out of service as water flooded underground cable channels. ''After it rains, mushrooms spring up in the forests,'' an editorial in the Buenos Aires daily La Prensa noted sardonically. ''In Argentina, telephones break down.'' In most cases, they break down because underground cables are old and badly insulated. The cables in my neighborhood, for instance, were installed by Standard Electric of Argentina, an ITT subsidiary, in 1923. The good folks at Entel had just gotten around to reinsulating them when the rains came. Hopefully, the phones in my building - almost all of which are out of order - will start working again when they finish. I have also been compelled to frequently resort to Buenos Aires' diabolical pay telephones. If you happen to be in this city and have to make a call from a pay phone, there are a few things you should know. When you buy a 12-cent ''ficha'' for the phone in a cafe or pharmacy, don't buy just one. Buy three. One token very likely will be wasted when you dial the right number but get the wrong connection. A second is lost when the other party picks up the phone and all you hear is a deafening crackle of static. The third time around, you might, you just might, reach your party. But don't be surprised if you get cut off in mid-dipthong. It happens all the time during business hours because the city's phone lines are flooded. But you can always take comfort in the fact that making calls from a hotel room, apartment or office is only slightly less frustrating. Fourteen telephone ''centrals'' with a capacity of 5,000 connections each service Buenos Aires' ''Microcentro,'' the business and financial hub of the nation where tens of thousands of offices are crammed into an area of a couple of square miles. The centrals in the Microcentro are constantly tied up on weekdays. You can tell because you get a busy signal before you've dialed the whole number. On numerous occasions when I have been under a deadline, totally unable to get past the first two or three digits of any of the phone numbers I'm dialing, I would have gladly taken my venerable old telephone and smashed it to bits. But each time I come to the brink, the clause in my apartment lease requiring me to pay a $5,000 indemnity for ''negligence or misuse'' of the instrument comes to mind. Distributed by The N.Y. Times News Service. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 82 19:04:47-EDT (Fri) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel-Relay> Subject: "prank?" A few days ago I arrived home to find a card on my door, advising me that a local camera shop was givving away free cameras to advertise their low prices. All I needed to do was call a number (penned in by hand) and they would ship the camera to me. To see what was going un, I called. There was never any answer. I checked with tpc repair, and they told me the number was unassigned. I saw several of the cards around my apartment complex, so I'm pretty sure I am not the sole target of this. Any ideas? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 1982 1318-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Dial-up calls coming to airlines. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL ELECTRONICS, Dec 29, '81 By late next year (end of '82), passengers on many U.S. long-distance commercial flights may make direct-dial telephone calls to the ground. Air-Fone Inc. is installing the system, and Western Union, which owns 50% of Air-Fone, will service and maintain the equipment and ground stations. Calls will be transmitted from the planes in the 899-to-901 Mhz band and signals from ground stations in the 944-to-946 MHz band. A microcomputer-controlled reciever systems in the place will focus on a ground station by measuring the doppler shift of a pilot frequency each station sends out. Each station will be assigned 1 of 10 such frequencies. The frequency with the largest doppler shift will help define the farthest useable station. Which station is most useable depends on the strength of the received signal, as well as the value of its doppler shift coupled with each station's known position relative to the aircraft. Interestingly, the man behind Washington, D.C.-based Air-Fone is John D. Goeken, its president, who back in 1973 formed MCI Corp., the first specialized common carrier to go into competition with AT&T for inter city phone calls. As before, Goeken is resorting to off-the-shelf technology to implement his service. Single-sideband transceivers, using the same type of amplitude companders as in standard telephone systems, will be installed at 26 ground stations. These stations will automatically switch the calls into the ground telephone network. As the plane moves through the air, the closest ground station will be continually monitored and its memory location changed. Goeken says that no calls will be transferred from one ground station to the next, as in present experimental cellular mobile-radio schemes. A plane should be able to maintain adequate contact with a ground station for at least 20 minutes, he says. Each station will be able to accommodate thirty-one 3-kilohertz-wide channels for the calls. CREDIT CALLS. A would-be caller aboard an aircraft simply inserts a major credit card into a telephone. Billing will be handled through the card at a rate of $7.50 for the first 3 minutes and $1.25 for each minute thereafter. Air-Fone is also considering making calls `to' planes possible and, if needed, many equip planes with a modem for data communications to the ground. Of course, there is also the question of whether the service is necessary. Goeken believes it will be, citing studies showing that 20 to 30 calls would be made for every 100 passengers on board. So far, a dozen airlines, including Americans, Trans World, and United have signed up for the service. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 1982 1932-PST From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: UDS line powered modems I have one of the first UDS line powered 300 baud modems. This was before they did originate as well as answer. I was very pleased with it when I was using it, but right now I use a Vadic for its 1200 baud capability. It was very convenient not having to run a cord to the power outlet, and did not have problems hanging up the phone. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 16 March 1982 10:09-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: ITT rates A while back I replied to Schauble.Multics@MIT-Multics's survey of long distance phone company rate comparisons. I said that the rate he was told was more expensive than the rate I am paying. It appears I spoke too soon. I just got a notification of a rate increase of approximately 40%. Since my night rate for a coast-to-coast call was $0.082, I would expect it to reach slightly less then $0.12, as reported in Schauble's table. My apologies to Schauble and the mailing list. Dick ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 17-Mar-82 19:45:11-PST,10084;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-Mar-82 19:44:12 Date: 17 Mar 1982 1944-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #33 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 18 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Technology For Tomorrow - New Products Available Today "Unbelievable" Answering Machine Feature Try Sending A Telegram These Days Comparison of Long Distance Alternative Services - ITT, MCI, SPRINT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Mar 1982 0025-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Real World services for the Technological Elite. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL "Go out and see what the real world as to offer." -Gerry Todd, SCTV I did, and here are two spiffy services you can get: 1) Electronic Mail for people on the move . . . For the lucky residents of the San Francisco Bay Area and the Greater Los Angeles area, you can get a device called a MetaGram Receiver (MR-80), which is, for the most part, a `Digital Pager'. An MR-80 (in the process of being trademarked as `THE MESSENGER') allows you to: . Receive & store one or more messages up to a total of 940 characters in length --and selectively read, reread, or delete these messages. . Take your MetaGram receiver anywhere [I have mine clipped onto my belt most of the time] because it is small 6.5" x 1.5" x 2.75", lightweight 10 oz., and battery operated. [operates for 18 hours and then requires 6 hours charge -- unit remains fully operational while its being charged.] . The MetaGram Receiver can alert you by choice of flashing display (great for getting confidential messages passed to you in meetings), beep and/or vibrating action. . You can have messages sent to you at anytime by simply calling (via an 800 IN-WATS #) a dispatcher [for those without a terminal and modem], or by dialing local numbers all over the Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles area and typing in the messages yourself. . You can receive messages in any city in which this service exists. [I receive messages both in LA and SF areas with my unit]. . There is a hardcopy printer option which you can slide your unit into, and get automatic printout when msgs come in. The MR-80 has a 20 char wide LED display which shows msgs line by line. You can freeze a frame in the display [handy for reeling off numbers to the mobile operator when driving and placing a call from your car phone]. The MetaNet system also sends out periodic msgs to all units about every 2 minutes, and if you miss two of these periodic `watchdog' msgs, your unit lets you know you're out of range. An ARPANET to MetaNet Gateway exists (and an improved version is under development), which allows ARPANET users to send msgs to people on the MetaNet without having to run and find a terminal with a modem on it or go thru the human dispatcher. I.e. so you can now do fun things like be driving down the road and have a message appear that says: [YOU HAVE NEW MAIL]. The service itself costs $60/mo, and that includes 4000 characters worth of traffic. Traffic above the 4000 characters is a half-a-cent a character. There currently is no different between self-dispatched msgs and msgs send via the human dispatcher. Further information available from LIGHTNING COMMUNICATIONS, 6173 Purple Sage Court, San Jose, CA 95119 or via the phone: 408/354-1226. 2) Turn any telephone into a complete electronic message service. A service called `VoiceMail' allows you to purchase a VoiceMailbox. A VoiceMailbox differs from the traditional answering machine in that it is two-way (between two VoiceMail subscribers). I can call in (on an IN-WATS 800 #, tollfree Inter or Intra state), and leave a `Voice Message' for you in your VoiceMailbox. Later, when you call in, you `play' my message, and can then hit REPLY (a single key touch tone operation) to answer my message. VoiceMail also allows you to delay delivery of voice messages to other subscribers or call-out periodically (until the phone is answered) to deliver messages to non-subscribers. With VoiceMail, you can: . Send a message of any length to any VoiceMail subscriber or to a group of subscribers. . Have messages sent immediately or sent later at a specific time. . Receive messages from any VoiceMail subscriber or from non-subscribers you wish to allow access. . Have a personalized announcement left for callers. . Forward a messages from any caller to another VoiceMail user, or have the message forwarded to phone number. . Have messages `screened' and sent to you on any telephone if its `important'. There are provisions for having people operate the system who are not on Touch-Tone phones; Assisting in forwarding calls through hotel and office switchboards. You can selectively play, replay, delete and store messages permanently. VoiceMail has a special introductory offer, which gives you two VoiceMailboxes for the price of one. The cost is $25.00 per month which includes 50 messages. Additional messages are 50 cents each. There is a one-time set-up fee for both boxes of $10.00. With the special introductory offer, you have the choice of subscribing to two VoiceMailboxes or, one VoiceMailbox and once `Tel-Answer(TM)' box. The `Tel-Answer' box is a "one-way" Voicemailbox through which non-subscribers can leave you messages. The Tel-Answer mailbox is ideal for use as a personal automatic answering service. Further information from VOICEMAIL INTERNATIONAL, INC., 2225 Martin Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050, or via the phone: 408/496-6555. ------------------------------ Date: 16 March 1982 2035-PST (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: "unbelievable" answering machine feature... The most obvious way for an answering machine to tell the caller whether there are any messages (before answering) is to vary the number of rings before the call is answered. For example, if there were messages, the machine might answer after the first ring. If there were no messages, it might wait until after the fourth, to give the caller time to abort the call. At least one answering machine manufacturer found itself in legal trouble after advertising such a scheme, since it is a form of toll fraud. "Toll fraud?", you ask incredulously. Sure! Because you are passing information over the network without paying for it! In fact, giving a friend a signal (like one ring) to have them call you back is also, strictly speaking, a form of toll fraud. --Lauren-- [Thanks also to Michael.Fryd at CMU-10A (C621MF0E) for describing this method --JSol] ------------------------------- Date: 17 March 1982 09:45 est From: Sibert at MIT-MULTICS (W. Olin Sibert) Subject: telegrams Sender: Sibert.RDMS at MIT-MULTICS Gone are the days when you could send a telegram and expect it to be delivered expediently. When I was in London last Saturday, I wanted to send a telegram saying my flight had been cancelled, rather than calling, since it was 5:00 AM in the U.S. The person at the airport was apologetic, but said my telegram probably wouldn't be delivered until Sunday, or more likely Monday. She then suggested, only half facetiously, that I send flowers with my message, since I could count on that being delivered within a few hours! (I ended up leaving my message with a ticket agent, who telephoned for me at a more civilized hour..... but it sure would have been funny to "Say it with flowers".) P.S. I'm told there was once a time when you could send your answer saying you'd meet someone for lunch today by midmorning mail, in response to an invitation you'd received in early morning mail. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 17 March 1982 11:05-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: A difference between MCI, and ITT or SPRINT There is one difference between the three long distance services. All three services work by having the customer first dial an "access number", a seven-digit phone number that connects the customer to their computer. ITT & SPRINT give you an account which can be used anywhere in the country. You get a list of the computers' numbers all over the country. (with SPRINT you get a six digit password, plus a two digit code to use if you call from anywhere but your "home" local area. With ITT you get a seven digit password that will work anywhere in the IT&T system.) MCI accounts can only be used in the calling area for which they are issued (unless you are willing to incur long distance rates to call your "own" computer). For an extra $5/mo you get a "travel card". I don't know whether this gives you just one more computer to call, or it allows you to use the whole rest of the network. One common thing you certainly CAN'T do with basic MCI service is use one MCI account to support both directions if there are two people, each of whom calls the other often. I judge that to be a common situation. When I pointed this out to the saleswoman, she said that it "reduces code abuse". Can anyone figure out how it might? With so many people (about 3-5%, I believe) using some long distance service, I wonder how many people wiretap for the purpose of getting code numbers by decoding touch-tone touches. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 18-Mar-82 19:30:20-PST,6974;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Mar-82 19:28:32 Date: 18 Mar 1982 1928-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #34 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 19 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Paging Systems In Alaska Telegrams In Foreign Countries Prank? No - Unprofitable Sales Technique MCI And SPRINT And Code Security The Second-Line Problem - Call Forwarding, Call Pickup ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Mar 82 1:08:49-EST (Thu) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL-BMD> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #33 About paging systems: When I was up at the North Slope, (of Alaska) recently, I saw an interesting paging system in use by the Atlantic Richfield people. They do their own phone service, (microwave, even for distances like 300 yards, because cables are unreliable in the Artic, each building effectively has its own CO). There you dial a 'page' number, and the a 4 digit 'extension code' and your voice line is connected, (outgoing only) to the pager in question. It beeps, and then the voice circuit comes on. There are also a few pages around that will go both directions. They are all about 5" tall by 1-1/2 " wide, by about 1/2" thick, and will run two or three 12-hour shifts without recharging, which takes about 8 hours. Most of them are made by Motorola. The system was very handy, in particular for people in different parts of the plant, (phones are EVERYWHERE up there). The voice channel provided wasn't real hot, but then it IS free. The only really annoying thing about their phone system is that you get reverse channel gain cutting (echo suppression) on EVERY circuit, (must be the microwaves). -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1982 2356-PST From: JPM at SU-AI Subject: Telegrams I was totally shocked when I went to Europe over the summer over the state of telegram, as opposed to telephone, service. I did not inquiry too closely into the time delays involved in telegramming, simpy because the prices were simply laughable (ie it was normal for a telegram of reasonable size (ie a hundred words) to cost 3 times a short (3 minute) phone call - and obviously the phone call went through right away). Does anyone know why telegram rates are so high (and service seemingly so poor?). It would seem trivial to cut down on transmission costs for a telegram vs a phone call, so I assume the telegram companies incur a large overhead cost they have to pass on to the few users of the system. Perhaps telegrams are dead? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 1982 16:12 EST From: Denber.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Randall Gellens's "prank?" I got a similar card a few years ago. When I called, I was told I'd get the camera free *if* I agreed to have only my next 200 (!) rolls of film developed by them. I didn't think to point out that I only take around three rolls of pictures a year. I told them I'd think about it. I already had a camera and it seemed to violate the TANSTAAFL principle. In any event, this particular concern no longer seems to be in business (maybe they gave away too many cameras). - Michel ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 1982 1524-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: MCI and SPRINT and code security Sender: ADMIN.MRC at SU-SCORE Motto: None The reason a LOCAL-ONLY number reduces code abuse is that ANYBODY can do the following with a set of access numbers for SPRINT, ITT, or MCI: 1) Dial local access number 2) Hit in a random sequence of numbers (I heard a story about someone who once hooked up a TRS-80 to an autodialer and compiled access codes this way!), the number you want to dial (or just something like weather or time if you're just interested in testing it out), and if it goes through, you note it down. If it doesn't, you just try the next number in sequence. The reason it's easier to hack SPRINT than MCI is that with MCI, you have a much smaller chance of your random code working because it only works from ONE phone number. --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 18 March 1982 18:41-EDT From: Richard K. Braun <RKB at MIT-AI> Subject: The Second-Line Problem Yesterday I had a second phone line installed so I can use my terminal without tying up the house line for hours. (It had call-waiting, too, with its attendant lossage...!) The phone company has one neat idea for dealing with the second line: call forwarding. That way, if anyone looks me up and finds my new number, they can still call me up even if I'm using the terminal: the call gets re-routed to the main house phone. [I don't want an unlisted number, as I'm not already listed under the main house number, and want to be listed under SOME number.] Fine, right? Well, there's something Ma Bell forgot about. The feature I want is called Call Pickup in Dimension-land. If I hear the main house phone ringing downstairs when I'm near my second line, I would like to be able to pick up the call from the second line, rather than racing over to the other phone. Dimension, which is available at my office, allows me to do that sort of thing by hitting "*7" on my phone while some other phone is ringing nearby. I got around the problem by appropriating a length of 4-conductor wire, a 4-pole double-throw switch, and proper connectors, and rigging up a little switch-box that connects my phone to both circuits, giving me a choice as to which one I want to use (the way an office push-button phone works). Thus, if I'm not using the terminal line and hear the other phone ringing, I can select the main line and answer the phone. Does Ma Bell have any plans up her sleeve to offer the Call-Pickup service to residential customers? I think it would also be useful for families who have second lines for business use or for their children. Given the call-forwarding feature, making the two lines into a hunt- pair doesn't seem necessary. Ma Bell doesn't seem to publish any prices on this feature; is it costly? Also, now that I have this switch-box that is itching to be hacked upon, how can I set it up to "hold" a line that is deselected? (simply breaking the contacts causes the line to hang up...) The other hack I'd like is to indicate incoming rings via LEDs or some such, showing which line needs answering (and probably also ringing the bell regardless of which line I have currently selected, though that's harder and not really needed.) Anyone have any clues on these technical aspects? Regards Rich ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 19-Mar-82 18:58:14-PST,4924;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Mar-82 18:55:31 Date: 19 Mar 1982 1855-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #35 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 20 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: Home Executive Service Using Telegrams Vs. Telephones Real Metal Circuits (2 Msgs) Gandalf Port Selector ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 19 March 1982 01:37-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSOL at ECLC> Subject: "Home/Executive Service" - New From PacTel I got this new packet at the Phone Center Store, PacTel seems to offer a new "two line phone" which acts like a key phone. "Now when you call home you will get an answer instead of a busy signal. Even when the kids are on the phone!" (Wait a minute - Isn't that an push for Call Waiting? Na, it *must* be typo. Doesn't make any sense to me! --JSol) "No more running upstairs to answer your teenager's phone. You can answer both lines from one phone." (My opinion: I don't want my parents to either answer my phone or be able to pick it up downstairs, for paranoid parents I suppose that could be a selling point) "When the president of your PTA calls with an important question that you cannot answer, put them on hold and use your second line to call another member and get a speedy answer." (Now this one's clearly an ad for 3-way calling --JSol). PacTel also has a speed dialer, so they seem to offer all the custom calling features except Call Forwarding (sigh) to you even if you don't have an ESS office you can use. --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1982 08:37 EST From: Sperry.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Telegrams I would imagine that the legal standing of a telegram as evidence, would be greater than a telephone call. Therefore, for business transactions, funds authorizations, notification of contractual obligations, etc., the telegram may still be preferable to the telephone. I have to admit to being uncertain on this fact, perhaps someone out there may have some legal training and might wish to comment further. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1982 11:41:29 EST (Fri) From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Gandalf Port Selector Around here, we just run our terminals directly into a Gandalf PACX III; it's a cable run of about 1800 feet. Works just fine up to 4800 baud. Our major problems have been running out of cable pairs, and thunderstorms; we eventually built a mux with *lots* of optoisolators.... (Almost all of the lines were hooked to HP 2645 or 2621 terminals.) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1982 07:41:07-PST From: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley Date-Sent: Fri Mar 19 10:27:22 1982 Subject: Real metal circuits Around here, we lease such circuits for terminals, and we do not use any driving equipment AT ALL. We can get 4800 baud service anywhere on campus, although we do need line drivers (not modems) to go any faster than that. Since these twisted-pair wire sets go to the switching office and back, the total run length is well over a mile. ------------------------------ Date: 19 March 1982 18:18-EST (Friday) From: Per-Kristian Halvorsen <LFG.KRIS at MIT-SPEECH> Subject: Real Metal Circuits From: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley Around here, we lease such circuits for terminals, and we do not use any driving equipment AT ALL. We can get 4800 baud service anywhere on campus, although we do need line drivers (not modems) to go any faster than that. Since these twisted-pair wire sets go to the switching office and back, the total run length is well over a mile. This is very interesting information for us. But some questions do remain: What about the clear evidence that there was interference/cross-talk from the line-drivers when they were working on lines running alongside lines with modems on them, and the claim that the linedrivers we have (Gandalf 100) are not approved for use on telephone-lines. Do you have any reactions to this? Also, being ignorant about the technicalities of terminal-machine connections. If your connection is through twisted-pair wires, what connectors on the terminal and machine side to you hook up to the 4 wires (data transmit, receive ....). And finally, on our machine you have to specify whether a terminal is remote or not in order for it to be handled appropriately. Would a terminal connected over a twisted-pair wire with no modem/line driver be considered remote or local? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 21-Mar-82 20:51:45-PST,3836;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 21-Mar-82 20:51:06 Date: 21 Mar 1982 2051-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #36 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 22 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: The Second-Line Problem Executive/Home Service Real Metal Circuits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Mar 1982 0008-EST From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C> Subject: Re: The Second-Line Problem To: RKB at MIT-AI First, unless you have some special features, you only need 2 poles (and just 2 wires from each line). If the set is yours, you could install the switch in the faceplate, although there are small toggle switches available in little enclosures that hang off of the base plate of a desk set (mine claims it was made by "Crest Industries, Tacoma Washington"). There do exist fairly nice single line hold circuits (have appeared in various electronic hobby magazines). It takes an SCR, a diode, an LED, 2 resistors and a momentary pushbutton. I works by triggering the scr and causing it to load the line down slightly-ca. 30v, as opposed to the normal nominal 12v (therefore, when you go off-hook and the voltage DOES drop to 12v, the scr ceases to conduct, and the circuit resets). You do need one at each station you plan to be able to hold from. Also available commercially for about $15-$19. (If anyone is interested, I'll try to find the scrap I had the diagram on, and try to format it to something readable on the digest.) As for ring indication, the traditional method is to use neon lamps, although LEDs could be used. To have a common ringer, you need a local power supply and sensors on both lines (there are optocouplers that do just fine-I think it was Monsanto or perhaps Litronix has an applications note covering this precise application). Gene ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 1982 0606-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #35 Motto: None Sounds like Ma Bell thinks that the only people worth appealing to are middle-aged adults who have teenagers and are involved in the PTA. (Teenager's phone? When *I* was a teenager living with my parents, I wasn't ALLOWED to have my own phone, or for THAT matter, even wire up an extension in my room -- even though the TelCo had put a box in there for one!) --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 1982 10:24:20-PST From: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley Date-Sent: Sat Mar 20 10:27:13 1982 To: HALVOR@MIT-ML Subject: Real metal circuits The distinction between line drivers and modems should probably be made clear here: line drivers alter the (DC) signal to/from a terminal so that it passes more easily through a long/noisy twisted-pair cable while leaving it as a DC signal; modems alter the signal to conform to the frequency specs of the switched phone network (analog) by putting the signal onto a carrier frequency which the phone network is happy to carry with fair fidelity. The two, while performing somewhat similar functions, do so in a very different manner. Thus, the line driver/modem combination is sort of like comparing coax and optical fiber: they do the same job in wildly differing ways. The line driver is meant for use over these Real Metal Connections; modems work fine over any medium which can carry sound, from satellite links to tin-can-and-string. The crosstalk problem you mention is probably just that: a sign of poor shielding or incorrectly paired twisted pairs. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 22-Mar-82 20:17:49-PST,2449;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-Mar-82 20:16:12 Date: 22 Mar 1982 2016-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #37 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 23 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Real Metal Pairs Line Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Mar 1982 0139-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: Real Metal Pairs Here at Rutgers we recently put in a long 25-pair cable to the Engineerin building. The run length is about 1200 feet, and using VT100's on the other end from the Vax we got 9600 baud just fine, with *no* signal ground. Whoever made up the EIA specs would flip to see that one. Of course before we let the users at them we dropped them all to 2400 and put in a common ground line, just to be on the safe side. We also use the line driver/telco circuit things for longer runs and to peoples' homes. When Jsol and I were living in Piscataway the best we could do with these [Ven-tel drivers, don't expect too much, right?] was 2400 baud over a 6-mile run. We fooled around with the thing but only got garbage any faster than that. I haven't looked it up, but I believe the driver takes RS232 voltage-oriented protocol and turns it into some funny current-oriented protocol. I will probably look that up soon out of my own curiosity, if anybody's interested I will send along more details. We have also had a host of problems in which the local telco will take one of the pairs of a send-receive quad, somehow determine that the pair is ''unassigned'' and reallocate it to somebody else! _H* [When the pair they take is your ARPANET connection, you really lose big! --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1982 0338-PST From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: line drivers I have known of a former telephone company datacommunications type who voiced the opinion that sending DC signals over a leased line was apt to cause problems for other pairs in the cable. Is this a reasonable consideration? In other words, the cross talk might degrade signal quality on lines being operated with modems, so it is sort of anti-social to connect DC directly. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 23-Mar-82 17:13:47-PST,6318;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Mar-82 17:13:28 Date: 23 Mar 1982 1713-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #38 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 24 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Leased Line Woes Wiretapping - TeleGuard CS 2000 [Be sure to read my warning on Wiretapping -JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 March 1982 2232-PST (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: you did WHAT to my leased line? Here is a rather obvious and handy hint regarding leased line services. At NO TIME, EVER, should the lines appear to be "idle". If at all possible, when nothing else is going on, run some sort of audio over them nice and loud! Some telco craftpersons have the habit of assuming that any line they come across in a "B" box on which they can't draw dialtone is unassigned, regardless of what the line records show (the records *are* often inaccurate to a certain extent). In theory, data and other leased lines should be redcapped to indicate they are NOT supposed to be touched... but frequently the redcaps were never installed or have been misplaced over time. When the installer fails to hear anything with his/her trusty Butt-in, they might well steal your pair. Nice obscure tones are perfect for an "idle" trunk indicator. Another cute idea is a loop tape that repeats "THIS CIRCUIT IS IN USE, KEEP YOUR FINGERS OFF!" over and over. On at least two occasions, I have had to deal with "idle" leased lines that ended up being disconnected or (even worse) connected to some poor old lady's phone by a confused craftperson. --Lauren-- [The ARPANET lines should never be idle. This is a case of there not being enough lines accross the Hudson River, between NJ and NYC, anytime the telephone company yanks the pair they know it's in use. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1982 1832-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: TeleGuard CS 2000 I picked up the following ad at a display booth for TARGET Communications Systems GmbH in the transit hall of the Frankfurt Airport this morning: CHECK YOUR PREMISES ANYTIME ........ FROM ANYWHERE ! Would you believe that you can hear what is spoken in your home, office or any other room although you are travelling, thousand miles away, in another town, country -- even on another continent? At the same time, as the conversation takes place? IT IS POSSIBLE ! We present the T e l e G u a r d C S 2 0 0 0 * an electronic breakthrough in the field of modern surveillance. Countless hours of engineering and utilizing the latest available technology enables us to provide you with this fantastic product which was unthinkable just a short time ago. The CS 2000 consists of two units: The monitor unit and the remote activator. Here is how ist works: Attach the monitor modules inside your telephone instrument. This telephone should be located in the room which you want to monitor. From now on you may call this telephone from any place in the world as follow: As you dial the last digits of the telephone number, hold the activator close to the mouthpiece of the telephone handset. A special frequency tone is transmitted over the phone lines and prevents the telephone from ringing. The tone will instantly activate the monitor unit and its sensitive microphone and all conversations and sounds in the room will now be transmitted over the phone lines to your telephone handset. Nobody will be aware that you have dialled the number or that the room is monitored. The telephone will not make the slightest sound -- it will just sit there innocently as ever! The CS 2000 won't interfere -- the phone will ring and work as usual when the special tone is not transmitted. The Teleguard CS 2000 is at present in use by Governments on four Continents. The CS 2000 is manufactured by TARGET Communications Systems GmbH 6 Frankfurt 73, West Germany Available on Frankfurt Airport (International Duty Free Areas A + B) at H. Hiller GmbH u. Co KG, Tel 0611/6 90 36 22 TARGET Communication offers a complete range of Security Equipment -- Miniature Transmitters -- Voice Scramblers -- Bug Detectors -- Night Viewers -- Electronic Lie Detection -- Radar Detectors -- Miniature Recorders -- ask for Comprehensive catalogue. * Pat. pending. Installing and operation of the CS 2000 is not permitted in West Germany and West-Berlin. For use in foreign countries please observe the applicable laws. -------------------------------------------------- I believe we've heard of this gadget in this digest before. As was explained then, the gadget will work only in those central offices where there is a voice path to the telephone set during ringing. This is the case in most SxS and XBar offices, but is definitely not the case in No. 1 or No. 2 ESS -- THE DEVICE WILL NOT WORK THERE! I unfortunately didn't have time to go by H. Hiller -- I suspect that their counter sales people wouldn't have cared whether it would work everywhere or not. [From the Los Angeles Telephone book: "It is a crime under Federal Law for any person, INCLUDING a telephone subscriber, to wiretap or otherwise intercept a telephone call, unless that person has FIRST obtained the consent of one of the parties actually participating in the call. Under California State Law the consent of ALL the parties participating in the call must be obtained before any person may record a telephone conversation or before a person who is not a party to a call may eavesdrop on or wiretap the call. " There are exceptions for Law Enforcement agencies, but only after they have obtained a court order. Clearly this type of device cannot be used in the United States. The penalties are quite stiff: Federal Law: 5 Years in jail and/or $10,000 fine California State Law: 1 Year in jail and/or $2500 fine (fine can go up to $10,000) Beware! -JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 24-Mar-82 19:07:08-PST,2645;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 24-Mar-82 19:06:42 Date: 24 Mar 1982 1906-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #39 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 25 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Wiretapping Bug Detector Couplers & Switching Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23-Mar-82 18:13:45 PST (Tuesday) From: Newman.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Wiretapping and the TeleGuard 2000 cc: Newman.es Not that I would ever use such a fiendish instrument, but... I don't see how your warning applies to the device under discussion. It doesn't "wiretap or otherwise intercept a telephone call". It merely opens a telephone connection to your phone, which has been set up to receive and amplify background noise. This may be illegal under some law, but certainly not under the paragraph you cited. /Ron ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1982 2205-PST From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE> Subject: Wiretapping and recording phone conversations Motto: None In other words, you CAN record a phone conversation as long as ONE of the parties involved knows it is being recorded. This means that someone can call you and you can tape your conversation with them WITHOUT their consent. I do believe that's another interpretation of the same law. --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 82 21:34:51-EDT (Tue) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel-Relay> Subject: bug detector? There is a company here in DC that advertises a small, cheap device that goes on your phone, and has a red led that lights up when anyone is "wire- tapping, evesdropping, or even picks up an extension on the same line..." Anyone know if, or how, this works? ------------------------------ Date: 23 March 1982 21:31-EST From: Arthur Dent <AD at MIT-AI> Subject: Couplers & Switching Systems Hi there... I was just wondering if AT&T rents out couplers anymore...I was listening to a California comment line, and heard about these mysterious gadgets from them... How do they work? Are they easy to build? Secondly, (and lastly), I was wondering if anyone knew what kind of switching system we here in England have... The post office people won't say a thing about it, and it certainly isn't one of the American/Canadian systems. 42, Arthur ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 25-Mar-82 18:50:47-PST,5132;000000000001 Mail-From: JSOL created at 25-Mar-82 18:50:26 Date: 25 Mar 1982 1850-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #40 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 26 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Taps, Couplers, And The BPO Suppliers Of Tools And Headsets That ''Bug Detector'' Kludge - Electronic Bamboozle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 March 1982 1933-PST (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: taps, couplers, and the BPO 1) Regarding the so-called "tap-detectors"... those little boxes do nothing more than detect a drop in line voltage such as would result from a normal extension being lifted or an INCREDIBLY INEPT tapping job. As a general rule, professional taps are almost *impossible* to detect. The fact that you may hear buzzes, clicks, and other strange noises on your line only means you're a General Telephone subscriber. (Ha ha.) 2) I believe that telco is getting out of the coupler business, since the FCC certification programs (here in the U.S.) have pretty much made them an academic issue. There are private companies that can sell you FCC registered couplers for connecting up whatever you want. The couplers simply provide some rudimentary voltage and level protections to (theoretically) make it difficult for you to screw up your phone line or the network to any great extent. 3) Regarding the phone system in Britain. I don't understand how the British Post Office (which runs the phone system) can be accused of not wanting to talk about their system: they publish a journal (the equiv. of the Bell System Technical Journal) which manages to give a pretty complete accounting of what's going on. Briefly though, the British system is still largely Step by Step, now in the process of being converted (slowly) to ESS type systems. --Lauren-- P.S. The people here in the U.S. who complain about telco rules for interconnect and the like should move to Europe and see how the other half lives! In Britain, I believe that all foreign attachments are still completely illegal. In most of Europe, use of acoustic couplers or ANY sort of non-rented-from-telco modem device is completely illegal. In many parts of the world, you must take out insurance on your rented telephone instrument, or be vulnerable for VERY high charges (sometimes over $1000!) if something happens to the unit. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1982 0031-EST From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C> Subject: Suppliers of tools and headsets Starsets are available from Allied Electronics, 401 E. 8th St., Ft. Worth, Texas, 76102, with offices all over the place. Their prices on such things tend to be a little high, but they can be used as a reference of what's available. They do have noticable discounts for fairly small quantities (i.e. 5). Vanilla Starset: $168.85 Jackset $63.00 They do have two versions that are new to me: Starmate "Customer Installable Headset $179.00 This toy is a starset permanantly attached to a small box that inserts in the HANDSET line. (modular, of course) The box has a small switch on it. This is cheaper than a Starset/Jackset combo, and would also be just dandy for those to whom a screwdriver is an alien implement. It does have a small "quick disconnect" connector about 2 feet down from the headset, but the rest of the cord is captive. Starset Quietstar $224.00 Like the vanilla, except that instead of a small dynamic mic in the headset, they use a small condenser mic at the end of the tube. It appears to be a differential ("two-port") mic for noise cancellation. It also has a push-to-talk switch, but instead of being merely a mic switch, the leads are brought out to 2 additional contacts on a PJ511 (dual 3-conductor phone, as opposed to PJ-327 dual 2 conductor). Going through piles of old catalogs I found one from Anixter-Pruzan who carries tools and test sets. They have warehouses all over, and the following phone numbers: West: 800-426-4948 East: 800-631-9603 Washington 206-251-6760 New Jersey 201-328-0980 Alaska 907-274-8525 Gene ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1982 0246-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: That ''Bug detector'' kludge Complaint: Electronic Bamboozle In reference to the one that replaces the standard mike unit: This is simply a line-voltage meter. It will not detect things like capacitive taps. All it *can* do is tell you when somebody picked up an extension, and to save $50 or whatever they are robbing the unsuspecting public for these things, I can use a light bulb in series to do the same thing. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Mar-82 18:53:03-PST,3009;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 29-Mar-82 18:51:40 Date: 29 Mar 1982 1851-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #41 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 30 Mar 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Britain's Post Office - Telephone Exchange ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 March 1982 20:40-EST From: Arthur Dent <AD at MIT-AI> Subject: Switchblade Systems To: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY Hello there... Since you asked, I might as well extrapolate. Three days ago I went down to the local P.O. to ask them some simple questions. What I got was a load of dingo's kidneys. They told me every- thing from "That's not public information" to "It doesn't have a name" to "Bugger off before I call a cop". I don't know why they won't tell me, and I'm not about to reason with people who (I feel) are not rational human beings. But as to your notion that we run on SxS, I doubt it. There's none of the familiar <number>CLICK<number<CLICK>etc., no pa- thetic slowness, no kludgey dialing methods, none of the standard SxS symptoms. I think it's a cross between Xbar and something only native to the U.K., but I think rain is wet, so who am I to judge? 42, Arthur ------------------------------ Date: 26 March 1982 1857-PST (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: British telco In-reply-to: Your message of 26 March 1982 20:40-EST To: AD at MIT-AI Well, the fact that they're not cooperative down at the local P.O. isn't too surprising. You'd get about the same results calling a local U.S. telco business office and asking technical questions. However, the BPO does publish lots of technical data, and any good-sized engineering library should receive those publications. You also might get better results by contacting one of the large PO research centers (their version of Bell Labs and Western Electric rolled into one) and making your inquiries. You should get more info there. The "that's not public information" response you get from "frontline" telco employees usually means they don't know what the hell you're talking about! As for the switching systems, I checked -- and large amounts of SXS is still indicated. Many of these may have been "directorized" with some common control equipment in the same manner that GTE used here in the U.S. There is also some Crossbar indicated (they might actually use what's called, uh, Pentacota (or some similar name) systems, which are sort of a European version of Crossbar. There are probably even some (shudder!) panel offices still floating around over there. In any case, ESS-like systems are the standard for new offices and upgrades except under special circumstances. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 19-Apr-82 17:32:55-PST,6909;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Apr-82 17:30:49 Date: 19 Apr 1982 1730-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #42 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 20 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Moby Goof Mandatory Measured Service - Do We Have A Choice? Telephones And The Hearing Impaired. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Apr 1982 1630-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia - Moby Goof Apparently there was a loop in the mail address for TELECOM. Such as it is, I probably never received any mail sent since the last issue (#41,30 March 1982). Hence you haven't seen any TELECOM digests since then either. I am sending this issue out with this note and another one from me which should spark a discussion. Let's hope we can revive the TELECOM discussion. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 1982 1717-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Mandatory Measured Service - Do we have a choice? The telephone industry has come a long way since its inception. Excellent telephone service is something we, the people of this generation, have come to take for granted. We have made the telephone a part of our way of life, our umbilical cord to the rest of the world. The Telephone brings the world closer together, allowing us to conserve our precious fuel resources, however that will all end with Mandatory Measured Service. I notice that my "measured" line costs me $3.75/month, and that I am allowed $3.00/month in measured usage. An unmeasured phone costs $7.00 per month with no allowance (and no charge for any local calls). What the telephone company is saying is that it costs them $0.75 cents to have the phone in my house, and that the true cost of my phone is in the use I make of my telephone. That's cheap enough, if you don't look too closely. Of course that cheapness will not last long, In New York City, a local *MEASURED* line costs about $20.00 per month, with a 50 unit (trivial) allowance. According to a recent survey, it costs the average New Yorker $43.00/month to have a telephone and to use it. THEY have "Untimed measured units". I find that my local usage exceeds approximately $200.00/month, if charged at the current measured rates (Los Angeles). If the phone company were to charge me that amount I would definitely stop using the phone. Is this what we need? Is that what we want? Certainly there could be better ways to offset or subsidize local service. The telephone company is a regulated utility, therefore if I don't want to see this happen, I should go to the Public Utilities Commission, right? Wrong. The FCC is ordering this in their plan to measurizing the entire country. The PUC is simply complying. Before my generation is past, all telephones in the United States will become measured, Mandatory. No more free calls anywhere. Am I wrong for demanding unlimited service? Does it really cost them $200.00 per month to keep my phone up if I use it? More importantly does it suddenly cost $0.75 if I don't use it? What of the equipment which will undoubtedly die of disuse if nobody can afford to use the telephone? I think this is just a scheme to take more of our money while justifying it so nobody complains! My point of view is of course tarnished, as far back as I can remember, I saw ads on TV encouraging you to call your neighbors instead of visiting them. Don't get me wrong, telephones are a LUXURY, not a NECESSITY (the telephone company would like you to believe the contrary), and of course LUXURYs, such as Electricity, Water, Fuel Oil, and Telephones have to be available to those who can afford them. And if you can't afford it? Don't use the phone! If you can't afford to heat your home, then freeze to death, it's the American way! In actuality, the current rate structure is indeed a farce if it costs so much for me to have a phone. I would think of travelling instead of using the telephone if it costed me $150.00/month, or $200 or $300, which it could easily. Today the $300.00 which I would save not having a telephone would buy me a round trip ticket to New York. Visiting would be cheaper, thus nobody would use the phone except the very rich. Alternatives, such as raising ENFIA rates to cover the subsidy that Long Lines currently handles could be discussed in this forum. I believe that forcing the end customers to bear the brunt of the cost of providing phone service without letting them choose what direction the companies should be going in is totally against what I would call fair business practices. Would I be permitted to voice my opinion on whether or not I think it is important for PacTel to switch my local office from CrossBar switching to ESS before the expected lifetime of the switching is exceeded? Would I be listened to? I find this smelling of my having to pay for someone's "pet project". I would love to hear some official or unofficial views from the Telephone Company if I can get any in this forum (you Bell Labs people should explain if your comments are personal or official), in addition to what you out there in the real world think of this. Any time I ask the phone company for any opinions they inform me that the information is company confidential. What will happen to me, the customer, in the next 10 years is company confidential? They're trying to tell me to shut up and get in line like the rest of the sheep in the herd. Can anyone out there give me some reasons why I don't have a right to complain? To whom should this complaint be voiced so that it will be heard the loudest? Enough flammage for one day, let's open the flood gates once again! Cheers, --JSol [Lauren - do you hear an echo?--JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 31 March 1982 00:24-EST From: Anthony Della Fera <ADF at MIT-MC> Re: Telephones and the hearing impaired. Hello my telephonic friends, I have a friend who is very hard-of-hearing in both ears, is there a device on the market, somthing he can use with or in place of his hearing aids, which will allow him to use the telephone? He currently can only slightly perceive sounds over the phone. In public he finds it necessary to read lips. I would be undieingly greatful to anyone who can come up with a solution to our plight. Somthing on the line of a star-set which also acts like a hearing aid? Any and all suggestions will be of help, please try your best sources of info. Thank you Tony... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 20-Apr-82 16:11:41-PST,14146;000000000001 Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Apr-82 16:09:29 Date: 20 Apr 1982 1609-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #43 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 21 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Telecommunications Equipment For The Hearing Impaired Current Trends - Mandatory Measured Service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Apr 1982 2246-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Hearing aid To: ADF at MIT-MC Perhaps something along the lines of a Sony WalkMan might be what you are looking for. These devices have a listen mode in which sounds from an internal microphone are directed to the headset. I think they can be turned up quite loud, but if not, they can, undoutedly, be hacked. ------------------------------ Date: 20 April 1982 08:28-EST From: Jeffrey Krauss <KRAUSS at MIT-MC> Subject: telephones & the hearing impaired About one-third of the hearing aids sold in this country contain a built-in device known as an induction coil or "telephone coil" that can be used when the telephone generates a magnetic field with sufficient strength. The coil eliminates the acoustic connection and instead establishes an electromagnetic connection to the telephone set. Traditionally, most Bell System handsets leaked enough magnetic energy to drive these coils, while many other manufacturers had designed their handsets with less leakage. There was substantial controversy on this matter about five years ago, but now most telephone companies will, upon request, supply telephone sets with adequate leakage to drive induction coils. In addition, nearly alll public pay telephones have adequate leakage; pay telephones with leakage are built with a blue rubber grommet where the handset cors attaches to the handset. For more information, you can contact Hearing Industries Association 1800 M Street NW Washington, DC 20036 which is the trade association of hearing aid manufacturers. Also,contact your local telco; they usually have brochures on special products and services for the handicapped. ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 20 April 1982 1600-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia The following messages are part of the Measured Service debate. As the flame level increases, some readers may want to avoid this discussion, therefore I will make it a policy to put these messages at the end of each digest, and this message will separate them from the more general discussion of TELECOMmunications. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 20 April 1982 04:36-EST From: Eliot R. Moore <ELMO at MIT-MC> cc: ELMO at MIT-MC Is anyone on this list already subjected to measured-only residence service? If so, how do you cope with long voice and data calls, and their associated bills? --Elmo ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 1982 1857-MST From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20> Subject: Re: Mandatory Measured Service - Do we have a choice? If JSol's phone bill would rise by a factor of ten under measured service, then somebody else's would probably go down by the same amount. I wonder whose? Does anybody have some solid figures on what it actually COSTS to provide phone service? A local consultant gave me some installation costs for the cable behind my house that I couldn't really believe. I'd be curious to see some reliable figures. ------------------------------ Date: 19-Apr-82 21:49:45 PST (Monday) From: Murray at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Mandatory Measured Service cc: Murray.PA Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic. Could you provide a breakdown on your $200/month. That seems high. How much of it is terminal usage? Are you one of the statistics that is complicating equipment usage by making calls with long holding times? How much would it cost (with today's technology) if the mix of equipment that your phone company already had installed happened to be ballanced correctly for the current traffic statistics? Does any body have any data on how much it actually costs to keep an urban phone going, assuming that it doesn't make many calls? How much does the hardware to measure (local) calls cost? I think you are reading too much between the lines when you compute your $.75 number. That's simply the result of subtracting 2 numbers that the PUC picked out of the turmoil of politics and economics. (Logic probably didn't have much to do with anything.) I'm not too sure I object to the FCC requiring measured service. (I'm surprised that they get to set the policy for local rates.) My pet gripe about the Calif rate structure is that it costs me more to call (from SF area) LA than it does to call NY. Maybe the FCC will cleanup the rates for long distance calls within Calif. I worked on a project for PT+T about 12 years ago. Push button phones were reasonably available in Boston, but almost impossible to get out here. The phone company guys we worked with pointed out that the reason for this was that the PUC had set the rates low enough so that PT+T didn't have the capital to buy the new equipment. They had to use the old stuff a few more years and/or wait until the pressure on the PUC was enough to readjust the rates. Should city folks subsidize country phones? Should business phones subsidize Lifeline rates? (For you non California people, Lifeline is a fudge in the utility rate structures to help low income people. You can get a phone and a few local calls for dirt cheap. After that, the calls cost you more than they cost non-Lifeline people. For gas+elec rates, there is a corresponding low rate for the first few units.) Should phone revenues subsidize TTYs for deaf people? I don't think your point about unused equipment sitting idle is interesting until the rate of telephone usage begins to taper off. Considering that business communications is still growing rapidly and we are just starting to use phones for home computing, that's not likely to happen very soon. Have you tried getting info from the PUC rather than the phone co? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 1982 1544-PST From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Mandatory Measured Service I have two phone lines at home, one for my terminal and one for me. The $200 figure was an approximation of the cost for my voice phone alone. My terminal phone is totally separate, and I would consider a leased line to the machine if the phone charges got too outrageous. I have no such alternative for my voice phone (a leased line to my office would cost me a mere $13.00/month in current rates). I spend at least 6 hours a day on the phone, and most of my calls are to two separate parties (I have 3-way calling), which means that for each side of the call I would pay a measured rate, or double what a single call would cost. I also have call forwarding, which effectively routes my calls to another number (my office number), and that would mean a measured call for me each time someone calls my number, regardless of what they were paying. I estimate that at 6 hours per day, 7 days a week, I would pay approx $108.00. Include that at least 4 of those hours are on a 3-way call (doubling the current figure), and that at least 2 to 3 hours of time per day for the call forwarding feature and I come up with approx $200.00/month. The current rates in Los Angeles for Measured Service are $0.03 for the first minute, $0.01 for each additional minute, plus tax. The monthly rate is $3.75 and allows $3.00 towards the measured calls to a larger, and more complex zone calling area, but it would essentially include the local calling area I now have, plus calls to the exchanges up to about 20 miles (correct me if I am wrong) away. Unlimited phone service costs $7.00 here (PacTel), and people who don't use the phone would see a savings of $3.25/month. If I had to pay for the calls, suddenly it is not worth my while to have the service. I would obnoxiously switch to an answering machine which gave out the other number (in fact I can change the recording from a remote area, so it would be even more desirable to do this, I have no desire to pay for someone calling me). I would in fact have to adjust my way of life completely. I could no longer use the telephone to socialize, because it would be hideously expensive. I don't feel that I am a minority, dispite the fact that I am a heavy user of the phone system. I would consider not having a phone at all, since I would have alot of trouble controlling my local usage (after so many years of encouragement to use the phone from TPC). I would consider at this point getting an Amateur radio license. If alot of the young people whose parents forbid them from using the phone also switch, I fear that the Amateur bands will become as clogged as the CB band currently is (horrors!). I have tried getting comments from the PUC and from Pacific Telephone. PacTel points to the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission), and the CPUC points to the FCC. I haven't called the FCC because it is too expensive to call Washington DC from here. Cheers, --JSol p.s. perhaps someone more local to Washington can call them and report back to TELECOM? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 1982 2344-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Telephone rates It would seem that the FCC and the telephone companies have contracted a severe case of extreme shortsightedness. These organizations seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that what they are doing will benefit nobody in the long term. What can be done with a myopic telephone company? Your guess is as good as mine, however, I think a major portion of the effort will be spontaneous, as people begin to conserve by avoiding the telephone as much as possible. Yes, it will still be cheaper than actually going everywhere, at least at first, but not enough so as to encorage people to make extensive use of the telephone any more. Perhaps as people begin to boycott the telephone companies, rates will soon become more competitive, but this can only happen after regulation is completely removed. What about in between. What about all us data users who often make 4, 5, or even 20 hour calls. In the coming years, I expect the rates and customer reactions to follow a pattern somwehat like the following: ! ----- ----- ----- ----- ! ----- !///! !///! ----- !///! Phone usage !\\\! Phone rates ! !///! !///! !///! !///! ----- ----- ! !///! !///! !///! !///! ! !///! !///! !///! !///! ----- ! !///! !///! !///! !///! !///! ! !///! !///! !///! !///! !///! ----- ! !///! !///! !///! !///! !///! !///! ! !///! !///! !///! !///! !///! ----- ----- ! !///! !///! !///! !///! ----- !\\\! !\\\! ----- ! !///! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ----- ----- !///! ! !///! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! ----- !\\\! ----- ----- !///! !///! ! !///! !///! !///! ----- !\\\! !\\\! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! ! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! ----- ----- ----- !///! !///! ! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! ----- ----- ! !///! !///! ----- !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ! !///! ----- !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ! ----- !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! ! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! !///! !///! !///! !\\\! !\\\! !\\\! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 The above is in proportion to zero inflation/economic growth, to show the path relative to today's economy. The assumption is made here that the operating compainies can not react as fast as they probably should to the customer reactions to the changing rate structures. This year, rates are just beginning to rise. during the coming ~5 years, I expect telephone costs to rise at an alarming rate, alerting cost-concious subscribers to the problem, and causing a reaction similar to that of the fuel 'crisis'. Gradually, the telephone operating companies will be forced to compete for business, as unused equipment maintenance costs increase. This will have the effect of lowering rates, but never as low as they have been in the past. This phenomenon is similar to what has happened in the petroleum industry over the past few years. Gasoline prices trippled in a relatively short period of time, taking with them, every other aspect of the economy which depends on petroleum-based fuels. People reacted by conserving, while the oil producers continued to generate increasing amounts. Hence the current 'oil glut', which has brought prices down, but nowhere near the levels prior to 1974. The telephone company will never be the same. I can only hope that in some form it survives the coming pseudo-crisis, self inflicted, though it may be, since it is, in spite of all our complaints, by far the most advanced and reliable telephone network on the planet. <>IHM<> Ps: As soon as I have some real numbers from the companies, FCC, or other organization, indicating just what it will cost me, the user, I will probably start flamining via snail-mail to the companies and the appropriate agencies. I would like all the support I can get, when this does happen. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 20-Apr-82 16:13:00-PST,7250;000000000001 Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Apr-82 16:10:34 Date: 20 Apr 1982 1610-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #44 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 22 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Product Information - Modem Query Results ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Apr 82 20:21:34 EST (Sat) From: decvax!duke!unc!wm at Berkeley Subject: request for modem responses The following is the digested version of the responses I received to my request for information about 1200 baud full duplex modems. Thanks to everyone who responded. In case you are wondering, I decided to wait until the under $500 modems come out and put up with vi at 300 baud. Grad students can't be choosers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >From tucc!taylor Mon Apr 5 08:50:36 1982 I am currently putting together specs for a state contract for 1200 baud modems. From my current info, it looks like ~$650 to $700 is as good as I have found for quantity 1 purchase. If you're interested in leasing, David-Jamison-Carlyle in NJ will lease prentice (or GDC) for $21/mo., and nothing I heard from them indicated that they would not lease to individuals. ---------------- Since we are just putting together the contract, my prices are incomplete. However, so me of the numbers are: Datec 212a $715.50 qty. 1-4 with 10% educational discount Contact - Tammy Patterson 929-2135 Prentice is about the same price, but offers a 20% educational discount. I don't have an exact price. contact Carol Alldis 408-734-9810 Ventel $718 std.; 846 with autodialer contact Teresa Bible 1-800-538-5121 Novation I have been quoted some prices that seem too good to be exactly right. Local dist. is Hamilton Avenet in Raleigh 829-8030. I hope this is of some help. results as i get them will be posted to net.dcom. (Data Communications group). That might be a good place to place a further query. Steve ---------------- BEWARE of 'half duplex' 1200 baud modems and avoid them like the plague. They are generally 202 compatible rather than 212 compatible, and you will find very few modems they will talk to, and that number is rapidly decreasing. Steve ---------------- From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) I doubt it. You know the real reason the prices are so high? Because the protocols (212 and Vadic) are proprietary, and are LICENSED to manufacturers under considerable restrictions. 1200 baud full-duplex modems are NOT simple and require alot of special equipment to align initially. --Lauren-- ---------------- >From tucc!taylor Tue Apr 6 08:51:16 1982 The list price on a 3451 (triple modem w/ power supply) is $900 qty. 1, $850 qty. 25. The only question is whether you really need the vadic compatibility. (Personally, I would not pay anything extra for it.) Steve ---------------- >From duke!harpo!decvax!utzoo!laura Tue Apr 6 22:27:08 1982 I have been looking at 1200 baud modems to no avail here in Canada. There seems to be nothing which costs less than $1200 <canadian> available. Of course, many American companies consider Canada the boondocks of the continent, so I suppose that is to be expected. I can get a Racal-Vadic triple modem with auto-dialer for 1.5K here, so if prices are that bad everywhere it would be the best deal, even though I dont really need an auto-dialer. If you can come up with anything cheaper I would be very interested in hearing about it. Thank you very much, Laura Creighton ---------------- From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) I expect a couple of under $500 212-only (not Vadic) modems in the near future. How MUCH under $500 is another matter. --Lauren-- ---------------- >From duke!harpo!zeppo!wheps!ihnss!ihps3!stolaf!minn-ua!thomas Thu Apr 8 12:26:06 1982 You might check the UDS 212LP, it is about $475 in singles, and if you are a large organization you might get it down to 420. Its quite small and is line powered, but only does bell 212 not 103. ---------------- >From JSHELTON@BBNA Fri Apr 9 12:44:46 1982 Sorry for lateness of reply. Try UDS, which has a line powered 1200 Bell 212 modem for $495 qty 1. It will talk to a vadic triple modem, so should work fine. =John= ---------------- >From duke!ucf-cs!karl Fri Apr 9 15:57:59 1982 Modems seem to be an outrageously priced item on the market. I have a Ventel 212 modem. It has switchable 1200/300 baud with full or half duplex. It has some real convenient features like it can store and dial numbers in various modes. I suggest that if you are going to 1200 baud don't forget 300, because there are too many places only having 300 baud dialups. This is the case here at UCF where we have several computing services each having either 1200 or 300 or both. Now the bad news, MONEY. You really can't find a modem at 1200 baud for under $500 unless it is only a 1200 baud. The Ventel goes for about $700, this was more then I wanted to pay really and has more features then I need but I could not find anything on the market that was switchable for under $1000 Hayes is supposed to be comming out with a cheaper moden . If you want any specs or tech info I will be glad to send it along to you. I heard of one other make that might do the job, but I am at work and all my info is at home. Karl Thiele 305-275-2341 ---------------- From: Charles Frankston <CBF at MIT-MC> Universal Data Systems of Huntsville Alabama recently announced the 212LP which is Bell 212 compatible (both 1200 baud full duplex and 300 baud modes.) for $495. The modem sits in a small box under a telephone and steals its power from the phone line (no AC connection needed). ---------------- From: Doug.Jensen at CMU-10A (X400DJ40) You should feel real funny about "feel(ing) real funny paying as much for a modem as (you) do for a terminal." That is entirely irrational, and reflects a failure to adjust to changes in technological economics. Do you also feel real funny paying more for i/o chips than for processor chips these days? No offense intended, I just don't like to see people imagine that God intended some things to inherently cost more than others, just because they historically have. Cheers, Doug ---------------- >From chip Wed Apr 14 10:49:11 1982 Subject: New Vadic 3451 Did you know that Vadic has come out with a triple modem with auto-dialing. The wild thing about it is the price -- I got a quote of $775 (educational discount) last February. As far as I know, we'll be getting 2 in the near future ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 22-Apr-82 18:34:06-PST,17463;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-Apr-82 18:33:17 Date: 22 Apr 1982 1833-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #45 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 23 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Forward Technology - True Portable Telephones Dialing Semantics - Los Angeles vs. NYC Telephones For The Hearing Impaired Mandatory Measured Service - Pros, Cons, True Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Apr 1982 1821-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Mailer Problems I had a problem with the mailer which distributes TELECOM. Some of you may not have received issues #43 or #44. Send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB and I will mail you another copy. I installed a fix to the mailer which will help prevent the truncated message problem we have been plagued with. Please tell me if you receive a truncated digest. Thanks. Enjoy, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 1982 2034-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: It's everything that's been talked about it... From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL I just returned from a 5 day trip to the WDC area where Motorola (thru American Radio Telephone Service, Inc.) has one of the 3 (the other two being Illinois Bell Telephone Co. in the Chicago area and Millicom in the Raleigh-Durham area) developmental licenses for the so-called "cellular" mobile telephone system that FCC is currently taking commercial license applications on (the dead line of which is June 7th, 1982). Anyway, for 4 of the 5 days I was in the greater WDC area I had the use of a 3rd generation DYNATAC, which is a hand-held (1 watt & less, depending) mobile telephone operating on the ARTS developmental system. I can say the service was nothing less than amazing and the quality of the the connections (for the most part) was of `land-line' quality. The `high-point' of course in the use of a cellular system is when you are mobile and on the move and get handed off from one cell to another (which involves tuning your radio to a new set of channels and switching your land-line trunks from the old cell to the new cell, all invisibly of course, to the mobile user). Once commercial licenses are granted innovative things like call forwarding to other MSA's (Mobile Service Areas) and mobile units, Call waiting, Conference Calling and even Voicemail (so when you aren't at your mobile and someone calls they will get a recoding, "I'm sorry I'm not at my mobile phone right now, at the beep please leave a msg and I'll get back to you") will be added and MORE! The ARTS system in WDC-Baltimore was designed for 1 watt mobiles. If the full 1 watt is not needed, the MTSO (Mobile Telephone Switching Office) in Columbia, MD, which controls the whole system, will reduce your output wattage to a lower level. I was very surprised how superbly the DYNATAC i had, which operates in the 800 MHz band worked inside buildings AND CARS with *NO* external antenna on your roof top or trunk lid. All in all, a very impressive system. When ARTS goes commercial, it is hoped to offer mobile service for $25/Mo. which will include 100 mins of air time, and charge $.25/min for each min over the 100 included minutes. The mobile units (car mounted) will sell for $3500 and the hand-held units (the DYNATAC) will sell for $3000. It's hoped that the FCC will make up their mind sometime this summer who gets a license in a given SMSA so construction can start post-haste. Then you to will be able to have & enjoy, what I call `The Ultimate' in communications! [Awright! Those prices sound comperable to a voice pager unit, and it goes *both* ways. I will definitely consider trading in my landline phone service for this! --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 82 8:06:36-EST (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: oper.-assist, 213 area The 213 and 212 areas (latter is New York City) are the only area codes in which prefixes can have 0 or 1 in 2nd position. I was in NYC in Nov. 1980, and found an instruction card which shows the extra dialing required by such expansion of possible prefixes. Here are the complete instructions: for direct-dial calls: within NYC dial the number outside NYC dial 1+areacode+number [the "1+" is new] for operator-assisted calls: within NYC dial 0+212+number [the "212+" is new] outside NYC dial 0+areacode+number ["new" is with respect to the expansion of possible prefixes discussed above] The question that then arose was: Why don't instructions in 213-area phone books require use of 213 area code on operator-assisted calls within that area? [I believe that in 213, if you dial 0+7digit number whose prefix is an area code, the system waits for you to time out (4 seconds) or type a # key before putting the operator online. This is so you can dial more digits if you want. Also note that when the new 818 Area Code comes into being, it will *also* have to allow for 1 and 0 in the second digit of the prefix. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 20 April 1982 20:45-EST From: Joey Turner <Cutter at MIT-AI at MIT-AI> Sender: HFELD at MIT-AI Subject: Telephones for the Hearing Impaired Shade and Sweet Water to you all -- I know of one possible remedy for your friend's problem. If he can slightly hear sounds, than what he needs is a good, old fashioned TelCo amplifier. No, not one of those RS kludges, I mean the gizmos you see on public telephones. All they are are little pushbars on the thin middle part of the receiver, that when pressed boost the sound quite a bit. The drawback is that you must keep the bugger pressed down, as it doesn't lock. Joey ------------------------------ From: KOZ@MIT-MC Date: 04/21/82 03:04:06 Subject: telephone amplification for the hearing impaired The telephone company has in some places phones with two extra levels of amplification built in. There are two buttons on the handset to select louder and loudest. They probably aren't much help for the seriously hearing impaired, but are good for at least slight hearing problems (and in noisy places). Also available (I forget where I saw them) are amplifying earpiece replacements for your telephone. Just screw it in--also switchable, I believe. Maybe Radio Shack? ------------------------------ Date: 20 April 1982 1600-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia The following messages are part of the Measured Service debate. As the flame level increases, some readers may want to avoid this discussion, therefore I will make it a policy to put these messages at the end of each digest, and this message will separate them from the more general discussion of TELECOMmunications. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 1982 1837-MST From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20> Subject: Re: Mandatory Measured Service Six hours per day, seven days per week is roughly a factor of fifty more phone usage than I put in. $200 per month is only about 13 times what I pay for my phone ($14.85 for a dial phone with one extension and no smart features). Since JSol would still be getting fifty times the service for thirteen times the money he would not be exactly subsidizing me. [A flat phone line goes for $7.00 here --JSol] Under the charging scheme described by JSol, I would probably pay about $3.75 for basic service plus about $1.10 for my extension plus about $1.80 for extra local minutes, or a total of about $5.65. This would be a savings of about $9.20 a month for me. It seems to me that the FAIREST scheme would be one in which equipment rental was a flat $1 (or whatever) a month, and ALL local calling charges were explicitly billed. In other words, eliminate the $3 basic service. [I agree. However, That's not what will happen. Measured Service, if implemented properly, will even satisfy my thirst for using the phone. However, history shows that this won't happen unless very carefully planned (and verified by customer complaints to the PUCs). My historical example is the massive increase in Oil Prices. Compared to this, the telephone needs to cost about $200.00/month to catch up. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 1982 18:01 PST From: Swinehart at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #43 (Personal communication: I don't particularly want to join the TELECOM fray.) Jesus! 6 hours a day! I hope you have a speakerphone, or your ear will fall off. That's a lot of socializing (if I interpret your message right.) As somebody who's interested in possible future patterns of telephone use, if telephones were to be improved, I think I'd like to chat with you some day. (Random question: are there any long silent intervals in your conversations, or is somebody always talking?) I think it would be fair to charge you SOMETHING in addition to the standard unmeasured rate for that heavy a usage. At present, it seems unquestionable that less convivial souls are subsidizing your telephone habits, along with long lines and business ratepayers. I don't like measured service either, but I would think that a $20 additional charge or so, in today's terms, for what you do would make a fair amount of sense. [I doubt it, actually I believe that the connections I am using were paid for years ago and don't wear out unless you keep upgrading before the estimated lifetime of the switching expires. Catch-22: Without ESS we would not be able to accurately measure local units, and I feel that it is because of this upgrade, long before the time when existing crossbar and Step-By-Step offices will tire out that causes the telephone company to *have* to charge measured usage. --JSol] Transaction pricing was probably invented by the phone company, and honed to a science by the Xerox corp. So I guess I shouldn't be so hard on it. (Push that button again -- my job will last ten minutes longer.) Dan Swinehart ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 21 April 1982 08:29-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: rambles on message units It seems to me that some form of message unit pricing is fair and reasonable. After all, some resources are being consumed. The size of an interconnection net is proportional to the expected maximum number of connections in place at one time, which is in turn proportional to the number of subscribers times the average connect time. However, rates of a nickle every few minutes feel to me to be too high. It seems to me not unreasonable to charge those of us who have terminals or who use voice for several hours on end some extra money - not a prohibitive amount, but enough to pay the interest on the bonds required to finance the larger switch necessary to handle the situation. However, it would seem reasonable to do several things: it should be possible for (say) an autoanswer modem to tell the ESS that it was accepting the charge for the call. A typical multi-hour phone call is from a human with a terminal to a computer, and in many cases the owner of the computer is benefiting from the connection and is already paying for the computer time and often providing the terminal. It would seem reasonable to reduce the charge for local calls to (say) .03 per plus .005/minute. I have no figures to back me up, but this seems like an approximately correct amount. A six-hour-per-day user would pay $50/month, which seems to me not to be at all unreasonable since, for such a user, it's necessary to increase the switching capacity of the network by one. (I assume that the six hours ofusage cover the prime period completely, practically every day.) Well, I've rambled enough for one day. [I could live with that figure, but I will never see it. Actually, it probably represents more closely what the true cost for the usage of the telephone I make. I am not saying that you should pay for my usage, I merely say that I should not pay a penalty (tax? fine?), just because I choose to use the telephone more than you do. In fact, with the scheme currently in Los Angeles for Message Units, I will be in fact subsidizing the user who pays $0.75/month and makes $3.00/month in calls. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 21-Apr-82 22:18:56-EST (Wed) From: cbosgd!mark at Berkeley Full-Name: Mark Horton Subject: mandatory measured rates To: ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley But a leased line is probably NOT what you want. The only reason you're using this low speed line to talk to a computer is because it isn't practical to run a private wire to every computer you want to dial up. Even if you only talk to one computer, your costs would not only be for your leased line, but for a personal modem and port on your computer. Multiply this by the number of people who use that computer regularly from home, and it's not practical. No, you really want to be able to dial up any computer, and share the dialups among the people who happen to be using the computer at that moment. This implies that there is a real demand for data calls over the ddd network. And of course these data calls last for a long time. Getting rid of the unlimited rate would be one of the worst things the FCC could do to us computer users. Don't bitch at us for using the system. Upgrade the facilities, charge us more (but at a fixed rate for unlimited calls). But don't abolish a service that the public needs! Mark [Agreed, I don't mind paying my share, does this mean I can start a phone company which has my dialups and friends on it so to insure that I pay for the equipment and resources I can use? --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 1982 1101-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Phone rates From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) If the contention that the FCC is somehow controlling the state PUCs in some overall master plan for the phone system is true, maybe going through the FCC with a bit of anti-Bell Congressional backing would be the way to end the earlier-mentioned disparity between intrastate and interstate rates. After all, there is no excuse that a call from St. Louis, MO to Kansas City, MO should cost more than one to Kansas City, Kansas; yet all interstate rates are far below equivalent-distance calls intrastate, at least in my experience. Can anyone cite a situation where the state PUC has held intrastate calls BELOW interstate rates for the same distance? The only reason I can see is that telco resources far outstrip the state PUC capabilities, so telco lawyers can beat the state commissions (or even worse, local commissions -- isn't that the situation in Texas? [or was it?]) into submission, but have a harder time doing the same to FCC forces, who can begin to match them in bureaucracy and inertia. This inequity is so obvious that this must have been tried before, or the issue must have had some amount of consideration. Does anyone know any history of this issue? Was there a policy decision made some decades ago or whenever that was based on some actual reasons for intrastate calls to cost more than interstate? If so, what are (or were) those reasons? I can't think of any that couldn't be just as applicable to lowering intrastate rates (or maintaining them at a lower rate); something like the justification behind the National Defense Highway System, to promote commerce and communications for multitudinous reasons. I can't see how it is more desirable to promote such contact between Los Angeles and Las Vegas as opposed to Los Angeles and San Francisco. By the way, is the costing formula for long-distance based purely on distance (if so, how is the mileage figured?) or is it related to the telco facilities used and the ease of accessing them? That is, would a call along a major trunk corridor for a given distance be cheaper than a call of the same distance between any two arbitrary locations, both calls interstate? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 82 11:44:45 EST (Thu) From: decvax!duke!unc!wm at Berkeley Subject: Measured service To what extent does usage contribute to cost of service? Any figures out there? Another thought to get the flames going: I know towns where the city has completely subsidized bus service so that it is free to anyone. Between the elimination of the money box on the bus, related personnel to sell and take fares, and the increase in business to stores not located in shopping malls, this scheme has sometimes paid for itself. Doesn't this also apply to measured service? How much does it cost telco to measure your service? How much does it indirectly cost in losses due to phone calls not made because they cost too much. I have sometimes thought that long distance should be made flat rate instead of measured. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 24-Apr-82 21:01:52-PST,6294;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 24-Apr-82 20:58:18 Date: 24 Apr 1982 2058-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #46 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 24 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: New Products - VADIC Modems Manufacturing Query - FCC Registration Visibility Telephone Aids For The Hard Of Hearing Cellular Radio - Legislation Pending Re: Interference Why the 212 is needed on 0+ calls in NYC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 April 1982 06:10-EST From: Jeff Coffler <JAC at MIT-MC> Subject: New VADIC products I called VADIC a few days ago to ask amount their MACS system (an auto-dialing system to connect systems asyncronously over the telco network), and learned of two interesting new VADIC products: To be released by October, '82: A quad-modem. The current triple handles 110-1200 baud. The fourth protocol: a 2400, voice grade, FDX modem. Will be packed in both rack form an VA??5? series direct connect. To be released sometime after that: a rack form (and a VA??5? form) of a single modem (i.e. single protocol). It will not be compatible with any of the existing protocols, and a 5-type modem is very unlikely. The modem's purpose: It is a 4800 baud, voice grade, switched network, FDX modem. They wouldn't tell me anything about pricing, mainly because they don't know yet themselves. They had some meetings on it, and initially tried to price their new equipment to be competative with their competition. Apparantly, however, for these two new products, they have no competition (or so they told me). The quad-modem will unquestionably be more expensive than the triple, and the 4800-baud modem, probably way out of the ballpark for anybody except relatively rich businesses. If VADIC's 2400-baud protocol catches on well, I suspect that 1200-baud modems will become REALLY cheap ... ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 1982 0046-EST From: Philip A. Earnhardt <UC.PAE at MIT-EECS> Subject: hiding a modem If a modem is housed within something else, does the manufacturer have to acquire FCC approval? If not, does the certification number of the enclosed device have to be displayed? ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 10:46:07 1982 From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley Subject: Telephones for the Hearing Impaired Ever since my mom had a stroke way back when, she has had some trouble hearing, which is getting worse with age. About 4 years ago, she got a special phone (actually, just a special handset, I think) which had an amplifier in it. It looked and worked just like a regular phone, except on the "back" of the handset there was a little knob which you could use to adjust the volume. I was playing with it one day, and found that turned all the way up, a person with normal hearing can hear it clear across the room! This gizmo did have a problem, if you got it turned up too far, problems with feedback started to arise. My mom has a new gizmo now which looks like a "office phone", i.e., one of the ones with two or three lines. This phone has a speaker in it, which can be turned on/off with one of the buttons (if it is off, the handset functions normally). If I remember, the handset amplifier cost a couple of bucks extra a month, but I'm afraid I have no info on the speaker phone. We have GTE service (if it can be called service) here, but I'm sure Bell must have something similar. Hope this helps..... --Dave Curry decvax!pur-ee!davy ucbvax!pur-ee!davy ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 23 14:14:20 1982 From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!wheps!ihnss!mhtsa!allegra!lindsay at Berkeley The phone company leases an amplifier with a thumbwheel type control which goes right in the handset. this, plus a hearing aid which has a "telephone" switch on it (magnetic pickup) enable a person with a moderate-plus hearing loss to use the phone (with difficulty, but as far as i know this is the best one can do short of tdd's). lindsay schaching. ------------------------------ Date: 23 April 1982 0138-PST (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: cellular radio One interesting point about the cellular radio service that is starting to appear seems to relate to the SAFETY of the frequencies being used. In the 900 Mhz region, we are talking about pseudo- microwaves, and there is evidence that some sort of effect on the eyes may result in the middle term -- cataracts seem to be the most likely possibility. The problem, of course, is that even a one watt transmitter, when the antenna is in close proximity to the eyes (as it is with hand-held units) has a significant field strength. There has already been at least one court case involving a law enforcement type who developed eye problems after use of a 450 MHz handie-talkie type unit. I believe he actually won the case, too! Of course, his winning the suit says nothing about the technical realities of the situation -- but at 800 or 900 Mhz there would seem to be at least the potential for some real problems. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 1982 1929-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Why the 212 is needed on 0+ calls in NYC We believe (but are not sure) that the reason that NYC doesn't do the timing hack as in the 213 area is that the No. 1 XBars (of which there are NONE in L.A.) can't handle timing. Since it would be a bit obscure to make instructions different in different exchanges, the 212 is always required. As it turns out, my NYC number, a 245 ESS, when calling 0+522-9111, is foolish enough to produce a recording saying, "We're sorry, you must first dial a zero when calling this number." Real clever. I've also had the call go through. Both within the last few minutes. Since ESSs normally don't exhibit varying behaviour, this needs further investigation. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 24-Apr-82 21:02:00-PST,11391;000000000001 Mail-From: JSOL created at 24-Apr-82 20:58:43 Date: 24 Apr 1982 2058-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #47 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 24 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: Mandatory Measured Service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 April 1982 1600-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia Today's digest is devoted to the Measured Service debate. As the flame level increases, some readers may want to avoid this discussion, therefore I will make it a policy to put these messages at the end of each digest, or in separate digests. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 23 April 1982 0217-EST (Friday) From: Michael.Fryd at CMU-10A (C621MF0E) Subject: cost of billing How much does it cost the phone company to accurately bill for individual local calls? Would more people be better with unlimited useage or with measured usage (and the additional overhead involved). A good example of poor planing is the CMU computer policy comittee. They were worried about a few students getting more than their fair share of resources, so they insituted an accounting system so complicated that the billing system now uses up more resources then were ever lost. (it also takes up the time of many additional people to administer the paperwork.) But at least they KNOW where their money is going. -mike ------------------------------ Date: 23 April 1982 22:30-EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC> Subject: Tutorial on local excahange costs In order to understand what it "costs" to provide local exchange service, it would be helpful if we examine the various components of the cost. What follows is a very much simplified picture of what goes on, but one which conveys the essence of the basic componenets. Some of these components are usage insensitive; a flat rate per month should be charged for them. The quantitites of other equipment do vary with the number or length of calls; these should show up as variable charges. However, even for usage sensitive components, the worst case would be to have to dedicate some equipment full time to a single user which would otherwise be shared. This sets the upper limit on what variable costs should be for even the most intense usage. HANDSETS To begin with, every subscriber has a handset. He can of course buy it himself, but in any case, you need a handset if you make one call or a million. Thus, handsets should be charged at a flat rate independent of usage. LOCAL LOOP Second, there is the local loop -- the wire from your house to the nearest Telco switch. About 70% of the population has its own personal wire -- i.e. only their calls use that wire. Since you have to have a wire whether you make one call or many, the cost of laying the wire should be recovered as a flat rate charge. Increasingly, however, users are sharing wires. Using time division multiplexing, 24 calls can share two pairs (This is called a T1 line). T1 allows the phone company to run a "feeder" cable out to a neighborhood from the switch, and then shorter runs of wire to each house. Sometimes each house will have a dedicated logical channel on the multiplexed cable; in that case, there is still no variation in equipment dedicated to a subscriber as a function of use. More recently, calls are "concentrated" as they are multiplexed; more than 24 subscribers share one multiplexed trunk. If calls are short, a larger number of users can share the same T1 feeder. Where calls are concentrated rather than simply multiplexed, the cost of the local loop is usage sensitive, though in the worst case, a user is simply tying up one logical channel as in the multiplexed case. Thus, local loop costs are becoming usage sensitive. CENTRAL OFFICE At the Telco central office, every line terminates in a subscriber line interface. Again, since you need one for every line no matter how many calls, this cost is not usage sensitive. Subscriber Line Interface Cards (SLICs) account for about half the cost of a modern electronic switch. Of the rest, part is accounted for by the switching matrix. The number of paths through the matrix which are necessary depends on the number of calls in progress, thus on the elngth of calls. If people make longer calls, you need more paths through the switching matrix. Eventually, one can build a non-blocking switch, that is a switch which, if there are N subscribers, would allow N/2 to talk to the other N/2 at the same time. There are few such switches in use today because they would represent an enormous excess of capacity compared to current traffic statistics. Finally, there is the stored program controlled computer which takes dialing information and sets up calls. The size of the computer (plus certain ancillary equipment such as registers and senders) varies with The Number Of Calls as opposed to the call length. Thus, one might have a variable charge per call as opposed to per minute to cover the cost of this equipment. INTER-OFFICE TANDEMS AND TRUNKS Finally, most local calling areas cover a much larger geographical area than that supported by one local wire office. Between wire offices there are interoffice trunks, and tandem switches which connect local offices. The number of interoffice trunks needed is clearly dependent on he number of calls and call holding times. The maximum would be to dedicate one channel of an interoffice trunk plus one path through a tandem switch 24 hours per day. (This is in fact what you get when you buy a "leased private line"). IMPLICATIONS FOR RATES If we sum it all up, we find some components -- the handset, the local loop and the SLIC -- of which you need one no matter how many calls you make. These should be covered by the flat rate monthly charge. Other components increase with the number of calls; this requires a "per call" usage charge. Finally, many components must be increased as call holding times increase. This leads to a "per minute" charge. The usage sensitive charges should have a maximum which corresponds to to cost of dedicating equipment 24 hours a day to one path -- roughly the cost of a private line. In short, if rates were to be set to reflect costs, there would be both flat rate and usage sensitive components, with a cieling on total usage charges. Rates, of course, are not set to reflect costs but in response to naive demands by users, some of whom benefit from flat rates and thus demand they be continued, and others, who do not, and would prefer "lifeline" or other rates in which they don't have to pay as much per month if they don't make many calls. Actual rates are a political compromise. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 82 11:38:49 EST (Fri) From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: regulatory commissions I very much doubt that the FCC has any jurisdiction over the state regulatory agencies; the only question is where the line is drawn. To the best of my knowledge, the FCC regulates interstate calls and what can be connected under Part 68 (Bell lost a big fight to leave that under local jurisdiction); the state commissions regulate local calls and intrastate service. There's quite a fight going on right now about the definition of "intrastate"; the private carriers, like MCI, claim that a call between Miami and Tampa (to use one state that I know is fighting them) is interstate, and hence under FCC jursidiction, because the call is routed physically through (I think) Atlanta. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 82 21:27:49-EDT (Fri) From: Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel-Relay> Subject: phone rates As a reasonably high-volume phone user, I have always detested measured local service in its various incarnations. (When Diamond State started offering it a few years ago in Delaware, they were typically devious about it: they announced that they were being responsive to the needs of opressed consumers who made few calls by offering this very cheap service. It was something like half the unlimited rate, with about 15 free calls, and each additional call costing something absurd like a few cents. Then, after people signed up for it, they slowly started to raise the monthly and per-call fee, always by small increments, and always buried among complicated rate change requests.) This discussion brings up the more general question of pricing. There are several methods of determining the selling price of a good or service: cost recovery, resource husbandry, and general behavior modification. Most pricing systems start with simple cost recovery plus profit. Rate structures are then changed in order to promote one or another "worthy" causes -- during the recent energy unpleasantness, many power companies started introducing inovative rate tables, whereby power was cheapest during times of minimum demand, and most expensive during peak load times. This was designed to (and did) balance the demand for power to as large an extant as possible. Since power companies needed to have enuf generating capacity to meet maximum demand, low useage periods waste capacity. In the same direction, taxes are frequently designed to promote "good" things and discurage "bad" things. (Anybody want to talk about the Pennslyvania Liquor Control Board?) Long distance rates are cheapest after 11 pm, and most expensive during normal business hours. This seems fair, since balancing the phone load means better utilization of equipment. Where does Measured Local Service fit in? Does it really cost TPC a significant amount EXTRA if I make a local call than if my phone just sits there? They still have to have the phone and all those wires and switching machines and so on. (By way of analogy, does it cost more to run a program than to have a computer sit "idle?") If it is not pure cost recovery, then, what is it? I have not heard of any form of MLS that makes it cheaper to call at night than during the day. The effect of MLS can only be an increase in local revenue relative to number of calls made, and a decrease in the number of calls made. This means that total local revenue will increase or decrease depending on the degree of modification of behavor. (Look at mass transit: as governmental subsidies decrease, fares rise, ridership declines, and gross revenues usually drop.) I think it is time we faced the truth: MLS is a vicious, devious plot by [group name] against us in order toacheive their evil goal of [goal name]! (Incoherent ranting & raving aside, I'd like to know what specific goals MLS is supposed to be acheiving. Is it more equitable cost distribution? Local usage modification? Increased revenues? If we knew just what it is supposed to do, we could better fight it or at least change it.) --randall ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Apr-82 16:51:24-PDT,3914;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 26-Apr-82 16:50:51 Date: 26 Apr 1982 1650-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #48 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 27 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: Amplified Handsets New Products - VADIC High Speed Modems Direct Dial Credit Card Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 April 1982 1517-PDT From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia Sunday's issue was mistakenly labeled #46, the same as Saturday's. I have fixed this inconsistency in the archives. I used the correct issue number in the mail header, but used the incorrect one in the header of the digest. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 24 April 1982 2242-PST (Saturday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: amplifying handsets For those persons in AT&T service areas, the handset to request is the "G6", which is the model with the thumbwheel in the center. It draws its power from the phone line. GTE has a similiar device, with the adjustment wheel behind the earpiece section of the handset. There are also handsets which amplify the *microphone* portion (for persons who cannot speak at normal volume) and noise- cancelling microphone versions (popular in machine rooms.) Various combinations of the above also are available, as you might expect. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 25 April 1982 18:45-EST From: Peter J. Castagna <PC at MIT-MC> Subject: New VADIC products To: JAC at MIT-MC Does it really make sense to buy a 2400 baud fdx modem? If you're able to sell your old modem for a reasonable price,sure; however, if you just put aside your old Vadic you're paying 1) the price of the new modem 2) the money you lost on your old modem 3) the line cost (which won't decrease, since you'll be using the same line). All this in exchange for a feeling of "speed". And this won't seem to be much; remember, 1200 is to 300 (vadic 1200 to 103 type) as 4800 is to 1200, which means you won't be getting a reasonable speed increase until your modem's going at least 4800 baud. The only way the new modem makes sense is with two terminals each running at 1200 baud muxed into 2400 baud (i.e., you save one telephone line), and this isn't likely to happen at my house (well, at anybody else's house, anyway). Wait, then, until vadic comes out with a 4800 baud fdx modem. It would be nice to know the price of the 4800 baud modem (if it costs too much more than 350 (the large-quantity price for 1200-baud vadics)...). I repeat, the actual cost (plant cost) is about $100 for producing a 212-type modem. The actual cost for a 4800-baud fdx modem using the usual modulation techniques will cost far less than twice that. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 1982 16:40:51-EDT From: dee at CCA-UNIX (Donald Eastlake) Subject: dialed credit card numbers A while ago I mentioned that on a 0-xxx-xxx-xxxx call from a pay phone at the TWA terminal at Washington National Airport, after dialing the number I heard a brief falling tone followed by a recording telling me to touch tone my credit card number or a 0 for the operator. Well, with no notice that I am aware of, direct dialing of credit card calls has come to Newton, MA. Earlier today, I dialed a 0-xxx-xxx-xxxx number on my home phone and heard the same brief falling tone followed by silence. Guessing what might be going on, I touch toned my credit card. When I finished the credit card number, a recorded voice said "Thank you" and my call went through! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 27-Apr-82 17:21:29-PDT,6508;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 27-Apr-82 17:20:03 Date: 27 Apr 1982 1720-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #49 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 28 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Customer Dialed Credit Card Calls Technical Comparison - ZED in 212 vs. 213 Mountain Bell Lobbying - Asks Customers To Blindly Help Ethics Of Complaints - Nobody Cares? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 April 1982 10:18-EDT From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH at MIT-MC> Subject: dialed credit card numbers To: dee at CCA-UNIX Unless things have changed with the new tariff that came in this month, even though you did all the work, you were charged at operator-assisted rates. There were rumors that this would change to DDD plus a fee, but I don't know if that has been activated. Steve ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 82 11:58:14-EDT (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL, john r covert <rsx-dev@Dec-Marlboro> Subject: 0+ dialing within 212 or 213 I have read the article on why 212 area code is required on 0+ calls made within NYC. I live and work between Philadelphia and Baltimore, have been to NYC several times, but have never been to LA area; I do not know what timing is being referred to. Here is a sample which illustrates the question I raised: There is a 413 pre- fix in LA, and let's assume sample phone number 413-2345. If I was in area 213 and was to make 0+ call to that number, the phone books say I would dial 0-413-2345. How does the system determine that I am not calling area 413 in western Massachusetts? [The machine waits for 4 seconds, then "times out" assuming you have dialed a 7-digit number (i.e. no area code), and proceeds to place the call to 413-2345 with the operator coming online shortly. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 1982 1909-MDT From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20> Subject: Mountain Bell Lobbying When I opened my telephone bill this month, it contained a pamphlet asking me to write my congressman and complain against a law introduced by Rep. Timothy Wirth of Colorado. The law was identified only as "legislation to revise the Communications Act of 1934". The pamphlet went on for several pages exhorting me to write and ask for delay of the law, but didn't give any reason why - the general tone was that I should be against it without knowing why. A typical argument given is "...the legislation is not preventive medicine; it is a dangerous prescription disguised in sugar-coating". Does anybody out there know what law they are talking about, and why Mountain Bell is so concerned that they are enclosing pamphlets like this in the phone bills? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 1982 1650-PDT From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLC> Subject: The ethics of complaints.... I was just informed that I would not be able to get Pactel Foreign Exchange service if I moved to a GTE area. This decision was handed down by the Public Utilities Commission here in California. While I am disappointed that this service has been discontinued, I am even more outraged at the methods that both the CPUC and that Pacific Telephone have used to insure that residence customers get the screws turned even tighter. I spoke with the Public Utilities commission about this issue, and their response was "We are only required to offer you basic service, if you aren't satisfied then that's tough". This of course contradicts with the statement found in all the telephone books I can find, which says that complaints should be directed to the CPUC. Essentially, I feel that the Telephone companies, with the cooperation of the FCC and the CPUC's, are about to do what the Oil Companies did during the "shortage". Essentially, raise prices until the market can no longer stand the strain. I wish it to be known that I cannot stand the strain *NOW*, and that making it harder on me (I consider myself a typical American, hard working, etc), will cause me more grief. The fact is that we, the peon residence customers, cannot find out what is going on. Mountain Bell starts telling its customers to blindly write letters to the government saying that they are for whatever Mountain Bell is for. They seem to be relying on the naivete of the general public. PacTel and the CPUC in LA are doing likewise. What hurts me deeply is that it is working without a hitch! Essentially, the old tradition of Screw the bastard for whatever you can get is the rule here. Ma Bell was always good at it, and now it has taught its youngsters how to deal dirty. Why weren't the customers informed of this happening? Did I miss something this big? I doubt it. Laws in this country make it possible for free enterprise to do whatever it wants to, except where the telephone company comes into play (the same can be said of the Oil companies during the Oil "shortage"). Why can't we have free competition when it comes to Telephone companies? Because the result would be utter chaos. The solution is to have one regulated company serve each locality, and some rules to govern how they talk to each other. This is in fact what we have now, and what we are goaling ourselves by splitting up Ma Bell. This works fine, except when the regulating company is itself regulated by the companies it is supposed to control. In fact I suspect that this is happening, and that decisions such as the one which opens this message, especially when they are unannounced until it is too late, are a direct result of it. The least they could have done was give customers a few months warning! GTE blames this on PacTel, PacTel blames it on the CPUC, the CPUC had at one time blamed it on the FCC, now it just says to go jump in the lake. Summary: The phone company is going to make us *pay* through the nose for ever daring to break up their authority. We can do nothing about it. We must accept that we will be faced with huge phone bills, which will never go down, only go up, until the world collapses under the weight of inflation. --JSol ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Apr-82 20:08:52-PDT,11334;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 29-Apr-82 20:07:08 Date: 29 Apr 1982 2007-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #50 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 29 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Yellow Pages Advertising - Why Should AT&T Keep It? Customer Dialed Credit Card Codes - Rate Structure Modifications Telephones For The Deaf - Hearing Aids In General Technical Issues - "#" Key Confirmation NPA Comparison - 212 vs. 213 Politics - Legislature Lobbying ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Apr 1982 2331-PDT From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: Yellow Pages What is the rationale of assigning yellow page operations to AT&T and rather than the reborn local operating companies? Yellow Pages seems inherently regional in nature to me, and about the only form of subsidy to residential service that I would condone. (Similar to placing advertising in city buses.) The Yellow Pages revenue might at least pay for the cost of producing and distributing the directory. Does it? ------------------------------ Date: 28 April 1982 01:14 edt From: Sibert at MIT-MULTICS (W. Olin Sibert) Subject: Operator-assisted rates To: STEVEH at MIT-MC Last I checked, operator assisted rates were, essentially, DDD plus a fee-- higher rate for the first three minutes, but everything past that costs the same whether assisted or directy dialed. -- Olin ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 0841-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Direct dialed credit card calls The new interstate tariff provides for a $1.05 surcharge for credit card calls (whether self-dialed or not) as opposed to the $1.55 charge for other operator assisted station-to-station. These rates are in addition to the normal station-to-station direct- dialed one minute rate. (Yes, on operator assisted calls you now only pay for the first minute -- within the U.S.) No changes have been made yet on international calls, but they will be coming. AT&T had originally filed for $0.50 and $1.85, but the FCC received complaints from MCI, and determined that AT&T was using the other operator assisted rate to subsidize credit card calls. They were ordered to file new rates which more accurately reflect the cost of providing the services. I spoke to the FCC about this; they informed me that they would monitor the introduction of customer-dialed-credit card calls and order a rate change when the volume of such calls justifies a change in the cost-of-service determination. The FCC does not intend to allow AT&T a different charge for self-dialed vs. operator-entered at this time, because, especially at pay-phones, the customer has little or no control over what service he can use. The new mods to TSPS to support this are appearing rapidly around the country. Don't expect it to be announced before it appears in every case; the phone company doesn't work that way. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 27 16:20:45 1982 From: decvax!watmath!djmdavies at Berkeley Subject: telephones and the Deaf I have a bit of input on this issue, from person experience. I have 90+dB loss, of necessity use (post-aural 'behind the ear') aids, and also need to use the phone. Actually I don't especially favour the phone, because I prefer to combine lipreading with listening, but telephoning is sometimes necessary. Some flaming will follow along with facts Yes, as several have pointed out, an amplifying handset is available from your local telco. It ought to be FREE on request. (Charges for it were abolished by British Telecom in 1973, and by Bell canada in 1974. If any utilities are STILL charging, tell them (politely) that they are beind the times.) The TROUBLE with the amplifying handset is that any handset is operating at a disadvantage with a hearing aid user. The earpiece cannot be held tight for optimum acoustic coupling (impedance and all that) to the ear canal and eardrum. With the amplifying version, the broadcast sound can produce a feedback loop. (Also there is no privacy about what the other party might be saying!) Furthermore, since I'm prety deaf, and my hearing aids also have a high gain level, the plastic of the earpiece can sometimes reflect enough stray sound from the hearing aid itself to create a feedback loop there too-- the same thing can happen if I lean my head back against a wall, etc. The amplifying phones in public places with a push-bar don't produce enough extra gain to be very useful to me. Only under exceptionally good conditions can I use a non-amplifying phone. (I run my phones at a setting of about 7.5 on the control, marked 0-9.) I haven't tried a head-phone type of receiver ('star-set', etc). I would think that while it might be good (with gain adjustable up to (say) 70dB) for continuous phoning, the inconvenience of having first to remove aids and then put on the headset makes it impractical for most situations. (Parenthetical flame, while I think of it: those things they have for airplane passengers are pretty useless to anyone who uses a hearing aid. However, I found a way to cope there, by using the receiver end of my Phonic Ear 'Personal FM System', and putting the sound outlet of the plane gizmo against the microphone hole. If you want to know about the Personal FM System, which probably every signifiacntly deaf technologically aware person needs, I'll write about that separately. [Anyone else who uses one out there?]. Note that virtually any 'headphone' device cannot fit on TOP of behind the ear aids, because of (1) physical discomfort, and (2) likely feedback in the hearing aid loop with sound reflection and distorted ear canal fit. end parenthesis) What I would really like to see is the amplifying handset ALSO have a switch which puts ALL the electrical energy into the induction coil output, leaving it silent to ordinary ears. This needs to be an independent control. Then the thing can be turned up without risking feedback, also keeping privacy if desired, and the hearing aid will get the signal in 'Telephone' setting. Flicking switches on both hearing aid and phone handset would be a minor nuisance, but I can imagine getting the habit if the benefit is as good as I expect. This still doesn't solve the problem for when travelling, away from home or ones office. I'm expecting an engineering student will be building a special gadget for me as senior project next year.. a little pack to fit over the earpiece of an ordinary phone, including a microphone, power source, gain control, amplifier, and output induction coil.. so an amplified magnetic field signal is created locally. Bell Canada have a thing a bit like this, but without the amplifier part. It's pretty much useless so far as I can see, except perhaps to someone who is not very deaf and whose hearing aid is quite sensitive to magnetic fields (many are not--it doesn't get the design attention given to the microphone input source, I suspect). One more flame: on incompatibility between the TTY for the Deaf and modern computer communications. Since the TTY for Deaf was started cheaply by recycling old teleprinters, it uses 5-bit Baudot (CCITT Alphabet #2) code. But nowadays most of us use ASCIII (CCITT #5). I hear that NEW terminals for the deaf in California are dual-code, which strikes me as sensible. I think it's lamentably short-sighted for Bell Canada to market a 'Visual Ear' which only understands Baudot. -- Given, nevertheless, that there are going to be some old teleprinters around for quite a while, more attention could be given by providers of public data networks (Datapac, Telenet, etc) to ensuring that there are dial-in numbers for Baudot terminals as well as for ASCII terminals. I think that the TTY For The Deaf systems should be planning to shift to ASCII as the equipment is renewed. Julian Davies (Visiting Assoc. Prof., CCNG, CPH) University of Waterloo ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 0912-PDT From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: 4-second timeout One footnote to Jon's explanation is that a '#' key may be used as a sort of carriage return to inform the system you are finished, and it will not wait the 4 seconds. On ESS, '#' is only valid in the context of a delay field (i.e. ambiguous numbers such as 0+413-1234, or overseas variable length codes). On GTE EAX systems, '#' will result in reorder if out of context, indicating that it is a valid carriage return no matter what, however terminating numbers which are too short is a valid error condition. <>IHM<> [How 'bout that, a Crlf key on a telephone! --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 18:18 PDT Sender: Thomka.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: dialing within 212 or 213 To: cmoore@BRL From: Thomka.es The Los Angles area (area code 213) uses two different prefix codes for two different reasons in dialing any phone number. 0-xxx-xxxx or 0-xxx-xxx-xxxx are for operator assistance, such as to have the bill applied to a different number or to place a credit card call. 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx is to place a DDD phone call to another area code, meaning that the prefix of "1" get the equipment ready to accept an area code. [So does most every other NPA. 212 just recently required 1+ on all calls outside of 212, the question was why the area code 212 was required on 0+212 calls in NYC, while 213, which is the only other NPA which allows area codes to be used as prefixes, doesn't require it. The example, 0+413-2345, would have to be dialed as 0+212+413-2345, even while in the 212 area code if you wanted the operator. --JSol] [Note: NPA = Area Code] ------------------------------ Date: 29 April 1982 12:52-EDT From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH at MIT-MC> Subject: Mountain Bell Lobbying To: Haas at UTAH-20 cc: STEVEH at MIT-MC I don't have the text of the bill, but I have just read the Bill Digest on my CRT (I'll have the full text of the bill digest printed off tonight.) The best I could gist out of it was that it addressesed the oversight of all interexchange (long-distance) and international carriers. It says that the FCC has overall authority over these I&I carriers. It prohibits the FCC or public utility commissions from considering external (ie non-tarriffed) sources of income when considering the revenue requirements of the I&I carriers. And it prohibits restrictions on re-sellers of tarriffed commo capacity, (ie, MCI-like alternate telephone long-distance carriers.) If anyone is interested, I will expand on these items when I get the digest in hand, but I didn't have time to take many more notes than I did. Steve [The text of the bill will be presented in the next issue (which will be sent immediately following this one). --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Apr-82 20:56:31-PDT,11015;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 29-Apr-82 20:11:19 Date: 29 Apr 1982 2011-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #51 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 30 Apr 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Calling The DPU/PUC Legislation - Right To Receive Radio More Legislation - The AT&T Divestiture Subsidizing Deaf Telephone Service - Why? Bitching To Government About TPC - Don't Bother Humor - Switching Systems Of The Future ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 April 1982 19:09 edt From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: DPU Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston) When I called the Mass DPU about problems with getting a leased line, I got something even more discouraging than a requirement for basic service. My biased summary is that they are only concerned with trivial billing errors, something like requiring that service be provided is beyond them. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 17:26:05-MDT From: fjl at Utah-CS Reply-To: Lepreau at Utah-20 To: haas@utah-20 Subject: Is this what Mountain Bell doesn't like? This comes from Usenet. All the Bell people who have aired their opinions of the bill certainly don't like it, if you're looking for corporate-inspired lobbying. However, it's easy to dislike the bill (from the info on Usenet, at least.) -Jay Lepreau From: utah-cs!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!prg Newsgroups: net.general Title: Watch it!!! Posted: Thu Apr 22 09:24:09 1982 The following article was submitted to the "we" net, and by popular demand is being posted to this news group. I truly have to wonder where Mr. Wirths mind (and pocket book) are at. The following is quoted from the May issue of Video magazine. "The question of home satellite reception -- viewing, not recording -- is attracting attention from the House Telecommunications Subcommittee chaired by Timothy Wirth (D-Col.). It is here that our legal right to enjoy the airwaves is not doing so well. Wirth has co-sponsored House Bill H.R.4727 with Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) to provide stiff criminal and civil penalties, up to a $50,000 fine and two years in prison, for unauthorized reception "of any radio transmissions" unless they are intended "for use by the general public." As submitted, H.R.4727 would be a new clause to section 605 of the Communications Act. It would allow courts to hear evidence and award "full damages." If the program owner or distributor decided not to press for damages, courts could still award damages of between $250 and $10,000 on their own initiative. A court could even assess a fine of $100 for proven violations on persons unaware that they broke the law in either distributing or receiving an unauthorized program. And a willful violation by someone not seeking financial gain could bring a fine of up to $1000 and six months in jail." I'm glad the "Ralph Nader" of the telecommunications industry is watching out for us! Think I'll get some black-out curtains to hang in my living room just in case he peeks in the window. =Phil Gunsul= lime!we13 [Thanks goes to pur-ee!davy at Berkeley, for sending another copy of this legislature. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 28 April 1982 19:27-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #49 The legislation referred to is HR 5158. It is a complex piece of legislation which both modifies the proposed Consent Decree and provides enabling legislation to do somethings which the Consent Decree doesn't handle. The main reasons that Bell is opposed is that it requires the remaining AT&T after the divestiture to place its Long Distance subsidiary into a fully separated subsidiary, thus making it difficult for Bell Labs to work on projects of joint benefit to both regulated and unregulated businesses which AT&T might be in. Second, it prohibits AT&T from getting into the information dissemination business (e.g. home videotext). It was precisely to be able to get into this business that AT&T agreed to the divestiture in the first place. The bill also changes the Decree's rules with respect to the BOCs. It allows them to stay in the customer Premises Equipment business. It also allows the BOCs to get into enhanced communications. Finally it allows the BOCs to keep the Yellow Pages which were to go to AT&T. It also modifies the 1934 act to make it clear that its all right for the FCC NOT to regulate everything that smells of communications (that's not obvious in the existing act); and it allows the BOCs to charge an access charge to all the long distance companies so that there will continue to be a transfer from long distance revenues to support local service. The reason for the original antitrust suit was the allegation that AT&T was using its monopoly control over local exchange service to compete unfairly in customer premises equipment and, potentially, in enhanced services. The Decree was designed to free AT&T to engage in these businesses in return for giving up the BOCs. Now, by allowing the BOCs to get back into these businesses, the bill simply recreates the old problems all over again. It is indeed a bad peice of legislation. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 09:25 PDT From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: The ethics of complaints.... cc: Suk @ PARC-MAXC While we're flaming on about things being foisted upon us, how 'bout the few cents I'm billed every month so that the deaf and hard-of-hearing can use teletypes? Sure, I feel sorry for these people. And sure, it's only few cents each month. But -- I've been a diabetic for almost 35 years, and I don't see ALL pharmaceutical users being taxed to help pay for my insulin and other necessary supplies. I don't see ALL food users being taxed to pay for my special diet. ALL drivers are not taxed to pay for special driving equipment for the handicapped. ALL contact lens-users are not taxed to pay for guide dogs for the blind. Why should ALL phone users be taxed to pay for a few individuals' misfortunes? (Right -- "nobody ever said life would be fair.") Stan [This was, of course, coming. I was going to bitch about the specifics of "usage sensitive" pricing, e.g. calls to other users on my ESS machine shouldn't cost extra, or should not subsidise calls to other Central Offices, or even between machines in the same office. Also, if TPC is going to charge for every little phone call, why not busy signals, misc recordings (disconnect, referral, etc), ring signals which don't get answered. And I, the customer, would demand itemization of all charges and specifications which are being levied on me. This could go on ad infinitum, which would no doubt cause my phone bill to go up, not down. --JSol] ------------------------------ From: Pasco.pa @ PARC-MAXC Date: 27-Apr-82 20:21:02 PDT cc: Pasco Re bitching about getting screwed. If the price is too high, simply do without the service. If enough customers do likewise the suppliers will have to lower their prices. Don't expect GOVERNMENT to see to it that you get something for less than it's worth. - Rich [The problem here, as with any utility, monopoly, government or mafia, is that you have nowhere to go. Doing without the service will work until someone decides to charge you for the alternatives you choose (e.g. Ameteur Radio). I like to think that if enough concerned individuals complain to the PUC, that they will be forced to agree with us, and disapprove of the Utilities acts. Since the PUC is the one out to require Measured Service, it's kinda hard to convince them that it is not in the general population's best interest. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 29 April 1982 20:12-EDT From: Henry Feldman <HFELD at MIT-AI> Subject: Switching system spoof WITCHING SYSTEMS: --------- ------- PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE... and week after Thursday. "HI HONEY, WHERE'S MY COMB?" Y'know, combs are a serious matter, and so are switching systems. Ever since man crawled out of the ooze, he has relied on one type of switching system or another. First there was STEP; which became a bit of a bother when many elderly and handicapped people could not handle it. Long distance calls resulted in more deaths than rabid gerbil bites. A vast improvement was CROSSBAR; a marvel which introduced huge flaming crosses falling on bars of unknown lengths. This, of course, caused problems with subscribers who were not Chris- tian or even pyromaniacs. Today we have ESS, which stands for Electronic Switching Sys- tem. ESS, which is controlled by computers, is fasterm, more efficient, and doesn't hurt as much. There are problems, how- ever. So with the advent of the nuclear age, Bell Labs will soon bring us the state-of-the-art switching system... Atomic Switching System...or ASS. With the advent of ASS, telephone customers will experience the ultimate in custom calling features. Here are highlights of some: CALL WAITING APPLICATION: ------------------------ Your friend doesn't have call waiting? Well now he does! Experience the fun of hearing your now hysterical friend explain how all his conversations are interrupted by these funny tones. <A riot.> HIGH VOLTAGE MELT-DOWN ULTRA INTENSITY MONSTER RING: --------------------------------------------------- Ever have a friend not answer the phone because they were outside, in the shower, asleep, or just plain away? The twist of a dial sends incredible voltage flushing to their phone, resulting in a ring that could be heard in Cleveland. One extra twist of the dial results in a molten puddle of metal and plastic where a phone once was. <Too much.> PAST and FUTURE CALL: -------------------- Use past call to talk to all those dead relatives you must have. Remember Aunt Martha who died in that freak accident involving the toaster and three boxes of cherry Jello? Well make sure you're in the will. Use future call to find out if she's REALLY pregnant. Find out how the stock market is, call Los Alamitos, play havoc with international trade, RULE THE WORLD!!!!! <Neat.> As far as we know, Bell System technologists are still working on this equipment. The headquarters are in a secluded complex deep in the valleys of Idaho. Even more wonders are promised when the system is fully oper- ational. Imagine being able to fry a hot dog, or cook an eleven pound turkey in five minutes with the dial tone! Can't you hardly wait??? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 30-Apr-82 16:58:18-PDT,6083;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 30-Apr-82 16:57:22 Date: 30 Apr 1982 1657-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #52 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 1 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Technical Questions - 213 & 212 Area Codes Yellow Pages Advertising - Subdised Or Moneymaker? Subsidies In General - Are They WorthWhile? Rate Structure Debate - Food For Thought, But.. Off The Subject Of Telecom - Home Satellite Reception ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Apr 82 14:03:06-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: areas 212 and 213 My recent inquiry about 0+ calls in areas 212 and 213, you may be interested to note, started by dealing strictly with the numbering system(s), but had to be answered with reference to hardware! We have now been told that there is a time lag involved after dialing the sample number 0-413-2345 from within 213 area (such time lag is put in to avoid confusing the prefix [ 413 in this case ] with an area code [ 413 for western Massachusetts in this case ]). In those places which have 0+ and/or direct-dial-international calls, isn't there a similar time lag? (I.e., you dial 0, and if you don't dial anything after it, your call will be sent to the local operator after a few seconds.) [Yes, there is a similar time lag, and the "#" key, if pressed at completion of call, will cause the equipment not to wait for the lag. --JSol] For direct-dialed calls originating in 212 and 213 areas, you dial: (within your area) only the number (i.e., no 1+ dialing) (outside your area) 1 + area code + number Approaching this just by means of number systems, note that 1+ prevents a prefix such as 413 from being confused with area codes. (It is my understanding that long-distance rates do apply between some points in area 213. Before NYC prefixes were expanded to permit 0 or 1 as 2nd digit, area 212 had no such thing as 1+ dialing, as the local message-unit plan covers all of NYC, not to mention suburbs in Westchester & Nassau.) [Yes, this is also true. For example, I am in 213-732 at home, which is a LA prefix, and prefixes in Long Beach, also 213, is a long distance call. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 10:12:27 EDT (Friday) From: Andrew Malis <malis at BBN-UNIX> Subject: Yellow pages Cc: malis at BBN-UNIX Far from being a subsidy, the Yellow Pages are a big money maker, which is why AT&T wants to hang onto them when they logically should belong to the local operating companies. This was pointed out in newspaper articles when the AT&T settlement was announced. Andy ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 13:35:08-PDT From: harpo!ber at Berkeley ***** harpo:fa.telecom / ucbvax!telecom / 8:10 pm Apr 29, 1982 subsidy to residential service that I would condone. (Similar to placing advertising in city buses.) The Yellow Pages revenue might at least pay for the cost of producing and distributing the directory. Does it? ----------------------------- As I understand it Yellow Pages is the bigest money maker the Telcos have. And it's getting bigger. Notice now they have black and red ink! ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 09:58 PDT From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: telephones and the Deaf ------------------- "Yes, as several have pointed out, an amplifying handset is available from your local telco. It ought to be FREE on request. . . ." ------------------- Why? Why should ^I^ have to pay for ^YOUR^ ^^^^SPECIAL^^^^ handset? Will you pay for my modem? My answering machine? My call-waiting service? Other special equipment that I might need? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 1002-PDT From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #51 I see/hear a LOT of flaming on the subject of telephone rates... How about if everybody that has something to say sends it via snail mail to the appropriate parties, perhaps indicating some measure of public outcry. In the past, this has been the way such problems have been dealt with, to varying degrees of success. Just flaming here on the network, however, is great food for though, but will not have much of an effect on the rates and tariffs about which we all are complaining... <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 10:14 PDT From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: home satellite reception cc: Lepreau at Utah-20, haas@utah-20, Suk at PARC-MAXC Indeed, the reception of signals by unauthorized persons in certain microwave frequencies is AGAINST THE LAW (Communications Act of 1934). The papers here are full of lawsuits brought by "Home Box Office" types against INDIVIDUALS who are using pirate antennas. The FBI has been closing down dealers who sell these ILLEGAL devices. I fully agree with these actions, simply because people are breaking the law. If they don't like the law, they should get it changed, not ignore it. Stan [Perhaps this discussion could be moved to INFO-LAW or HOME-SAT? --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 1235-MDT From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20> Subject: Re: home satellite reception To: Suk at PARC-MAXC The individuals being prosecuted are perforce a small subset of those breaking the law. Therefore the majority continue to have an economic incentive to pirate microwaves. There is, however, another alternative available; we now have relatively inexpensive ciphering schemes which can be applied to the downlink and which will effectively eliminate pirating. Why not just use ciphering and forget about the expensive, unreliable attempts at law enforcement? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-May-82 20:25:04-PDT,4029;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-May-82 20:24:34 Date: 1 May 1982 2024-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #53 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 2 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Home Sattelite Reception - Downlink Scrambling Bell 212 Protocol On Acoustical Modem? Why The Yellow Pages Are Such A Hot Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 April 1982 1743-PDT (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: downlink scrambling In practice, reasonably secure scrambling systems for satellite downlinks are rather expensive, and almost always degrade the video to some extent. This discussion belongs on HOME-SAT. --Lauren-- [As usual, you may mail requests to be added to the HOME-SAT mailing list to HOME-SAT-REQUEST@MIT-AI. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1982 2342-PDT From: Geoffrey C. Mulligan (AFDSC, The Pentagon) Reply-To: Geoffm at RAND-AI I thought I had read that the Bell 212 protocol will not work with acoustic couplers. Just recently I saw an ad in Data Communications (April 82) for the Anderson Jacobson 1233. It is advertised to do the impossible: Bell 103, Vadic 3400 AND Bell 212 all through an acoustic coupler. Does anyone know how this is possible? Do they require a change to the microphone? I thought that there was a problem with second harmonics? geoff [I found a previous request of this type in V2 #10, however I couldn't find a reply to it. Therefore it is reasonable to ask it again. Anyone know the answer to this? --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 1982 06:22-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC> The Yellow Pages were given to AT&T for some good antitrust reasons. Sometime in the next decade, we are (hopefully) going to have home videotext terminals providing access to lots of information services including yellow pages. Now Yellow Pages are a form of display advertising. And if they are in electronic form, they could coneiveably be changed every day. Pretty soon you can't tell the difference between the Yellow Pages and display ads in an electronic newspaper. Now this makes the newspaper publishers very nervous. If you are in the newspaper business, and you want to deliver your news and display ads electronically, you have to use the wires belonging to the local Bell Operating Company (we'll exclude the possibility of using two way cable for the moment -- for more than half the country that doesn't have cable its not possible). If the BOCs are competing with you (the newspaper) to deliver display advertising/Yellow Pages, and they also control the wires you both have to use, it gives them all sorts of room to discriminate in the provision of service in favor of their display advertising. That's why an earlier version of HR 5158, drafted before the divestiture, simply prohibited AT&T from being involved in originating any content to be carried over its own conduits. AT&T agreed to the divestiture, to give up control over the conduit, so it could have the right to be in the information/advertising/Yellow Pages business. To give the Yellow Pages to the BOCs is to recreate the antitrust problem all over again. The issue is not who should print paper Yellow Pages; it's who's going to have the Yellow Pages when they go electronic. Note also, that the divestiture provides that the BOC owns the list of subscribers, something AT&T will need in order to produce a Yellow Pages. The BOCs may charge as much as they can get for that list. Thus, they can extract a significant fraction of the Yellow Pages profit, without being involved in producing it. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 2-May-82 19:07:26-PDT,5685;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 2-May-82 19:06:21 Date: 2 May 1982 1906-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #54 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 3 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Acoustical 212's AT&T - The Divestiture - Rates - Wirth Bills ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 May 1982 2346-PDT (Saturday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Bell 212 The popular belief is indeed that an acoustic Bell 212A-type modem should be a very difficult proposition. As was implied by the query, the particular choice of frequencies in the 212 (which are inverted from those in the Vadic 34XX modems) results in problems from second harmonic interference -- caused by the carbon microphones in most telephone handsets. The same problem exists in ordinary 103 modems, but reasonable filtering can handle the interference at low speeds. There are at least two ways to deal with the acoustic 212 problem: 1) Lots of rather complex filtering. 2) Changing the microphone element of the handset in use. At least one modem maker is providing such mic. elements specifically for this purpose. Of course, (1) above works pretty well if you are willing to put up with a substantial error rate. While I've read many technical descriptions of the 212 and Vadic protocols, I still am a bit unclear as to why the particular frequency assignments in use for the 212 were selected. Possibly a reader on one of the Labs machines can throw some light on this issue... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 1-May-82 18:35:05-EDT (Sat) From: cbosgd!mark at Berkeley Full-Name: Mark Horton Subject: Wirth Bill There are (at least) two Wirth bills going on right now, which may be confusing some people. One bill is the one AT&T is screaming about. The other makes it a crime to receive HBO with your own antenna. I am getting lots and lots of information telling me why the ATT Wirth bill is bad, including lots of quotes from AT&T vice presidents and random other phone company employees. What I have not seen is what the other side of the issue is - what are the advantages, and to whom, of this bill? All I've seen so far was one article in the paper (which I've sense lost) that said the bill was sponsored by Tandy, MCI, and so on, that these companies don't think the bill goes far enough, and one sentence that was not content free, reading something like "An unchained AT&T scares the competition." This leads me to suspect that the idea is to give some kind of advantage to the smaller carriers so they can grow while AT&T shrinks. Does anyone know what's really happening on that side? Also, had an interesting experience yesterday at a pay phone in Newark, NJ. I wanted to place a long distance call and put coins in the phone to cover it. The instructions said to dial xxx-xxx-xxxx, which I did. Then a recorded voice came on (I recognized the time lady's voice) and told me "Please insert two dollars and fifteen cents for one minute". There were pauses at strange times, just like calling time, implying that the voice had been assembled from pieces. I inserted the money, it said "Thank you", and the call went through. I got charged for an operator assisted call, but there was no operator involved! This brings up the question (as Floyd R. Turbo says) of whether there are any pending rate adjustments to give people the direct dialed rate for such calls. Also, one wonders: what happens if you talk over one minute? (I.e. does the recording call you back and ask for more money, or does an operator?) What happens if you don't pay the extra money? And does this only work on phones that don't use audio signals to indicate that you've dropped coins in the box? ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 1982 1901-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLC> Subject: Comment on above message, more food for thought. As was previously mentionned, the FCC does not want to let the phone companies charge direct dial rates for pay phone calls, or even make it cheaper to use those mechanical devices rather than operators. This is considered unfair to companies like General Telephone, Continental, etc. Who will no doubt be unable to benefit from these services unless they pay alot of money to AT&T for their ESS switching (or develop it on their own). Also, since Measured service will be mandatory in LA within a year or so (and coming soon to *your* area!), the local BOC's will suddenly be charging an access fee to the customer (in the form of a measured unit local call) to access SPRINT/MCI/ITT, etc (note that you are already being charged a toll call if you call SPRINT and the access number is not local). Of course, the PUC's will require that AT&T be treated fairly, therefore don't be surprised if you suddenly get charged a measured local call rate *and* the appropriate toll charge the next time you make a long distance call. Also, what about charging for air time? Since Mobile (and Cellular) telephones already (and will, when implemented) charge you to receive *as* *well* *as* make calls, why deny the BOC's of this additional revenue? If you back them into a corner they will only make it tough on you. What's worse is that they are using these tactics to threaten customers into agreeing with them on the Wirth bills. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 3-May-82 20:13:36-PDT,15212;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 3-May-82 20:13:10 Date: 3 May 1982 2013-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #55 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 4 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Automated Coin Collection On Pay Phones The Divestiture - More On The Wirth Bills Clipping Service - Alternative Carriers vs AT&T Air Time Charges - Are They Fair? Telephones For The Deaf Technical - 0+ Dialing - Timeouts Subsidised Services For The Handicapped ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 May 1982 2012-PDT (Sunday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: automated coin collection on pay phones This service (damn, I can't remember the acronym) has been around in some parts of the country for quite awhile. I ran into a pay phone with this feature several years ago in NYC. Bell Labs Record did an article on it some ways back. At least when I ran into it, the system came back on after three minutes (during my call) and began demanding more money. I got so panicked that I'd lose my connection that I dropped a quarter since I couldn't find a dime in a hurry! I would guess that if I'd waited a bit longer, the call would have switched to a human operator who would have attempted to "assist" me. By the way, this service will only work with the so-called "fortress phones" (the one slot models with the handset hanging over the dial) since these generate "precision" coin tones (unlike the older phones with their gongs). The tones are muted to the caller, but are audible to an operator and register on TSPS equipment. The unit generates one "beep" for each 5 cents inserted -- so a quarter registers as five quick beeps. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 1982 23:35-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #54 Mark Horton asks what are the reasons the proponents of the Wirth bill (H.R. 5158) give for supporting it. There are several, but the main reason is a belief that the bill would help keep local rates from going up. Giving yellow pages to the BOCs is supposed to provide additional revenue which can keep down the costs of local service. Giving the BOCs the right to continue selling customer premises equipment is supposed to provide another source of profit for keeping rates down, as is giving the BOCs the right to get into enhanced services. In a sense, the committee has bought all the arguments that AT&T was making before the divestiture that it needed to get into all these new unregulated businesses if it were to survive. The Wirth bill thus gives the BOCs the right to get into all these businesses. Unfortunately, as I noted in a previous message, this reraises all the antitrust problems that the divestiture was designed to eliminate. On the AT&T side, the bill prohibits AT&T from getting into the information provision business. Ostensibly this keeps AT&T from using its control over conduit (Long Lines) from effecting the free flow of information. In practice, it's just special interest protection for the newspaper publishers. The bill also requires AT&T to put its Long Lines operations into a seprate regulated subsidiary. This is supposed to protect providers of enhanced communications (e.g. Telenet, Tymnet) from unfair competition in which AT&T would use its Long Lines revenues to subsidise its entry into enhanced communications. In practice, it further ties up Long Lines making life easier for long distance competitors such as MCI. As I understand it, AT&T does not object to the provisions which would allow the BOCs to charge access fees as a way of keeping local sevice costs down, nor, obviously, to the provisions that would allow the FCC to further deregulate where appropriate. The objections are to restrictions which apply to them but not to their competitors. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 1982 23:36 edt From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Clipping Service - Alternative Carriers vs AT&T Long-distance competitors to pay higher rent to AT&T ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Associated Press, Washington) The Federal Communications Commission on Thrusday boosted by roughly 47 percent the rate long-distance telephone companies must pay for access to local phone exchanges. The new rate was established on an interim basis after the commission rejected a request by the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. to more than double the rate it charges its long-distance competitors. The commission said it is launching an investigation to determine the proper levy, but thought some increase is justified in the interim. The higher rate will become effective May 2 and will remain in place during the five months the commission has to conduct its probe. AT&T's long-distance competitors include MCI Communications Corp, Southern Pacific Communications Co., U.S. Transmission Systems (a division of ITT), Western Union Corp, and Satellite Business Systems. Known as specialized common carriers, the firms now pay roughly $122 a month for each access line they lease to reach local phone switches. By changing two key factors in a complicated formula that determines that rate, the FCC authorized AT&T on Thrusday to begin collecting roughly $180 per line per month. AT&T wants to boost the charge to $258 per line per month. Executives of the specialized carriers were not available immediately to discuss what effect the interim increase will have on their customer rates. The biggest issue in the dispute involves the level of monthly use of each access line by the specialized carriers. Currently set at 3,000 minutes for billing purposes, AT&T maintains its competitors have dramatically increased their traffic and should be billed at the rate of 5,823 minutes of use per line. The specialized carriers maintain the figure should be reduced to 2,400 minutes. Declaring that an impasse obviously exists, the FCC picked an interim figure of 4,000 minutes and said it had no choice but to investigate. Commissioner Joseph R. Fogarty, the lone dissenter Thrusday, argued it was clear to him the specialized carriers were withholding information that might support AT&T's position. Fogarty convinced his colleagues to order the carriers to submit within 25 days all the information they have on the level of traffic on their networks. The FCC also voted Thursday to expand the number of radio frequencies available for one-way paging systems, clearing what was described as a major roadblock to the growth of paging services. The agance also agreed by a unanimous vote to propose a new procedure for certifying electronic equipment for sale to the public. Under the proposal, manufactures will be allowed to certify in writing they were in compliance with FCC standards governing electronic interference instead of awaiting the agency's detailed review of equipment designs. The commission also rejected a challenge by Japan's Fujitsu America Inc. to the award of a special fiber-optic telephone contract to Western Electric Co. In a 7-0 vote, the commission said AT&T's decision to award the contract to its own manufacturing subsidiary was not unreasonable. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 1982 2132-PDT From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL Re: the issue raised about "air time charges" on mobile telephone calls... The current method of charging for "air time" on mobile telephone calls in all areas I have used my car phone and portable briefcase phone all over the county is to match the "air time" charge with "conversation time" charge. I.e. your land line (conversation time) charge is for 2 minutes, your air time charge is also for two minutes. You get a busy signal or a no answer, there is no land line charge and hence, no air time charge. HOWEVER, the current rate increase pending at the PUC, which will effectively double (100%) the cost of using PT&T's current mobile service offering on 35, 150 & 450 MHz, will change the way "air time" is charged for. The new method will charge from the time the base (we're talking IMTS/Direct-dial here) validates your ANI and returns dial-tone till the time you hang up. You then get to "pay for" the length of time it takes you to dial the number, the length of time it takes the TPC network to switch your call and for the length of time it takes someone to answer the call (this all in addition to) the conversation time of the call itself, of course. I am of the understanding tho, that if the call is not answered (or you get a busy) there will be no charge for "air time". There is an Radio Common Carrier (RCC) here in the bay area which offers a direct-dialed mobile telephone service, which charges $.45/per minute of air time from the time you get dial-tone till the time you hang up REGARDLESS of whether you got connected to your party, received a busy signal, or incorrectly dialed or whatever(!). Can this later method of charging (from "off-hook" until "on-hook") be far behind for PT&T's mobile service offering both now and with Cellular? What about just straight land-line as well? One last note: I specifically asked this question to the manager of the Washington DC-Baltimore developmental Cellular system I used for 4 days recently, and their method of currently charging for "air time" is currently (and will be in their commercial offering if they win the WDC-Baltimore SMSA) based solely on conversation time and also only on completed calls. So looks like (what I term as the "evil air time charging method") is still pretty much a case-by-case decision of each RCC or Public Utility at this point. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1982 03:29-EDT From: Anthony Della Fera <ADF at MIT-MC> Subject: Telephones for the deaf cc: ADF at MIT-MC, decvax!watmath!djmdavies at UCB-C70 Thanks to all! - For the wonderful responses to my request for info on phones for the deaf. I have found out, from various sources, that my friend's problem probably cannot be corrected by a amplifing device since his difficulty is not in the outer ear but in the nerves themselves, sigh. BUT if anyone knows of a device which could help with this difficulty, please write! Thanks again! Tony... ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 82 10:02:18-EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: timeouts Apparently, those phones not equipped for 0+ or international direct dialing will time-out immediately and go to local operator when 0 is dialed. I have seen this happen on Maryland (area 301) pay phones starting with 398 (Elkton) and 272 (Aberdeen). Dialing 10 from my residence phone (302-731 prefix, equipped for 0+ but NOT for IDDD) takes me directly to operator without timeout. (I have rotary dial, not pushbutton; also, I must dial 1+ on direct-dial long distance calls.) If you are making a 0+ call within area 213 but NOT to an "area-code" prefix, do you have to go thru "time-out" process? [No, the time out only happens when you dial "area-code" prefixes. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Sun May 2 19:14:42 1982 From: decvax!watmath!djmdavies at Berkeley Subject: subsidised services for the handicapped Cc: decvax!watmath!djmdavies@Berkeley I'm sorry that it is necessary to explicitly justify providing special telephone (or other communications equipment) for the handicapped at no extra cost to the consumer concerned. On second thoughts, perhaps it will be a good self-discipline... I think there are two main plausible arguments: 1) the notion of 'civilised' society as I understand it. In the wake of last year - the UN International Year of the Handicapped - there is now more awareness that handicapped people often have needs which can be met at quite moderate cost by planning for them, and that failing to plan can seriously degrade the quality of their lives. A society which doesn't care for its 'weaker' members perhaps isn't "civilised". This isn't an irrefuable argument of course, it is an invitation to citizens to be morally/ethically aware of others, and not judge everything in terms of how much money it will gain them or cost them. 2) I guess I WOULD be willing to subsidise your modem, answering machine, etc if you as a private citizen had a handicap such that these devices are needed for you to function more or less 'normally' in our society. Cultures do vary in what they are willing to provide. The National Health service in UK provides hearing aids and batteries for same, free to the deaf. In Sakatchewan (I think it is) the province has a service to provide hearing aids 'at manufacturers cost' to the deaf. Most other places, the deaf can be at the mercy of commercial dealers who might care more about their profits than the needs of their clients. Hearing aids, however, tend to be expensive. So are the terminals needed for TTY for the Deaf. Bell Canada's "Visual Ear" isn't provided free. (It's just free of sales tax.) Amplifying handsets probably pay for themselves, in that they are not very expensive to make (little more than a regular one), and they make the telephone USABLE by some deaf persons who otherwise might not use the phone at all. [Personally, I think that 'cost-effectiveness' arguments miss the main point, which is the moral one, but ...] Social provisions for the needs of the handicapped are seen most clearly I suppose in the design of buildings to facilitate access by those in wheel chairs. This costs a lot to retro-fit, little to build in to start with. The costs are met ultimately by the general population through taxation and other charges. I regard this as right, and it can be seen as a special kind of 'insurance' which distributes costs over a larger number of people. Julian Davies, Waterloo. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1982 16:48 PDT From: Pasco at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: home satellite reception cc: Lepreau at Utah-20, haas@utah-20, Pasco Stan, Regardless of the law, I firmly believe that if someone is radiating electromagnetic energy into my home, even into my BODY, I have an inalienable right to absorb whatever information content it may have. Further, to declare criminal simple possession of a device "capable of" doing whatever is a grave infringement on individual civil liberties. Who is the victim of this "crime"? - Rich ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 4-May-82 16:42:58-PDT,3895;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 4-May-82 16:37:13 Date: 4 May 1982 1637-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #56 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 5 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: Acronyms - ACTS, ABC Bill Digest (Vol 1 # 1???) - AT&T Legislature ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 May 1982 05:31:44-PDT From: whuxlb!mag at Berkeley To whoever is in charge of Telecom Digest: The acronym for the services which handles coins is ACTS (Automatic Coin Toll Service). It is a part of a TSPS switch. If the user doesn't deposit coins within a fairly short time interval, he will be switched to an operator. [Thanks also to Ian Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> for also providing the acronym for this service. --JSol] Incidentally, the service that allows you to dial your credit card number instead of repeating it to an operator is ABC (Auto Billed Calling). It is doing very well. Besides saving operator time, and (where the local PUC allows rate reductions) saving the customer a little money, it offers security advantages as well, since an awful lot of credit card fraud comes from overheard numbers. It is also faster, for most people. ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 1982 11:11-EDT From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH at MIT-MC> Subject: Mountain Bell Lobbying, synopsis of HR 5158 To: Haas at UTAH-20 cc: STEVEH at MIT-MC I work for the House and we have a Legislative Data Base called "LEGIS", which allows rapid access to legislation in progress. The Bill Digest came in and it is 22 pages long, but I will enter the summary. REMOVING REGULATORY BARRIERS ON AT&T ____________________________________ AT&T can enter non-transmission markets ... on a deregulated basis. This means it can expand into any of the new ... markets, such as computers, created by the technological revolution. In contrast to S. 898 ... there is no requirement that Long Lines buy quotas of equipment from independent manufacturers. Also, Bell Labs and Western Electric are left intact with almost no restrictions on the flow of research and information to or from Long Lines. The bill merely establishes a separate subsidiary (like W.E.) for regulated long distance services and prohibits AT&T from unfairly subsidizing its deregulated activities with income from its regulated ratepayers. AT&T has complete control over the L.D. sub. (until) they no longer dominate the L.D. market. (provides for ending lengthy regulatory procedures to obtain facility permits to open new transmission services.) MAKING THE OPERATING COMPANIES VIABLE AND ATTRACTIVE INVESTMENTS. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The new operating companies are given an independent voice to represent the interests of their stockholders and employees in the valuation of the assets that they must transfer to AT&T. Operating companies (will be protected for five years from AT&T "skimming the cream" of the operating companies largest customers' long distance traffic off the "local loop".) Operating companies keep traditional revenue sources (pay phones, Yellow Pages, etc.) The operating companies retain all present equipment and all inventory, which they can re-install for up to eight years. After five years the operating companies will be allowed to sell all new terminal equipment, including computers. The bill contains strong provisions to safeguard employee rights. And, finally, the bill promotes competition by establishing a separate "carrier subsidiary". ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 5-May-82 21:36:53-PDT,6507;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 5-May-82 21:36:09 Date: 5 May 1982 2136-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #57 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 6 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: Rate Reduction for Students - CPUC Decision FRAUD - Automated Calling Card vs. Operator Handled Vintage 1950's Phone Equipment (Plugboard) - Value Query ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 May 1982 16:30:42-PDT From: CSVAX.mark at Berkeley Subject: rate reduction??? Cc: e.eldridge@Berkeley I saw this and thought it worth passing on to the list. How many of you in non-PacTel land wish you could get a phone installed for $33.16? [Aside - I see lots of quotes saying how a phone call that cost $10 in 1950 costs $2 now. When I first moved into a USC dorm in 1973, PacTel charged me $15 to have someone come out and wire up the phone. Two years later it cost over $25. I wonder what they charge for coming out to your home now, and how that compares to cost of living increases? Ohio Bell just got approval to charge over $80 to come out, $50 if you plug in your modular phone.] Mark [Opionion: Since the telephone company only sells CENTREX service to businesses, adding lines to it is supposed to get "business" rates, in the eye of PacTel. Also note that businesses get Measured Rates. I guess that since the dorm phones are classed as Residence Service (i.e. Unmeasured), the CPUC probably decided that since they were classed as residences, they should be billed as such. Don't be surprised if PacTel insists on removing dorms from the centrex claiming that such services aren't available to "Residence Customers", but then again USC would probably be happy to purchase a PBX from an outside vendor and of course might consider leaving the lines installed all the time, just turn off outside calling when the contract expires. I know of other Universities which do similar things with their dorm phones. --JSol] ------------------------------ From E.eldridge@Berkeley Mon Apr 26 01:06:09 1982 Subject: Phone rates reduced Copy of Press release: For Immediate Release. April 26, 1982 As a result of a complaint filed by a 22 year-old college student, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph will no longer be able to charge students more than residential customers for telephone connection. Pacific Telephone has been directed by the California Public Utilities Commission to reduce its $33.16 student connection charge to $23.00, the rate it currently charges residential customers. This represents a 33 per cent savings to students. This reduction will apply to all dormitory students in California served by Pacific Telephone's Centrex system. Daniel Eldridge a University of California, Berkeley student filed the complaint last October. Contact: Daniel Eldridge 715 Cunningham Hall 2650 Haste Street University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California 94720 415-643-1307 electronic mail: e.eldridge@Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 1982 00:42:30-PDT From: E.eldridge at Berkeley To: CSVAX.mark@Berkeley Subject: basis for rate reduction of dorm phones in California. Mark, The $33.16 was the charge for turning ON an EXISTING phone. [That's basically the same thing in the eyes of Pacific Telephone, since the contract's effectively mean "new customer", calling it "new service" is reasonable in that case. --JSol] Every June, when school ended and everyones contract expired the phone was turned off, not removed just turned off. Then in September the phone was reconnected, no installer set foot in a room, the number did not change, PTT did not even distribute phone books to the new students. This reconnection, by whatever means--I still have not found out how they actually turn on the phone, was costing $33.16 when residential customers were charged $23.00 for the same type of reconnection. PTT was claiming it cost them $11.16 more to hook our phones into the Centrex system. I did not see how it could cost that much more, and evidently, neither did the CPUC. [USC is on an ESS Centrex, probably some clerk (costing a cool $5.00/hour) was typing in the change orders in a batch. Since they do it every year, why not have a batch of cards which always get run the same time each year? --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 1982 14:13:11-PDT From: allegra!jdd at Berkeley Subject: Auto Billed Calling Although Auto Billed Calling (which lets you key in your credit card (a.k.a. "calling card") number) does offer a security advantage in that you can't as easily "overhear" someone else's number, it introduces a new security problem. Credit card numbers have (or at least used to have) a fairly high density of syntactically correct numbers, and so one can guess a superficially correct credit card number in not too many tries (particularly if you already know one or two correct ones). Most people would not want to keep giving bogus credit card numbers to an operator until they found one that fit, but they wouldn't mind giving them to a computer. Cheers, John DeTreville Bell Labs, Murray Hill [Has anyone heard of "Excessive Password Failure Rate - Operator Notified" --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Wed May 5 19:58:08 1982 From: decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxv!lambert at Berkeley I have an opportunity to buy a Western Electric 555 PBX Dial Office which is fully operational. It was manufactured around 1950, has a mahogany cabinet, and weighs 350 lbs. This was a PBX attendant's station which would have been used in a small motel or office where the individual phones had no dials on them, i.e., all intra-PBX calls had to go through the attendant. Does anyone know if these things are worth money, and if so, how much? I'm not looking for an antique investment, but I want to make a reasonable offer for the unit. Greg Barton Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL 60566 (312) 979-2771 ihnss!ihuxv!lambert ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 10-May-82 17:16:15-PDT,4941;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 10-May-82 17:15:40 Date: 10 May 1982 1715-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #58 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 11 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Vintage PBX - Pass Or Pay Little Locality Names On Phone Bills Mobile to Satellite On 20 Watts And 18" Antenna. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 1982 2218-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: vintage PBX To: ihnss!ihuxv!lambert at Berkeley Unless you can get the thing CHEAP (and I mean *CHEAP*!) I'd pass on it. Such oldies will of course be totally relay based and have no touch-tone support. Probably not of much value except as a historical piece. Actually, I might like to have something like that around -- but then I'm the sort of person who gets jollies watching Strowger switches. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 82 7:52:03-EDT (Fri) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: place names, phone bills, etc. Has anyone ever dealt with the topic of what place names appear on phone BILLS alongside each prefix? (Lists are provided for some area codes in the phone books, but I do see occasional, interesting discrepancies between those sources and the phone bill.) ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 1982 2312-PDT Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Mobile to Satellite on 20 watts and 18" antenna. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL CELLULAR RADIO NEWS, Page 5-6, May 1982 --------------------------------------- Outside of Denver's Currigan Hall--where Land Mobile Expo '82 was in progress--General Electric Co. consulting engineer Roy Anderson placed a magnet-mount 18" ham radio antenna on the top of his car. The lead-in wire was attached to a small, 20-watt "alphanumeric communications system," as Anderson termed it. He typed a message onto the terminal and pushed a button. In the wink of an eye, his message flew 23,000 miles through the ether to National Aeronautics and Space Administration's ATS-3 satellite, which relayed it to GE in Schenectady, N.Y. Within moments, GE relayed back that the message had been received. ATS-3 is a 15-year-old, obsolete satellite, well past its prime. Transmission was in the 2 meter band--with a 150 MHz uplink and a 135 MHz downlink. The 15-year-old ATS-3 is a "puny" satellite, Anderson said. It's about the size of an oil drum and is equipped with 8 whip antennas that offer virtually no signal gain. Most of the signal was lost somewhere off in space. The point of the demonstration was to show that "mobile-to-satellite communications at low power with a simple antenna are possible even under the worst of conditions." Anderson and Jerry Freibaum, program manager for technical consultation services with NASA, delivered papers at Land Mobile Expo in which they explained how "a modern, specially designed satellite equipped with a large dish antenna--perhaps 150' to 200' across--could be used to augment terrestrial-based cellular and non-cellular services" and this extend mobile services to even the remotest portions of the globe. To accommodate the mobile satellite idea, NASA proposed during the cellular and other docket proceedings that the 20 MHz set-aside by the FCC as a reserve be slightly rearranged. The FCC, however, has thus far rejected the idea. "The FCC in effect has said there is no need for the service," Freibaum explained. "All we're asking the FCC to do is preserve the option [for a mobile satellite service]" he said. NASA studies indicate that annual revenues for the satellite-aided service 6 years after launch may reach $200 million to $1 billion for high-capacity systems serving more than 1.5 million users. The estimated internal rates of return may exceed 30%, according to an investment analysis conducted by Citibank, N.A., for NASA. "The only way we're going to get the FCC's opinion changed is for those of you who consider a mobile satellite service in your interest to "file some sort of letter with the Commission stating that you are in sympathy with maintaining that option," he told the land mobile radio audience. Freibaum indicated that NASA will be filing with the FCC, by the end of May, a petition for rulemaking to allocate frequencies for a Land Mobile Satellite Service. (Jerome Freibaum, 600 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20546, 202/755-8570; Roy E. Anderson, Consulting Engineer, General Electric Co., Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady, NY 12345, 518/385-2746.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 12-May-82 18:42:58-PDT,4998;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 12-May-82 18:42:28 Date: 12 May 1982 1842-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #59 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 13 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Phone Bill Place Names Mobil Phones Via Satellite Direct-Dialed Credit Card Calls Disconnected Phones And Centrexes Split of 714/619 Area Codes Vadic 345x Modems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 May 1982 1913-PDT (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: phone bill place names / Satellites via mobile Well. At least in AT&T service areas (and probably in all others as well) there is a standard list of place names and other information for every prefix in the DDD network. You can get all this information, and much more, on a standard reel of magtape from AT&T. The tape has records for every area code/prefix, the associated vertical and horizontal coordinates (used to calculate toll charges via a rather simple algorithm [based on mileage, time of day, etc.]), the rate center city/state name, and a number of other rather useful items. The tape is designed to be used in association with programs which analyze locally recorded call data from large PBX's (such as Dimensions) which can optionally (via a gadget called an SMDR) feed ascii call data to a customer's own local computer. The operating companies use the same basic data to generate customer statements (bills). This tape (and the accompanying documentation) cost about $80 when I last had to deal with them a couple of years ago. --- The reported demo of a 2 meter mobile radio being used to access a satellite is almost certainly misleading. I don't believe that the satellite mentioned was geosynchronous -- so the stuff about the signal going 23,000 miles would not have been true. In fact, it is unlikely that a 20 watt 2 meter (146 MHz) signal, coming off a simple whip antenna, has much chance of reaching geosynchronous orbit! On the other hand, there HAVE been demonstrations of HAND HELD radios, with very low power (less than 5 watts) operating at frequencies around 1GHz, that can reach such satellites. They had to use a rather strange helical antenna about 4 feet long, but it did work. My guess is that for the 2 meter demonstration, they were using an old non-synchronous satellite, and waited until it was overhead for the demo. That would be more in line with the capabilities of the euquipment reportedly used. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 82 08:48:45 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: direct-dialed credit card calls The new system is supposed to be available state-wide in North Carolina by the end of June, according to Southern Bell. On in-state calls, there will be a discount of $.40 for entering the credit card number yourself. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 82 10:26:34 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: Disconnected phones and Centrexes For assorted reasons, the Powers in the department here yanked out one of the phones serving my building. Callers are not told what the new number is, merely that the old one has been disconnected. The University's Utilities people claim that that can't be done on a Centrex. Comments? (I don't know what model Centrex it is, but I'm pretty certain it's genuine Bell. Southern Bell installed a brand-new ESS last year to serve the entire town, so I assume that we have state- of-the-art equipment.) --Steve ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1982 1107-PDT Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: 714/619? From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL I just got my new '82 phone book (for Palo Alto) and it had a blurb on its front cover as follows: IMPORTANT NOTICE On November 5, 1982, the 714 area code will be divided and the new 619 area code introduced. Before calling out of your area, check the area code pages of your customer guide in the white pages diectory. --- I thought it was the 213 area code which was running out of numbers as was going to be divied, but here it says the 714 area code is the one that is being divied?? anyone know how the division will be done, etc.? ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 82 09:48:18 EDT (Wed) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Full-Name: Steve Bellovin Subject: Vadic 345x modems There have been repeated reports of reliability and infant-mortality problems with these modems. Has this situation gotten any better of late? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 13-May-82 16:54:39-PDT,3922;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 13-May-82 16:54:21 Date: 13 May 1982 1654-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #60 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 14 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: 714/619 Split Automatic Intercept From A CENTREX Product Reply - Vadic 345x Modems Phone Prefix Place Names Area Code Splitting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 1982 1915-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: 714/619 split To: GEOFF at SRI-CSL It's true. The 714/619 split has been scheduled for this year for quite some time. Orange County gets to keep 714, the rest of the (large) 714 code (which is rather lightly populated over much of its area) gets the new 619 code. The 213/818 split is coming up a couple of years down the line. That's the one where Los Angeles south of Mulholland Dr. keeps 213 and everything to the north (the San Fernando Valley) switches to 818. Since much of the San Fernando Valley is part of the City of Los Angeles, we will thus have a two area code city. Bizarre, but true. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1982 0913-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: smb.unc at UDEL-RELAY Subject: Automatic Intercept from a CENTREX It is not possible in outpulsing DID PBXs. It is possible in No. 1 ESS CO CENTREX (which UNC has). It is not as straightforward as for normal numbers (especially when taking it back OFF intercept) -- but it is done within the Hinsdale, Illinois Central office for Bunker Ramo. At Bunker Ramo all numbers went to AIS, so it could have been done in a different manner that what would have to be done to just put one on it. There are also tariff considerations. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1982 at 0912 Pacific Daylight Time From: gp at lll-unix (George Pavel - LLNL/EE) Subject: Vadic 345x modems To: smb.unc@UDel-Relay We had infant mortality problems with our first couple of 3451 modems which we got when they were first introduced. The later ones (5 or more, I don't remember how many we've gotten) we have had no trouble with. By the way, we just got a new 3451PA modem with integral autodialer. It's probably OK for use with a terminal with attached human, but it's quite awkward for computer-controlled dialing. The carrier detect signal does not show up at the RS232 interface, so the computer has no way of knowing if the other side hung up in order to release the modem. George Pavel (gp at lll-unix) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 82 11:49:47-EDT (Thu) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: replies Volume 2 no. 59 (the latest digest I have at this writing) had 2 items to which I will now respond. At least for now, I am interested ONLY in the place names that would appear on the phone bills. So far, this has been a VERY SLOW undertaking, because of the expense of getting such info onto my own phone bill, the privacy of other people's bills, etc. It is possible to check with the operator for "place name", but this of course gets to be a nuisance if done too many times. A Telecom digest sent in Dec. 1981 mentioned the 2 new area codes in California. To rehash (and to add some bits from other sources): 619 is to be carved from 714 in Nov. 1982, and 818 is to be carved from 213 sometime in 1984. California already has 8 area codes, more than any other state; New York state has 7, and Texas has 6. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 14-May-82 16:37:34-PDT,5199;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 14-May-82 16:37:04 Date: 14 May 1982 1637-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #61 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 15 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Product Report - VADIC 3451 INWATS Prefix Assignments Query - When Did N1X And N0X Start In LA? Mobile Radio Through ATS-3 Area Code & Prefix Assignment Listing - V&H Coordinate Tape ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 May 1982 18:23:57-PDT From: decvax!minow at Berkeley Re: Vadic 3451 I have one and it seems fine. If you're going to use it at home, make sure it has the three-position "manual/voice/data" switch, so it doesn't answer your phone for you. One annoyance: it seems to generate some interference with one of the local FM stationns (at 90.9 mhz). Sounds something like a subcarrier whistling in the background. Any suggestions for fixes would be welcome. Martin Minow decvax!minow ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 82 21:34:06-EDT (Thu) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL> Re: Vadic 345x series modems: I have had personal experience with around 10 of the new 3451 models (the ones with the voice/data switch up front with the other two switches) Every one worked right out of the gate, and 8 of them are used daily for cross country (Baltimore Md to San Francisco, and Houston TX), with absolutely no failures. These things are carried around in peoples brief cases, luggage, etc regularly also. All were obtained within the last 6 months, thru a distributer near Washington DC. -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 82 12:54:25-EDT (Fri) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: "800" prefixes Interstate "800" prefixes (those not ending in 2) are assigned by area code (as far as I can tell), as are the intrastate ones (those ending in 2). For example, 221 would be NYC from outside NY state. (This is as it is now, before the changes I have seen mentioned earlier.) I do not know how restrictions (other than state-line mentioned above) are imposed on availability of "800" prefixes via numbering system. ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 82 12:56:51-EDT (Fri) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: N0X and N1X in L.A. area (213) I have list of 213-area prefixes clipped out of a 1976 directory and such list does include a few "area-code" prefixes. Someone said such prefixes were put in starting in 1978(?). ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1982 12:40:40-PDT From: eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Mobile radio through ATS-3 ATS-3 is indeed a geostationary satellite. There was an article on ATS-1 and -3 about a year ago in 73 magazine, which suggested that hams might apply to NASA for permission to use channels during off hours. There is a demo at the Goddard Space Flight Center Visitors Center using one of these satellites to demonstrate round-trip propagation delay. They use two 10-element yagi arrays, although I don't know how much transmitter power is used. In response to 20 watts being sufficient from a mobile whip, here's the equation for isotropic antennas: Path Loss (db) ~= 23 + 20*log(d/l) where log is base-10 d = distance l = RF wavelength, same units as distance At two meters, the path loss to geostationary orbit (distance ~=40,000KM) at 2 meters is 169db. I assumed that the satellite and ground whip antenna have unity gain. 20 watts from the ground would arrive at -156dbW in the satellite receiver's front end. If it has a 50-ohm impedance, this corresponds to .11 microvolts. Lots of narrow-band FM receivers quiet reasonably well on .11 microvolts, but the link probably would be marginal. Older satellites were not noted for particularly good receiver front ends. Orienting the whip probably helped things. Speaking of power requirements for satellites, it is quite feasable to 'hit' Amsat-Oscar-8 (a low polar orbiting 2m -> 70cm amateur repeater satellite) with an audible signal using a standard 1 watt walkie talkie and its built-in rubber antenna. It is also very easy to hear the 300 milliwatt 2 meter FM beacon on Uosat-Oscar-9 with the same walkie talkie. Its amazing what you can do with low power when you don't have the earth in your way! Phil Karn, KA9Q Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1982 1431-PDT (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: V&H coordinate tape I have gotten several requests for information about obtaining the area/code prefix information tape I mentioned recently. The person to contact is: Pat Jennings AT&T Long Lines (816) 391-5708 Ask about the "V&H Coordinate Tape". The current price is about $50. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 17-May-82 13:58:03-PDT,4167;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-May-82 13:57:09 Date: 17 May 1982 1357-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #62 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 18 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: ACTS and ABC - Automated Coin Collection Bell 212 Frequency Selection Satellite Propagation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 May 1982 1651-PDT From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: ACTS and ABC - Automated Coin Collection I receved the following documment from a friend who was then a TSPS operator, one year ago -- just before LA cut over to the ACTS/SSAS system. In light of some recent discussion over automated coin telephone service, and automatic calling card service as well, I am submitting it to the list. [This article is 19,000 characters long, and thus is too long to mail out via the digest. It has therefore been made available for FTP distribution. Thanks go to Ian Merritt, Richard Lamson, Don Woods, Jim Mcgrath, Roger Duffey, and Will Martin for providing space on their machines. If you find yourself unable to FTP the file, you should send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB and I will mail you a copy. [USC-ISIB] PS:<MERRITT.TELECOM>ACTS.DOC [MIT-MULTICS] >udd>sm>rsl>telecom>acts.text [PARC-MAXC] [maxc]<Woods>Telecom.ACTS [iris]<Woods>Telecom>ACTS [note that the "." vs ">" is correct as shown for the two file names.] [SU-AI] ACTS.TXT[T,JPM] [OFFICE-8] <WMARTIN>ACTS.TELECOM [MIT-AI] DUFFEY;TELCOM ACTS [Note: you can TYPE or FTP the file from SU-AI without an account or password.] For the benefit of those people who read this on USENET as fa.telecom, I will follow this digest with a copy of the ACTS text in full.] ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 1982 12:25-EDT From: Peter J. Castagna <PC at MIT-MC> Subject: Bell 212 To: lauren at UCLA-SECURITY The frequencies selected in the 212 were selected merely because they were very simple to generate from a standard (3.684Mhz) crystal and were multiples (easy to switch by selecting one or another output of a divide-down-by-two counter array). Vadic's frequencies were selected for INTELLIGENT reasons. ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 82 22:48:31-EDT (Sat) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL> Subject: Satellite propagation It is quite possible, even likely, that a satellite in say a 2 to 3 hundred mile orbit could be hit FULL QUIETING (50db SINAD), by a handheld walkie talkie, much less a 20watt mobile unit. When travelling in the midwest recently, I was able to consistently hit repeaters at 100 miles with only 5 watts of power, and was informed I had a full quieting signal on several of them. With 45 watts, I was able to hit almost everything I could reach at all, full quieting. The only major obstacles I encountered were, the curvature of the earth, cities, and other stations on the same channel. None of these are a problem in space. The home TV type receivers produce a signal with over 45db S/N, (to obtain a clear picture), and typically those have roughly 30db antennas, and are receiving 5 watt or so satellite transmitters, (power is EXPENSIVE up there). That's on a signal at a much higher wavelength too, where circuitry is almost 'magic', (particularly the front end preamp). At lower frequencies, (70 cm would be my personal choice, ~ 440 Mhz), and a lower noise requirement, (30db would do fine, 20db in a pinch), it is ENTIRELY possible that the problem could be overcome with a good ground plane antenna properly oriented. Even *older* satellites contain receivers better than anything a ham is likely to own, also, as the cost of orbiting a satellite, (particularly a geo-synch one), vastly overshadows the cost of the reciever. Sounds definitely plausible to me. -Joe Pistritto- N3CKF ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 19-May-82 19:54:32-PDT,2377;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-May-82 19:52:51 Date: 19 May 1982 1952-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #63 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 20 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Reaching Satellites With Low Power Radio Gear Voice/Data Switch For Modem Line Voltage - Why 47 Volts? Program Availability Query - Distance/Charge Rate Calculations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 May 1982 1452-PDT (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: satellites To: jcp at BRL I was not questioning the ability to hit a "low" satellite with simple low power ham gear -- I've done it myself. What I *was* questioning was the ability to hit an old Geosynchronous bird... which certainly cannot be considered to be in "low" orbit. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1982 18:12:10-PDT From: feldman@ucbarpa at Berkeley (Steve Feldman) Subject: voice/data switch for modem Does anyone know how to make a voice/data switch for a Ventel 212+ modem? I'd rather build one than shell out the $55 for the one they sell. Please send responses directly to me. Thanks, Steve Feldman feldman@berkeley (arpa) ..!ucbvax!feldman (uucp) ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1982 23:53-EDT From: Henry Feldman <HFELD at MIT-AI> Subject: Re: Voltage I was looking over back issues of Telecom, and I noticed a lot about how the telephone system runs on 47 volts. Why did they pick such a wierd number, and not 120 volts, or another common kind? - Henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1982 10:51 EDT From: adler.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: TELECOM programs cc: carroll.WBST,wheeler.WBST, adler.WBST I am looking for a Data Communication program, that is written in FORTRAN to do any of the following: -Calculate the distance and charges usuing "V" and "H" coordinates. -Simulators for traffic patterns and communications lines. -Line loading calculations. -Minimal cost network layouts. -ETC. Thanks PAUL Adler ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 20-May-82 20:40:27-PDT,3159;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-May-82 20:39:49 Date: 20 May 1982 2039-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #64 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 21 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Voice CBBS Systems Phone Line Voltage - Why 48 (not 47) And Not 110? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 May 1982 00:28 edt From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Voice CBBS I am considering setting up a CBBS-like operation that would run over a voice system. What I basically have in mind is a super answering machine that would play you a message, then listen for a touch-tone. If none is heard, it would behave like an conventional answering machine and take a message. Otherwise, it would play the announcement track for the number it heard. Does any equipment like this exist? Paul ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 82 22:39:44-EDT (Thu) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL> Subject: Telephone voltages I assume that the voltage for phones was determined by the storage batteries used to supply it. (Those large, clear batteries you see mounted on shelves near every phone exchange). Batteries commonly produce 48 volts, and are available for 90 volts, so I would suspect that was the cause). Also, didn't the first phone exchanges come about before electrical power was widespread? That might explain why the voltages for phones and electrical distribution aren't the same. (Other than the problem of people tapping phone lines to run the washing machine, etc...) Yet another reason would be that telegraphs used fairly low voltages, (I seem to remember in the high 30's). -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1982 2211-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: line voltages First off, the standard telephone line voltage is not 47 volts but a nominal 48 volts (which is 4 * 12 volts, which isn't *such* a strange number.) As in most similiar aspects of telephony, the choice of voltage and its polarity (POSITIVE ground, no less) are deeply routed in history. Early telephone services used single open wires with ground return through metal stakes driven into the earth. If they had been used in typical negative ground fashion, electrolysis would have resulted in the decay of the stakes themselves (through interaction with the surrounding earth). By using a POSITIVE ground, however, this problem is avoided (since, in essence, the stakes *attract* deposits rather than lose their own material through the reaction.) The choice of 48 volts resulted from early experiments over moderate distances where the "researchers" would attach standard lead-acid cells in series until the whole affair basically "worked". Since 6 volts was a common battery voltage, it is easier to see how the magic number 48 is derived. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 22-May-82 15:08:31-PDT,3336;000000000001 Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-May-82 15:07:40 Date: 22 May 1982 1507-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #65 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 23 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Be A Responsible Citizen - Hotlines To Report Government Fraud Query On Automated Credit Card Calls Voice CBBS - DEC's Personal Computer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 May 1982 0152-PDT From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: Government Fraud Hotlines We here in California have Senator Hayakawa who sent us a newsletter just recently which included a list of Hotlines to Report Fraud and Waste. Interestingly enough, three of the numbers were on FTS, accessible only to government employees! For the record, here it is: FTS 775-2770 Education 472-4222 Health and Human Services 289-5394 VA 800-424-9121 Agriculture 202-252-4073 Energy 5197 Commerce 245-3090 EPA 8005 Community Services Admin. 472-4200 HUD 9098 Defense 633-3365 Justice 5454 GAO 653-7107 Merit System Prot. Bd. 5210 GSA 653-7557 Small Business Admin. 5081 Interior 632-3320 State Dept. 5409 Labor 566-6900 Treasury 9183 NASA 9071 Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 82 14:15:30 EDT (Fri) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: query on automated credit card calls If the phone line you're making a call from is rotary-only to the phone company, will it recognize a credit card number keyed in via a "Soft-Touch" or some such? If so, it means that the resources to handle Touch-Tone dialing are already present *for that line*; if not, why does it still give that beep? --Steve ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 1982 1123-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: schauble.multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Voice CBBS The new DEC personal computer (the Professional 325 and 350) has an option called the Telephone Management System which consists of line interfaces for two telephone lines, 103, 212, 202, V.21, & V.23 modems, DTMF (Touch-Tone is a trademark of AT&T) transmitter and receiver, and CVSD Voice CODEC for voice storage. The device will be capable of listening for Touch-Tone, timing out (under PDP-11 program control), and then playing a pre-stored voice message, random accessed from floppies or winchester. Four minutes of voice uses one megabyte of disk, so it is handy to have an Ethernet connection to another machine with more storage if you want to take lots of incoming messages. The device could theoretically call you wherever you are to play messages it received for you. This would, of course, be subject to all the phone network problems previously discussed in this digest w.r.t. figuring out whether someone had actually answered. TMS isn't very expensive at all, $895 + $295 for the optional Voice Unit (a speaker/microphone box for local use of the voice encoding). The Professional 325 & 350 are competitively priced personal computers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 24-May-82 18:18:03-PDT,4898;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 24-May-82 18:17:33 Date: 24 May 1982 1817-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #66 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 25 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Government Fraud Hotlines New International Telephone Rates ACTS - Validation Database Incomplete As Of Yet Query - What Machine Reads The V & H Coordinate Tape? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 May 1982 22:37-EDT From: Frank J. Wancho <FJW at MIT-MC> Subject: Government Fraud Hotlines To: ROODE at SRI-KL cc: FJW at MIT-MC Interestingly enough, three of the numbers were on FTS, accessible only to government employees! Almost true, but not quite. People who have direct access to FTS can call those numbers as-is. However, not all government employees have access to FTS. Until last year, DoD non-Washington installations had access only to Autovon. (Actually, they had a choice between Autovon or FTS, but not both, up to that time - most chose Autovon, of course.) All FTS numbers have commercial equivalents anyway, making it a long distance call instead of a toll-free 800 call. For example, most FTS numbers in the D.C. area can be called commercially by prefixing the 202 Area Code to the number given. It is unfortunate that the Senator's staff did not bother to look up and publish the equivalent numbers in those three cases. --Frank ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1982 1831-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: New international telephone rates New rates for international calls have gone into effect. Unless callers are careful, substantially more expensive calls can result because of the change in discount periods. There are nine rate bands with eight different discount periods. Under the new rates, direct dial (or operator placed from phones where no direct dial is available) calls now have a one minute minimum; operator assisted calls still have a three minute minimum (unlike domestic calls, where even operator assisted calls are now subject to a one minute minimum). There are now discounts for all countries, but the day of the week does not enter into the calculation -- just the time. Calling the U.K. on Sunday used to be a bargain. No longer. But there are big savings for calling France during the discounted periods (there were no discounts to France before). The afternoon and night discount periods for continental Europe are good for long calls, but the loss of the Sunday discount hurts short or morning calls on Sunday. Some examples: Old rates New Rates Day Night/Sunday Standard Discount Economy 5AM-5PM 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM UK/Ireland 1 min 3.00 2.40 2.08 1.56 1.25 3 min 3.00 2.40 4.60 3.46 2.77 ea. min 1.00 0.80 1.26 0.95 0.76 10 min 10.00 8.00 13.42 10.11 8.09 15 min 15.00 12.00 19.72 14.86 11.89 Continental Europe 1 min 4.05 3.15 2.37 1.78 1.42 3 min 4.05 3.15 5.03 3.78 3.02 ea. min 1.35 1.05 1.33 1.00 0.80 10 min 13.50 10.50 14.34 10.78 8.62 15 min 20.25 15.75 20.99 15.78 12.62 ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1982 1842-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Government Fraud Hotlines The FTS number for Health and Human Services fraud is actually just a regular A/C 202 number (202 472-4222). The other numbers certainly have commercial network equivalents, which an FTS operator (check the U.S. Government listings) could probably decode. [If you call your "FTS Operator (listed in the Govt. and Municipal Guide of your telephone book), she will complete the call without charge. -JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1982 1856-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: ACCS The system is supposed to check the database to determine whether you have Tone service or not and send you directly to an operator if not. Until the distributed database is fully implemented (which will check for valid credit card numbers, including validating the P.I.N. to be used beginning next year) all users are assumed to have Tone service (except where entire exchanges are known to not have tone service). ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 82 15:40:48-EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: V & H coordinate tape What equipment would I transcribe the V&H Coordinate Tape on? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-May-82 17:46:21-PDT,3460;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 26-May-82 17:45:55 Date: 26 May 1982 1745-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #67 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 25 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: FTS Operator - Need An ID? Internal Phone Networks - Confusing At Times V & H Coordinate Tape - How To Read It ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 1982 2258-EDT (Monday) From: Mark.Sherman at CMU-10A Subject: FTS Operator Your local FTS operator won't complete the FTS call unless you can provide an appropriate ID code. -Mark ------------------------------ Date: 25-May-82 22:41:43 PDT (Tuesday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Internal phone networks cc: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Recently there has been mention on this list of government phone systems "FTS" and "AUTOVON". Xerox has an internal phone system called "Intelnet" which permits you to call any Xerox phone in the country by dialing 8*[7-digit number]. Some of these locations can't be direct-dialed from outside phones. Further, only long-distance (other area codes) can be dialed with this system. This results in some interesting anomalies. I'm in El Segundo, and I can't direct-dial someone across town in Pasadena, but a Xerox person in Rochester can! Can someone in the know give us a short essay on these sorts of phone systems? Before we got our Dimension PBX a couple of years ago, it was really bizarre: to make local calls, you had to look up the exchange you were dialing in a table and dial either 91, 92, or 93 first. --Bruce ------------------------------ From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> To: cmoore at BRL Subject: V & H tape The tape I received was an 800 bpi IBM EBCDIC labeled tape. It can obviously be read on IBM systems, but not having one handy, the following commands work on RSX-11M V4.0 or RSX-11M-Plus V2.0: >MOU MM0:/nolabel/translate=ebcdic/blocksize:800./recordsize:80. >pip vh.dat=mm0:"pos=r1" Which means that the file is 80 byte records with a blocking factor of ten to be found one tape mark forward from the rewind position (after the labels). Add a /carriagecontrol=list to that mount command if you plan to view the file. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 1982 2141-PDT (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: V&H tape To: cmoore at BRL The tape is written on a standard IBM tape drive at a standard density (800 or 1600, I don't remember which offhand). Most any system should be able to read it -- the blocking factors, etc. are printed on the tape reel. --Lauren-- P.S. Yeah, it is in EBCDIC -- but simple to translate. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1982 10:50 EDT From: adler.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: VH tape To: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: carroll.WBST at PARC-MAXC ,wheeler.WBST at PARC-MAXC, adler.WBST at PARC-MAXC We are running a HONEYWELL L66 with the CP-6 operating system. Tape on this system can be 1600 BPI or 6250 BPI 8 track. The best way to send a tape is to use unlable format. Thanks Paul Adler XEROX 716*422-3764 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 27-May-82 17:18:32-PDT,5161;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 27-May-82 17:17:52 Date: 27 May 1982 1717-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #68 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 28 May 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: CCSA Networks What If... - Phone Pholklore More On Xerox's Internal Network ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 May 1982 10:56-EDT From: Jeffrey Krauss <KRAUSS at MIT-MC> Subject: CCSA Networks Both FTS and Xerox's Intelnet are examples of the Common Control Switching Arrangement (CCSA) networks offered by AT&T. A CCSA network is a network of leased lines that link a customer's premises by means of switching machines at telco central offices (instead of using customer premises PBXs). The leased private lines used in CCSA networks are provided by AT&T and OCCs for the exclusive use of the customer, and are not shared among CCSA customers. The telco central office switches, however, are shared among CCSA customers (and possibly with the public switched network also). CCSA service was first offered by AT&T in 1964, at the request of General Electric. As of 1974, AT&T had 29 CCSA customers. The FTS is the largest CCSA network. A CCSA network is configured much like the public switched network with a heierarchy of switching machines; higher level switching machines provide a tandem function for interconnecting intermachine trunks and provide alternate routing capabilities. The lower level switches connect access lines to one another (for intra- regional connections) and connect access lines to trunks (for inter- regional connections). One major difference between CCSA networks and tandem tie line networks that use PBXs is that CCSA networks have a "uniform numbering plan"--every station has a unique seven-digit address. In contrast, a tie line network that involves tandeming through PBXs requires an access code for each inter-PBX trunk that is needed to complete the connection (the user must define the routing and set up the trunk connections at the time he dials.) The Autovon network is totally different. The switching machines are multiply interconnected in a non heierarchical network, probably much like the Arpanet, for survivability. The telephone sets have an additional four buttons that can be used to seize trunks for high-priority calls in an emergency--lower priority calls can be disconnected without warning if a higher priority call needs the trunk. The netowrk is 4-wire end-to-end, whereas CCSA access lines are typically two-wire. ---Jeff Krauss--- ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1982 10:47:45-CDT From: jon at uwisc Subject: what if... The following appeared in the Milwaukee Journal, May 26. Thought you phone pholks might enjoy it: ... we got to wondering how the course of American economic history might have been changed if Alexander Graham Bell had had a different name -- say, Alexander Graham Klunk. Would we now have the Klunk System instead of the Bell System? Furthermore, what sound the the inventor have used as a means of alerting people that a call was coming through? For Alexander Graham Bell, of course, the answer was easy -- the phone should ring, like a bell. But Alexander Graham Klunk might well have thought differently. His telephone might have gone "Klu-u-unk, klu-u-unk, klu-u-unk," and everybody nowadays would rush to answer the klunking telephone. Or it could have been worse: What if his name had been Alexander Graham Siren? Life would be intolerable. Bell's first utterance on the telephone was the famous line, "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you," spoken to an assistant in another room. What if this answer had come from the other end? "This is Mr. Watson. I've stepped out for a minute. After the tone, please leave your name and number, and I'll get in touch with you as soon as I return. Thank you. (Buzzzzz)" Eerie, huh? Maybe Bell would have thought the whole thing over and said, "Forget it -- the telephone will just get people mad. I'll invent something else, like the hula hoop." ... [the text reprinted here was originally enclosed within disussions with Don Ameche, who played Bell in the 1939 film "Alexander Graham Bell"] ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1982 09:37 PDT From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Internal phone networks To: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC "This results in some interesting anomalies. I'm in El Segundo, and I can't direct-dial someone across town in Pasadena, but a Xerox person in Rochester can!" On the other hand, using the same system we can direct-dial (from Palo Alto) Stockton (~60 miles) or Fresno (~100 miles), but not Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Chico, Eureka, etc. (all farther away). Stan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Jun-82 19:39:21-PDT,7627;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Jun-82 19:39:17 Date: 1 Jun 1982 1939-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #69 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 2 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 May 1982 1904-PDT From: Hon Wah Chin <HWC at S1-A> Has anyone seen McNamara's new edition on DataCom? Should I upgrade from the first edition? [I am confused --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 1982 02:41 edt From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Unnatural monopolies and the good 'ole days Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston) Original-date: 29 MAY 1982 13:21:20 Let me start by warning you that this is a flame generated by the loss of a dear friend -- the responsive phone company -- at least New England Telephone. The current problem stems from my attempts to have a D1 conditioned leased line from Cambridge (ESS) to Newton (Antique) Massachusetts. The line itself took about three months to install after initial delivery date because of the game that the installers, the line people and the business office play. It is called "how much can we serialize". If the line people claim to have found a pair it is possible to then schedule the installers to see if the pair works. A few weeks later later when the installation people find the pair is bad it is now time to schedule the line people to find another line. The key to keeping this game open is to never ever anticipate and never let any two groups work together to simply solve a problem. The job of the business office in this game is to act is if they can do no better a job than the customer can at getting something to happen. (One trick I picked up along the way is the technique of using a 11-button set that allows conferencing by holding down multiple buttons. Using DTMF one can place a number of simultaneous calls to a given number. This overwhelms the person who screens the calls and the person in hiding tries to help out and you suddently have proof that the victim is available). I eventually resolved the problem by calling the President (Mercer) of NET's office and got a Mr. Anderson (I forgot the first name) who agreed that there should be some central responsbility. The next day the line worked! (I also discovered that the the Mass DPU does not know of any requirement that Telco provide service. They only deal with billing problems $1.00 or less). The line worked for a while and then started to flake. I'd call 1-555-1515 to attempt to get the problems fixed, but that appeared to have no correlation with spontaneous regeneration of service. The flaking got worse and I even tried swapping modems (Paradyne 9600 medium hauls from Avanti in Rhode Island). Yesterday (Friday 28th) I got a call back from someone at Ware Street office who said that the line was noisy. I called Anderson (I think the same one but he did not remember the previous business) who said that there was no way to get in touch with someone to just solve the problems. 1-555-1515 is the sole from of access. (He effectively agreed that calling the business office was a waste of time). So here I sit having heard third hand from the repair people that there is a bad carrier on the Brent Street exchange that might sometime be fixed. What are my options: 1. Giving up and learn that one does not fight the phone company. 2. Continue to call repair and explain to a new person that 68FDDA50731 is not a phone number but to look under 491-2100 instead. 3. Find out who is interested in competing with Telco. Now that there are standard interconnect protocols it is not clear why the local loop should be a monopoly. It would make more sense for a cable company (assuming competence) to provide the local loop and local exchange services. 4. Flame idly on Telecom and not expect anything. 5. Convince the consumer advocacy group that I want to buy a better class of service and get better support for leased lines. 6. Be heartened by the FCC's action in lifting VHF TV licenses of channels 5 and 7 in Boston and hope someone wants to take over the NET physical plant. Oh well. Back to the frustrations of 1200 bps and remembering the good old days when I could just speak to engineering and installation. **************************************************************** I was going to hold off sending this until I calmed down, but I just called repair to find the current status of my line and was told that there was no one around in the appropriate exchanges this weekend and that there was nothing I could do. Suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 82 8:24:42-EDT (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: Galestown, Md. [ from Seaford (Del.) Leader, 5-26-1982, pages 1 & 2 ; I have supplied phone prefixes in brackets ] Galestown fights phone company Area residents, some of whom recently fought for almost a year to preserve their Seaford rural postal service, are now faced with another battle--this time to retain their Seaford telephone exchange [302-629]. According to a recent letter received from the Diamond State Telephone Com- pany, the Delaware Public Service Commission plans to eliminate four-party telephone service to Delaware residents effective Oct. 8, 1982, and since these residents live in Maryland, they cannot have the two-party or private line service being offered to Delaware residents. The cost of a Seaford exchange number at the "foreign exchange" rate of approximately $200 a month prohibits any of these people from keeping a Seaford line. Seaford telephones have been in the Galestown area since at least 1919. The Seaford telephone line came in the Galestown area because area residents could not get a Maryland telephone. Local residents constructed the original Seaford line into the Galestown area and maintained it themselves for a long time. Eliminating the Seaford telephone line in Maryland will cause the greatest inconvenience and hardship to the residents in the Reliance area who would have to take a Federalsburg, Md. exchange [301-754]. Federalsburg does not have any toll-free calling point to Delaware, where most of their business is transacted. This affects almost one-half of these 29 families currently living in Maryland with Seaford phones. Others in the Galestown area will see their telephone bills nearly double or quadruple, depending on whether or not they currently have a Sharptown [301-883] number. These people have been told they can switch to a Delmar, Del. [302-846] exchange for over $30 a month. Area residents are appealing this decision to Kathleen Collins, Chief of the Consumer Affairs Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 2025 M. Street N.W., Room 6324, Washington, D.C. and are contact- ing Rep. Roy Dyson, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes and Sen. Charles Mathias of Maryland, and Rep. Thomas Evans, Sen. Joseph Biden, and Sen. William Roth of Delaware to seek their help to get the FCC to issue an exception to permit these people to retain their present Seaford telephones. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 2-Jun-82 18:19:40-PDT,9008;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 2-Jun-82 18:18:36 Date: 2 Jun 1982 1818-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #70 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 3 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Who Wrote The Book On Communications? Trouble With TelCo's - Centralized Repair Bureaus Calling Patterns - Advanced Warning Of Higher-Than-Normal Bills Data Lines - Repair Troubles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jun 1982 1950-PDT From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) McNamara is this gentleman from Digital who wrote a book "Technical Aspects of Data Communications" published on Digital Press. Too bad the Bantam paperback is not out yet. ------------------------------ Date: 2 June 1982 0141-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: telco troubles To: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Bob, Sorry to hear you're having so much trouble with a D1 out there. Your story sounds pretty typical. I can only make a couple of general suggestions: a) Don't sit around hoping for competition to show up and do better, and least not for awhile. Eventually, local microwave networks provided by non-telco entities will appear, but it is not clear how cost effective these will be, or WHEN they will be available. Don't even THINK about cable TV companies. Lauren's Maxim #432 says, "Most cable TV companies make General Telephone look GOOD." Not only are many cities fragmented between different companies, all using different sorts of equipment with different sorts of services, but most are grossly incapable of doing more than pointing a dish at a satellite and pumping a mediocre signal down the cable to provide a movie channel or two. There are some notable exceptions, but they are few and far between. b) When you are forced to deal with "centralized" repair (pretty typical throughout AT&T companies these days in metro areas), ALWAYS speak to a supervisor for all but the most trivial problems. Get the person's name, a direct inward dialing number to that person (if you can talk them into it) and then whenever you call back, ask to talk to that person. This is very important to prevent your problem from being passed around all over the place with no single person ever watching over the whole process. This procedure is not 100% effective, but has generally served me well. I used a system like this just last week when an installer woke me up one morning (here at home) insisting he had to install a TELEX line at my house. A TELEX LINE???? Yep. Turned out that Western Union in NYC had screwed some stuff up and I was the innocent victim, but it took awhile to convince telco of this. Amusing, in hindsight. I'll be in Boston for about 5 days starting around the 4th of July, maybe we can get together and I can try my hand at dealing with your local repair people... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 1982 1759-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol at USC-ECL> Subject: Centralized Telephone Repair Service The multitude of times I have had to contact Repair Service here (611), I have typically asked to speak with a supervisor. I am currently trying to get them to fix a noisy trunk group between me and one of the GTE areas (West LA). They seem to fix it, then call me to verify that I am happy and then go and break it again. This one isn't going through a supervisor, but I am sure now that they have a note next to my name to treat me specially, as I am always given a DID number, and some supervisor's name when I get verified ("just in case this stops working, you can call me directly at ..."). I no longer have to ask for this. The reason I have this "mark" on my record is that when I started to have trouble with my custom calling, I always got some random call from a clerk at the Repair Service office trying to make sure I know how to use the feature. The trouble was that I always had the card in front of me and CORRECTED the clerk every time she made a mistake ("Now check the card, remember: one of my lines has speed calling 8 and the other has speed calling 30, you use 75# for 30, not for 8!" (her reply) "hold on, sir. (pause) Oh yes, you're absolutely right, my mistake."). Eventually they caught on that I knew more about it than the clerks did, so they bypass that step now. You don't always have to get the same person (at least in the greater LA area), just make sure you get the same office. I have called both the business office and repair center and had my "rep" either on a call or out to lunch, and someone always can look on her desk and get the work sheet she was working on, you should get the name tho. Also, local repair center clerks are good at checking for past problem records on file. If you are having the same problem as a previously reported one, just tell them to find it and reissue it. The method used to fix it the last time is also marked and it saves them *lots* of time and trouble (gets your service back into shape sooner too). --JSol p.s. Be sure you give as accurate a description of the problem as you can. With this latest problem, I always flash into 3-way calling and try one of the numbers known to have scratchy trunks, this way the rep calling me back can verify along with me what is going on. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 1982 0827-PDT From: HAL at SRI-NIC Subject: phone bills I have some friends who live in the WDC area who got a call the other day from the phone company saying that their next phone bill would be over $250, the accumulated charges to that date, and it was only three-fourths of the way through the billing period. Although shocked, they were glad to have gotten the information so that they could budget the big one. (Of course, they will be looking at the itemized listing of phone numbers called quite carefully.) This amount owed is about four times the size of their biggest bill so far. I was wondering, is it standard practice for the telco's to set a flag on major increases of accounts and call the customer to let them know of the "big one"? If I were to suddenly increase my usage of my phone one month, would I too get the service of a warning? If this is standard, when is the procedure initiated - double the bill? three times? (I've had bills double over a month's time, and received no such call.) Do they keep averages for everyone and compare total billing to date with them or just keep highest bill to date and compare? It would seem logical they do some sort of checking just to protect themselves from an "I didn't make any of those calls" excuse, and also to warn the customer there may be someone abusing their phone. Or do they have different reasons for doing this? Hal Huntley [In Connecticut, I remember being told that if my bill goes over $100, they will call me on the phone to let me know, and in the LA phone book, they tell you that they will bill you (and expect payment in 7 days) if your bill goes over $150.00, and again if it goes over $400.00, though I suspect that they will catch on if your bill does that all the time. --JSol]. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 1982 15:01 EDT From: Axelrod.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Unnatural monopolies and the good 'ole days Perhaps you already know about this but: If a line is part of an inTERstate network, then you may order the line from AT&T Long Lines, even if the line itself is inTRAstate. As a matter of fact, AT&T will actually sub-contract the line back to the local operating company, but the main difference is service. We've had experience with an number of OpCo's and with Long Lines. The OpCo's vary all over the spectrum in quality of service. New England Tel is not a good one, in our experience. AT&T is usually excellent. The line is almost always up (solid) within 4 hours of a call, usually under 2. Very often, the price is lower from AT&T also. Another advantage is that during the order and installation period, AT&T will do the kind of tracking that you described. Just what exactly constitutes an "Interstate Network" is sometimes open to interpretation. As a general rule, if data normally flows from the DTE to another across state lines, then the line will qualify. (Then there's the thing called the "rusty switch" arrangement, which is illegal and unethical, but still happens.) Sorry to bore you if you already know this. Or if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Art Axelrod Xerox Webster Research Center ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 4-Jun-82 12:36:33-PDT,5051;000000000001 Mail-From: JSOL created at 4-Jun-82 12:34:39 Date: 4 Jun 1982 1234-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #71 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 4 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Galestown, MD - Losing Delaware FEX Special Billing Comparison - Pacific Telephone Exclusion Switch - Technical Description Wanted "Rusty Switch" Scam - Explanation Please? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 June 1982 09:24-EDT From: Jeffrey Krauss <KRAUSS at MIT-MC> Subject: Galestown, MD Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the 29 families now living in Galestown ,Maryland but using Seaford, Delaware local exchange service. A look at the map shows that Galestown is about three miles from Sharptown, MD, where they can apparently get local service; however, Galestown is about ten miles from Seaford. It sounds like they have been getting some kind of extended area local service that happened to cross a state line. If so, Section 221(b) of the Communications Act specifically gives jurisdiction to the states (not the FCC) because local exchange service is involved. On the other hand, the FCC may have jurisdiction under Section 214, which prohibits a discontinuance, reduction or impairment of interstate service without first getting a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the FCC. Usually, a mere price increase does not constitute a "discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service." The fact is that these people have been subsidized by someone over the past years, and they want to retain that subsidy. Apparently they have received subsidies even greater than the alleged subsidies that rural subscribers generally have received. Too bad. ---Jeff Krauss--- [I agree, but only if they really run foreign exchange lines from Delaware into the customer's home. In California we have Pseudo-FEX exchanges, which are run just like local telephone lines into your home or business and have a different rate area. I couldn't see charging $400/month/person for *that*. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 2 June 1982 1937-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: PacTel billing procedures Here's how Pacific Telephone does it: There are four residence account groups defined: Group 1 (less than 13 months service or unverifiable previous service) If any delinquent amounts equal or exceed 1/2 of your average monthly bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed. Group 2 (13-24 months service) If any delinquent amounts equal or exceed your average monthly bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed. Group 3 (over 2 years service) If any delinquent amount equals or exceeds twice your average monthly bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed. Group 4 (service of more than 12 months that has been temporarily or completely disconnected for non-payment within the last 12 months, or any unpaid residence final bill over 45 days old) If any delinquent amount equals or exceeds 1/2 of your average monthly bill, a temporary disconnection notice will be mailed. --- If your bill is unpaid on the "due date" and you meet one of the above disconnection criteria: The notice will be sent with your next regular bill if you are in account groups 2 or 3. The notice will be sent separately one day after the due date if you are in account groups 1 or 4. --- SPECIAL BILLS If your account is in groups 1 or 4 and your long distance charges exceed $150 in less than a full billing period, you may be sent a special bill requesting payment of these charges in advance of your regular billing. If subsequently your long distance charges exceed $400, you may receive another special bill. If your account is in groups 2 or 3, you may receive a special bill when your long distance charges exceed $400 in a full billing period. Payment is due seven business days from the date these special bills are mailed. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 3 June 1982 11:39-EDT From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC> Subject: Exclusion Switch I'm getting a direct-connect modem which I am told requires a phone with an "exclusion switch." Does Telco mean by this a phone with a switchhook that can be lifted to cut out the handset? If so, it should be easy enough to hook up a functional replacement. Can anybody give me more information on this? Thanks! -Tom- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 1982 1150-PDT From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN at SRI-AI> I'm intrigued by the inTERstate vs. inTRAstate phone line comment which referred to the "rusty switch" scam. What is it? ...Paul ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 4-Jun-82 20:04:17-PDT,4515;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 4-Jun-82 20:03:36 Date: 4 Jun 1982 2003-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #72 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 5 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: "Rusty Switch" Scam Problems Repairing Phones - Continuing Telco Saga Foreign Exchange Rate Structure - Will Need Revision ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jun 1982 18:00 EDT From: Axelrod.WBST at PARC-MAXC FCC regs say that an intrastate line is part of an interstate network if it is connected to an interstate line, either directly, or through a "switch". The term "switch" is ordinarily understand to mean a PBX or such-like, but it isn't defined very clearly. SO. . . If you need an intrastate line, and if ATT is cheaper than your local OpCo (it usually is), and if you've got an Interstate line in the near vicinity, then you order a manual TBar switch, or something like that, and you say that "sometimes" you'll switch the data from the local line onto the interstate line, and the rest of the time it will be switched onto your local widget. Therefore, it's part of an interstat network. BUT. . . Somehow, the switch never gets used! As a matter of fact, it gets forgotten and neglected and it "rusts into position". We don't do that around here or anywhere else in Xerox that I know of. (Really.) But it does get done. I've been told that companies in California that need to run lines from LA to San Fransisco can actually save money by getting a dead-end line from LA to Lake Tahoe, just for that purpose. Seems Pacific Tel & Tel is quite expensive, and gives terrible service. Art ------------------------------ Date: 4 June 1982 19:52 edt From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Continuing Telco saga 1. I finally got someone out. So far it seems that Telcos equipment works and it may be mine. Once I reached the engineering people they were very helpful. 2. On the other hand, the guy who did come out seemed to have the same problems I had -- it took him 10 minutes to get through to repair on 1-555-1515. Oh well. (It did take till Wednesday evening to get someone though). I still need to figure out whether it is my Avanti MEDIUM haul modems or what. I`ll have to deal with it after the NCC. I am still concerned that it is so difficult to work with Telco to solve simple problems. ------------------------------ Date: 4 June 1982 1711-PDT (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: FX service Generally, it is not practical to charge different amounts for FX service based on the technology used to implement it in a given case. Regardless of whether the service is provided through call forwarding and billing modifications, or via dedicated interoffice trunks, the end result (as far as the customer is concerned) is the same. They are still deriving the same benefits in terms of rate areas and billing. *If* the mileage charges associated with FX service were only charging you for rental of the physical plant associated with a dedicated trunk, *then* you might be able to argue that a serious differential exists. However, all sorts of factors are involved in those mileage charges relating to physical plant *and* rate areas "crossed", so it is not a simple calculation. How do you explain to customer A that they are paying 30% more for similar FX service than customer B, simply because (strictly by luck) customer B happens to be served by the appropriate ESS equipment to provide the pseudo-FX function? This is similar to the situation in regards to IDDD service (International Direct Distance Dialing). Many parts of the country still cannot make IDDD calls. However, those users get charged the direct-dialed rate even though they must call through an operator. Probably it will be necessary to restructure *all* FX type rates over time to account for new methods of providing the service -- but the task will not be simple, given the complexities involved. --Lauren-- P.S. I believe that the overwhelming majority of existing FX lines are provided via dedicated interoffice facilities at this time. --LW-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 7-Jun-82 19:55:17-PDT,3758;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 7-Jun-82 19:54:35 Date: 7 Jun 1982 1954-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #73 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 5 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Ma Bell In Playboy Leased Line Problems - What TPC Will And Will Not Provide ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jun 1982 02:46:14-PDT From: pur-ee!davy at Berkeley Subject: Ma Bell In the July issue of Playboy, there is an intersting little pictorial/article entitled "The Girls of Ma Bell". This is along the lines of "The Women of the Armed Forces" stuff, etc. Take a look, see if one of them is from your local office! Anyway, in the article accompanying the pictures, the writer presents some rather interesting trivia, which I thought I'd share: - Operators are encouraged to answer your call within three seconds, and say goodbye within 29. - AT&T employs over 1,000,000 people, it is the world's largest corporation. - AT&T makes $11,000 a minute. - They spin out enough copper wire every year to wrap around the world 2300 times. - They operate 138,000,000 phones, 25,000 of them in the Pentagon (with a monthly bill of $725,000, even with a discount). - 12 cities in the country, including Washington D.C. and Skokie, Ill. have more phones than people. - AT&T publishes 120,000,000 phone books a year, on almost 1 billion pounds of paper. --Dave Curry decvax!pur-ee!davy ucbvax!pur-ee!davy ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 1982 0934-MDT From: Randy Frank <FRANK at UTAH-20> Subject: high speed limited distance modems For about two years we have been fighting with the local telco (Mtn Bell) trying to get them to offer unloaded (metallic) circuits between locations in Salt Lake City that are not serviced by the same central office. We have been singularly unsucessful. We have tried special assembly tarriffs, appeals to the public service commision, etc., all with no luck. As the situation now stands, if you are serviced by the same CO as the University, you can get a leased metallic (unloaded) 43401 circuit at very reasonable prices (often less than a second DDD phone in your home), which we then use inexpensive limited distance modems in order to get you 9600 bps access to systems in the University (actually, the LDM at the Univ end usually connects to our Sytek LocalNet, so you can conveniently access any system on the LocalNet). However, if you aren't serviced by the same CO as the University, you're stuck with 1200 baud dial-up. My questions are therefore: 1) has anyone been able to get their local operating co to offer unloaded 43401 circuits betweens COs, and, if so, how? 2) given that 1) just isn't possible, what options are available for REASONABLE cost higher speeds over 3002 circuits. With respect to 2), we have just noticed that Astrocom has announced a 4800 baud Metromodem that will operate sync at 4800 baud up to 50 miles over 3002 circuits. Adding in the cost of async to sync converters, a pair of these comes in at about $2,800. Not cheap, but then again, the cost of a pair of Vadic's is $1,500, so one gets 4 times the speed for less than double the price. Does anyone know of any other similarly priced/performanced options? Ideally we'd like to get 9600 bps asynch over 3002 circuits for the same kind of money ($2,500 - $3,000 per pair), but I may be dreaming. Randy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Jun-82 20:08:49-PDT,5576;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 9-Jun-82 20:06:34 Date: 9 Jun 1982 2006-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #74 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 10 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: RFI - Home Satellite Reception. Re: Metallic lines Telephone Trivia - Lewisville, Pa. Galestown, Md. -- Comment Zipcodes & Phone Prefixes High Speed Limited Distance Modems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jun 1982 2152-PDT From: Bob Knight <ADMIN.KNIGHT at SU-SCORE> Subject: RFI - Home Satellite Reception. I assume that this is appropriate for Telecom; if it isn't, please point me to the correct place. I've just moved across the hills from Stanford (to the west), and now cannot get any decent TV reception at all. We're down in a canyon, and about 500' would have to be blasted off a hill to make things reasonable. At any rate, our location is prime for a satellite earth station (or so I'm told). Assuming this, are there available on the market - or will there be in the 1 to 2 year time-frame - earth stations that will give me the major networks and some movie channels that will cost $1K or less? Details regarding legal ramifications, scrambling issues, etc. are of interest also. Any replies would be gratefully accepted. Reply to me directly, please. I will prepare a synopsis of the information gathered for general dissemination, if there is interest. Thanks, Bob ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 1982 1135-PDT From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Metallic lines Pacific Telephone has indicated that they will do it, but the rates are excessive, as is the case with any private inter CO connections in this area. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 82 11:32:32-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: Lewisville, Pa. Lewisville is adjacent to Maryland border directly north of Elkton, Md. The residence & business phones, plus a couple of pay phones just outside of town have, all told, local service to parts of 4 different area codes! In town, you find 215-255 (Kemblesville, Pa.), whose local service includes Delaware (302-239 Hockessin; 302-366,368,453,454,731,737,738 Newark). Just S of Md. border is a pay phone on 301-398 (Elkton, Md.) prefix; its local service is only within Md. Just NW of town is a pay phone on 215-932 (Oxford, Pa.) prefix; its local service includes 717-529 (Kirkwood, Pa.). (In these cases, when local service goes across area-code boundary, you only need dial 7-digit number; similar situations in California 408/415 and 213/714 and in NYC area require the area code.) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 82 13:23:28-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: Galestown, Md. -- comment In the Galestown, Md. situation I forwarded here very recently, one should consider the effects the proposed change would have AND how things got that way in the first place! (The article said that no Maryland phone was available when the Delaware line was set up.) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 82 14:22:15-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: zipcodes & phone prefixes The phone prefix will NOT NECESSARILY correspond to the city name required for the mailing address. (I got that info several years ago in call-guide for somewhere in Alabama or Mississippi, and thought of it again when I recently read a 1976 microfilm item about pre-sorted mail. Latter said that the phone company--at least Diamond State--was already sorting bills by phone prefix.) Some phone-prefix place names are NOT found in zipcode book! Some of them: Arbutus, Md. (301-242, 247); Braddock, Va. (703-250); Holly Oak, Del. (302- 475,792,798); Hensel, Pa. (717-548); Angola, Del. (302-945). (I have seen mail slots at phone-co. exchange buildings. How does this reconcile with my finding exchange place names such as I listed above?) ------------------------------ Date: 9 June 1982 1229-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: high speed limited distance modems Generally, it is becoming impossible almost everywhere to get metallic circuits between CO's. If you order a leased line, you MAY get one anyway -- but you can't order one specifically. Even if you get one by chance, it may be loaded to such a degree as to make your modems useless. One true metallic circuit can carry alot of conventional telephone traffic... it's a small wonder that the companies are not interested in dedicating these trunks to single users at (relatively) low prices. People who require metallic circuits are really in much the same situation as those users complaining that they need terrestrial leased lines because their (obsolete) communications protocols screw up with the delay on satellite circuits. With increasing use of digital carrier and other "virtual" circuits to increase capacity, the "simple and cheap" solutions to communications problems can no longer always be expected to be viable. You gotta keep up with the times! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 10-Jun-82 20:37:00-PDT,4535;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 10-Jun-82 20:31:55 Date: 10 Jun 1982 2031-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #75 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 11 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 75 Today's Topics Leased Lines Home Satellite Systems Re: Lewisville, Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9-Jun-82 21:20-PDT From: DAUL at OFFICE Subject: Leased Lines Cc: DAUL.OAD at OFFICE Identifier: OAD-WBD-10VZ7 Length: 1 page(s)[estimate] Posted: 9-Jun-82 21:20-PDT I would like to know what the rates are for leased lines? I am interested in access to a TYMNET node from Bakersfield, CA. I am trying to explore all possiblities. Thanks for any replies (please send direct to me). --Bill [If you call your Telephone Co. Business office I'm sure they will be able to help you. Unfortunately you can't shop around yet, since New York Telephone is not able to lease you a line in California. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 9 June 1982 2305-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: home satellite systems To: ADMIN.KNIGHT at SCORE Such questions are definitely not appropriate to this list. However, HOME-SAT@AI is the right place -- this list has existed for quite some time and discusses all aspects of satellite reception technology and broader issues of video. To join, send mail to HOME-SAT-REQUEST@AI. Please note that traffic is generally very light on the list, and I am the primary contributor these days. Before you actually send any message, please read through the archives (-REQUEST should be able to tell you where they reside). Any questions on your topic would probably get answered mainly by me anyway. I've been tracking this area for several years, and have been involved in the configuration of several systems. My current figures for a West Coast system (end user) would be about $5K minimum. The actual dealer prices are around $2900 for a basic 13 foot system without motorized aiming or stero processing. I do not recommend less than 13 foot dishes for the West Coast due to our location in the weaker part of the birds' footprints, and I don't recommend less than 12 foot systems for ANYWHERE. People buying 10 and 11 foot dishes are going to find themselves up the creek when the FCC narrows the satellite spacing to 2 or 3 degrees within the near future. (3 degrees is the more probable figure. Some 11 foot dishes may be OK, but only high quality ones with carefully controlled shape characteristics.) There is actually little hope of drastic price reductions. Prices are more likely to go UP as legal restrictions increase on the reception of such signals. At least one bill pending in Congress would make watching almost all such signals a crime. The most likely upshot of such legislation would be restrictions on equipment sales, which would obviously drive up prices. In any case, *some* of the premium movie services (HBO and CINEMAX are the announced ones right now [both owned by Time-Life]) will be scrambling within a couple of years. Most of the satellite scrambling systems planned are DES based and are essentially uncrackable in a practical sense. Many services will never be scrambled (especially the advertiser-sponsored ones) and you could probably even get permission from some (like the religious broadcasters) to *officially* watch their transponders... so home earth terminals are definitely not a dead issue unless ALL you care about are typical pay-tv movies. In any case, the big mass-market push will be for Direct Broadcast Satellite equipment... which is still a few years down the line and is essentially pay-tv via satellite (just like STV [scrambled UHF] stations.) If you want more info, feel free to contact me directly. Be sure to read the HOME-SAT archives (wherever they are) for more of my ravings on this topic. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 1982 09:09 PDT From: Swenson at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Lewisville, Pa. Just a note: area codes 408 and 415 are no longer cross-tied; you must dial the area code when calling across the area boundries. This change was made a few months ago. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 11-Jun-82 16:38:11-PDT,5290;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 11-Jun-82 16:37:49 Date: 11 Jun 1982 1637-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #76 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 12 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Famous LA Phone Phreak Jailed Long Haul Modems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11-Jun-82 16:00:53 PDT (Friday) From: Newman.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Famous LA phone phreak jailed cc: Merritt at USC-ISIB, Lauren at UCLA-Security, Newman.es from the Los Angeles Times of June 11, 1982 (page 1 of the "Metro" section): 'Phone Phreak' Sentenced to 150-Day Term By Ted Rohrlich, Times Staff Writer Lewis DePayne was sentenced to 150 days in jail Thursday for extremely poor relations with Ma Bell. DePayne, 22, first came to the attention of Pacific Telephone Co. officials in 1979, when they say they discovered that he had gained unauthorized access to their communications and computer systems. DePayne, a computer science student at the time, used the access to disconnect phone service for people he did not like, and to add--for free--special features, such as call-forwarding and call-waiting services, to his own phone and those of his friends, according to phone company officials. Pacific Telephone's retired general security manager, W. F. Bowren, said that in late 1979 DePayne admitted involvement in setting nine fires on telephone company property, resulting in $250,000 in damage. Bowren told Superior Court Judge Diane Wayne that DePayne admitted to phone company investigators that he and some friends got access to ground-level telephone terminals, cut wiring inside the terminals, and then set the terminals on fire. Terminals are boxes, usually attached to telephone poles, that house connections between underground cables and above-ground branch lines leading to homes and businesses. Bowren's comments came in a letter that was made part of the court record. Bowren's letter said that DePayne also told investigators that he and others had rewired one terminal in such a way that it allowed them to make phone calls anywhere and to have charges for those calls applied to someone else's bill. The resulting loss to the phone company was more than $15,000, Bowren said. Bowren went on to say that the telephone company declined to press charges against DePayne because DePayne said that he had seen the error of his ways. But, his letter continued, DePayne was subsequently interviewed in a weekly newspaper and boasted of "infiltrating and compromising our system." Bowren was apparently referring to an article that appeared in the L.A. Weekly in July, 1981, about a "phone phreak" identified as "Rosco." Rosco was touted as "probably the most knowledgeable phone phreak in the country" whose pranks included posing as a telephone company supervisor and causing all calls normally routed through the phone company's Pasadena office to be re-routed elsewhere. Witnesses at a court hearing for DePayne testified that he used the nickname Rosco. That hearing was held to determine whether DePayne should be ordered to stand trial on charges that he broke into a Pacific Telephone Co. office in May, 1981, and stole operating manuals for the company's central computer system. A district attorney's investigator on the case has said those manuals could have been used to shut down much of Los Angeles' phone system. While facing theft, burglary, and conspiracy charges in the case, DePayne wrote a letter to the president of Pacific Telephone, Bowren said. "He had the unmitigated gall...(to try to) sell his service to us as a consultant," Bowren wrote. In court, DePayne pleaded no contest to a charge of conspiracy to commit computer fraud against Pacific Telephone and to a separate charge against a San Francisco-based computer leasing firm. Burglary and grand theft charges were dropped. A confederate, Mark Ross, 25, pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft of telephone company computer manuals. Wayne placed them both on probation for three years and ordered Ross to jail for 30 days, to be served on weekends. She stayed the 150-day jail term for DePayne for three weeks to give him an opportunity to apply for participation in the county's work furlough program. Deputy Dist. Atty. Clifton Garrott said DePayne makes his living as a systems analyst for computer consulting firms. --30-- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 82 23:55:35 EDT (Thu) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> To: FRANK at Utah-20 Subject: short-haul modems Via: UNC; 10 Jun 82 23:56-EDT Before ordering any of those short-haul modems, you'd better ensure that they're full-duplex. Most medium- and high-speed modems require a 4-wire circuit for that; does the circuit the phone company is offering you include one pair or two? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 21-Jun-82 12:28:47-PDT,9218;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 21-Jun-82 12:26:32 Date: 21 Jun 1982 1226-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #77 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 22 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: Pay Telephone Wiring Query CCSA / ETN / EPSS Query - Where Do You Use Your Own Area Code? Custom Calling II - 1A Voice Storage System MCI Rate Hike & American Bell Information Wanted - HDLC/SDLC Cards For LSI-11's And VAXen Washington DC Phone Kludge - Alternate DC Area Codes Newspaper Items (1+) New Dolphin User's Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jun 82 01:22:59 EDT (Sun) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: pay phones How many wires are used to control a pay phone? Do the coin detection devices operate over the voice pair, or over a separate pair? Is this different for "dial tone first" phones? I sometimes see ads in surplus catalogs for old pay phones (from the pictures, the non-armored type), which, it is alleged, one can easily hook up at home. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 1982 2042-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: CCSA / ETN / EPSS There was a good discussion here a while ago about CCSAs, but a very important point was left out: What is now being sold in most cases rather than CCSAs are other arrangements built up out of Dimension PBXs, CENTREXs, Rolm CBXs, and other modern PBXs which can do translation on the number given. Not all networks which take 8+7D are CCSAs, in fact, as was said before, only 29 are. The system described which doesn't allow calls within the nearby area to be called over the system isn't taking advantage of newer technology which could translate the on-network number to the cor- responding off-network number. You'd only want to do that for the DID PBXs, so the dichotomy of being able to direct dial the non-DID PBX from across the country, but not locally, would still exist. Some companies have been known to translate all extensions to a single main number in that case, but that is often more confusing. AUTOVON is not always 4-wire end-to-end. There are two ways in which AUTOVON is accessed. One is as a subscriber, in which case the special 4x4 dials are used, and the telephone sets are 4-wire. The other, much more common way, is by dialing the AUTOVON access code (almost always 8) from a regular PBX station, and then the number desired. A real good description of AUTOVON appears in the April 1968 Bell Labs Record. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 82 8:40:01-EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: use your own area code? There are some cases where you are required to use your own area code. 1. Operator-assisted calls within NYC require 0+212+number (7 digit). This is consequence of N0X and N1X prefixes being allowed in NYC. As discussed earlier in this digest, area 213 (which includes LA) also allows N0X and N1X, but requires only 0+number (not 0+213+number) on operator-assisted calls within 213 area, with delayed "timeout" taking care of ambiguities (e.g. 0-413-2345 vs. 0-413-234-5678). These notes about 213 will also ap- ply to 818, to be carved out of 213 in 1984. 2. Long-distance (direct-dial or operator-assisted) from most Md. and Va. suburbs of DC. In long-distance from DC area (DC and most suburbs) you dial area code + number (put 0 in front for operator-assist), even from Md. suburbs to distant parts of Md. or from Va. suburbs to distant parts of 703 area. ------------------------------ Date: 14 June 1982 21:38 edt From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: 1A Voice Storage System Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston) For those of you are are interested, the current (May/June 1982 Vol 61, No 5) issue of the Bell System Technical Journal has a series of articles on the 1A Voice Storage System. There is an appendix listing the acronyms used in the article. It discusses the protocols for using both the call answering services and the store and forward message services. The answering provides date/time tagging. They also have a Remote Access feature for accessing messages and setting the recording. Such feature might be extended to setting call forwarding info. The store and forward service provides a voicegram capability. Wonder what the tariff status is for these services (Custom Calling II)? ------------------------------ Date: Wed 16-Jun-1982 17:26-EDT From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL at NYU> Subject: MCI Rate Hike & American Bell In the NY Times, Wed June 16th: The MCI Communications Corporation said it would file ''modest'' long-distance rate increases of 5 percent to 6 percent affecting its largest business customers, effective July 1, and that it would increase some long-distance charges for residential customers on Aug. 1. Together, the moves should increase revenue by $10 million to $15, or about 3 percent, MCI said. Also there was a full page ad for ''American Bell'' for Advanced Information Systems (AIS/Net One). A small article was in the business section. ''American Bell'' will be an unregulated company. This is what used to be called ACS. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 1982 1434-PDT From: Barry Megdal <BARRY at CIT-20> Subject: HDLC/SDLC cards for LSI-11's and VAXen Does anyone have any information on availability of cards for the Q-bus and or Unibus that implement the HDLC or SDLC bit protocols? I know about DEC's DPV-11 for the Q-bus, but am interested in other sources, and in cards that will run faster than 56 kbits/sec. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 82 13:35:21-EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: alternate DC area codes Suppose I am making long-distance call: from Md. to Md. suburbs of DC OR from Va. to Va. suburbs of DC Does it affect the rates if I use area code 202 for such intrastate calls? I would be inserting area code 202 on such calls in Md. or 703 area, and would substitute 202 for 703 on such calls in area 804. (I made an operator-assisted long-distance call from Md. to a Md. suburb and it did indeed go thru even though I specified area code 202; note that the call was within Md.; it was from pay phone NOT equipped for 0+.) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 82 8:01:49-EDT (Thu) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: newspaper items (1+) I have located the following New York Times items about implementation of "area code" prefixes (and consequent implementation of 1+ for direct-dial to other areas) in areas 213 and 212. July 22, 1973; p. 16 col. 2. Telephone companies on coast solve a numbers problem by adding an extra digit. (Done during the previous week.) Sept. 23, 1980; p.1 col. 4. New York Telephone adding a 1 for out-of-town calls. (to take effect 11-22-1980) (A while ago, I commented about having been in NYC and seeing an instruction card on pay phone; this was the day before, 11-21-1980.) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 1982 2123-PDT From: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch at SUMEX-AIM> Subject: Xerox 1100 (Dolphin) User Group This is to announce formation of a network user group for Xerox 1100 workstations (Dolphins). Its purpose is to stimulate communication and sharing between computer science research groups that are using or are interested in these machines. It differs from the WORKS group in that it will focus on issues particular to Dolphins rather than on workstations in general. Xerox PARC and EOS people are included in the distribution list to facilitate communications about new developments, bugs, performance issues, etc. As with all network interest groups, however, this is *NOT* to be used as a vendor advertising vehicle. User Group Mechanics -- 1) Network Addresses: Dolphin-Users@SUMEX-AIM For mail distributed to the entire user group Dolphin-Requests@SUMEX-AIM For distribution list maintenance, i.e., additions, deletions, problems, etc. 2) Mail Handling: SUMEX-AIM will serve as the expansion point for routing messages to group members. We run XMAILR and so can route between most of the current internet community. 3) Administration: Initially, messages will be sent to the list as submitted. Depending on the volume of mail, content, etc., messages may be collected and digested in the future. I have assembled a list of known Dolphin users and liaisons from various sources for this initial announcement. Please pass the word on to others you think might be interested. Tom R. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 23-Jun-82 12:38:36-PDT,11228;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Jun-82 12:36:38 Date: 23 Jun 1982 1236-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #78 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 24 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: More On Cellular Radio D.C. Suburbs And 202 More On Alternate DC Area Codes Voice Storage System - Held Up At FCC Areas 619 (New), 714 Galestown, MD -- Belated Comment When Is A FEX Not A FEX? Local Calling Areas With Incomplete White Pages Listings New IDDD Locations Effective 16 October ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jun 1982 2246-PDT Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Cellular Update. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL Having just spent another week in the WDC area with a Cellular (Motorola DYNATAC) Portable phone I have some updates since my last report to this list. The license applications for the top 30 cellular markets are all in at the FCC. There were 194 applications filed at the FCC on June 7th. For the time being it looks like the FCC's wire line set-aside policy is still in place. I guess the two biggest surprises of the filing were: (1) That on the non-wire line side there were relatively few companies that filed in the larger markets (like Boston where only two applicants filed). Boston is the nations 6th largest SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area). Of the other SMSA's there was Tampa, Fla where a dozen or so applicants filed. Keep in mind that each of these applications are about 600 to 1,500 pages in length and cost each person on the order of $100,000 to $200,000 or so to prepare!! Why would someone go to all that trouble and expense you might ask, just taking all that risk, chance, time and expense to be ONE of the 12 people to get a license? Because cellular systems, once fully deployed and operational will bring their investors' an unprecedented return on their dollars. This is the first time you can build, own and operate your own public utility which competes with an established monopoly, AT&T. The WDC-Baltimore Cellular Market Trial has been an unqualified success. Should American Radio Telephone Service (ARTS) be granted the (commercial) license for the non-wire line set-aside in the WDC-Baltimore SMSA's, in year 5 of commercial operation, each months projected profits will equal the cost of the total system itself!! (If that isn't `unprecedented return' on investment, I don't know what is!). Surprise #2 of the week was the large number of non-wire line applicants (with substantial amounts of bank credit and cash) which filed with fantastically low basic monthly service rates of $4.95 to $15 and per minute usage charges of $.06 to $.25. Here in the San Francisco SMSA one applicant filed his basic service rate at $9.75 a month with the average cost per minute of use at $.25. Another filed his basic rate at $8 a month with the cost of $.50 for the first three minutes of conversation and $.15 each additional minute. If that isn't affordable, I don't know what is! I'm a firm believer in low(er) monthly service charges and a little bit high(er) usage charge, so that the people who use the system (more) pay (more) for it. On the equipment cost scene, the hand-held portables, like the Motorola DYNATAC unit I use, will sell for about $2500 initially, or lease/rent for about $65 a month, where as the traditional car installed mobiles will sell for about $1850 initially, or lease/rent for about $55 a month. That means the cost of a brand NEW Cellular car mounted mobile phone will cost LESS than a USED IMTS/direct-dial phone sells for today (in the $2500 range). New, state of the art, IMTS/direct-dial phones sells for $3600-3700 today. On the feature front, for a coupla bucks extra per month, you'll be able to enjoy features like call forwarding (to mobile or land-line phones), call forwarding on no answer (to direct your call to an alternate number), call answering/message taking on no answer, call screening and conference calling. It is also rumored some of the portable units will have RS-232 jacks on them which will interface to a built in 300 or 1200 baud modem. The cellular spectrum can support up to 9600 baud I have been informed. It is expected to take about a year to get the licensing issues between competing applications settled and then a year or two after the license is granted to construct a cellular system. So, all in all, it looks like a bright future for truly portable communications for us all to have and enjoy. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 1982 0921-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: D.C. Suburbs and 202 The rate is determined by the entries for the two NPA-NXX pairs in the rate database. Those Maryland or Virginia NXXs which can be reached with 202 have a second entry in the rate database which indicates where they really are. The use of 202 has nothing to do with the rate. ------------------------------ From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH at MIT-MC> Subject: alternate DC area codes To: cmoore at BRL All phones in the Washington D.C. local dialing area can be reached with either their own area codes (703/301) or through the D.C. area code of 202. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 82 11:32:45-EDT (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> To: Stephen C Hill <STEVEH@Mit-Mc> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: Re: alternate DC area codes I am not so sure about the EXTREME fringes of Washington local calling area. Can 703-860 Herndon (Va.) be reached with area code 202? I was asking about the long-distance RATES from Md. to Md. suburbs or from Va. to Va. suburbs. Are they affected by one's use of 202 area code? ------------------------------ Date: 22 June 1982 1150-PDT (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Voice Storage System The 1A VSS is a nice chunk of technology. For some of my detailed comments (some negative) on the subject, see the old archives (of HUMAN-NETS, I suppose) from about 1.5 years ago or so. The original Bell Labs Record article describing the service included a nifty soundsheet demo'ing the system, and I was given "live" demos several times over a period of some months. My last information on the project (from a reliable source close to the development team) was that the regulatory issues had become VERY sticky and the project was on "hold" officially. There was a struggle going on with government agencies claiming VSS was an enhanced service and ATT insisting it was more of a "basic" service (like a super custom calling feature). Apparently some moves by IBM and Delphi Communications [with "competing" systems] also caused considerable concern. One of the big problems was that VSS, as designed, had to be very tightly physically integrated with basic equipment in the CO's... this helped to confuse the basic/enhanced service issue. Given the recent Consent Decree changes, pending court actions, and the associated turmoil, I'd think that all bets, either way, about VSS would be questionable. Since manuscripts for most BSTJ articles usually are submitted far in advance of publication, I'm not sure how useful the BSTJ info will be on this subject except in a strictly technical sense. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 82 16:45:43-EDT (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: areas 619 (new), 714 (Breaking-off of new area 619 from area 714 this coming Nov. was announced in this digest earlier.) I just had a look at drawing of areas 619 and 714 in phone book for Fremont-Newark (elsewhere in Calif.) and see that 714 will be very small in land area once 619 is put in! 714 will be left with Anaheim and extreme SE part of LA area; San Diego and that long skinny area running N along Nevada border will go into new 619 area. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 1982 2031-PDT From: ROODE at SRI-KL (David Roode) Subject: Galestown, MD -- belated comment No one thought to wonder, but is it possible that the people in Galestown were served via actual wiring which connects their homes with the Seaford, Delaware central office? It seems to me that this was originally the case, and if it is still so, this is not what is generally meant by "foreign exchange" service when they have a Seaford exchange. A similar situation arose on the border of Sunnyvale Calif. and Santa Clara recently but the question concerned sewer hookups. It seems that although Sunnyvale has a moratorium on hookups, there is a restaurant desiring new service in an area which has both Sunnyvale and Santa Clara sewer mains, the Santa Clara mains dating from days when Sunnyvale did not offer service to that part of the city. Seems cities like to force their residents to use their own sewer systems, but in this case they are in the position of saying "you have to use ours but we won't serve you." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1982 0150-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> 805 238-7994 in Paso Robles, California, is actually an FX, run over private facilities (a satellite) to the switchboard at Kwajelein, an army base located about halfway between Hawaii and Australia. There are four lines, available for public use to military and their fam- ilies located there. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 82 8:26:31-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: neighboring local areas Does the following sound unusual? That part of Delaware along Pennsylvania border (all the way from Delaware River to Maryland border) has local service into Pa., but nobody has the listings for all of their Pa. calling area listed in the local phone book (Wilmington, Del.) nor do they get a separately-delivered directory for Pa. (All the Pa. prefixes mentioned here are in 215 area.) The following Pa. prefixes ARE listed in Wilm. phone book: 274 Landenberg, 268 Avondale, 444 Kennett Square, 388 Mendenhall The following Pa. prefixes are in Del. calling areas, but are not listed in Wilm. phone book: 255 Kemblesville; 869 West Grove; 358,459 Chester Heights; 891 Media (Chester Heights service?); 485 Marcus Hook; 447,494,497,499,872,874, 876 Chester; 833 Woodlyn. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1982 1335-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: New IDDD locations effective 16 October Algeria 213 Cameroon 237 Egypt 20 Ethiopia 251 Gabon 241 Guantanamo 53 (Note that 53 is the code for Cuba) Malawi 265 Morocco 210 Oman 968 Pakistan 92 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 28-Jun-82 18:54:56-PDT,3342;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 28-Jun-82 18:53:34 Date: 28 Jun 1982 1853-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #79 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 29 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jun 1982 2134-PDT From: Richard Furuta <Furuta at WASHINGTON> Subject: Belle in Science For those of you who've been following the fortunes of Belle, Bell Labs' chess playing computer, there is an article in the most recent issue of Science magazine describing its seizure (and subsequent release). (For those of you who haven't been following the story, Belle was seized by the Customs department when Kenneth Thompson of Bell Labs tried to take it to Moscow for a chess demonstration). Thompson's quotes on this matter have been quite colorful. This article contains the classic paragraph: "The Soviets, at first, would not accept the fact that Belle was not coming to their chess meeting. 'They kept saying that if we could just find the right person and slip him a bottle of vodka we could get the computer,' Thompson remarks. 'Then they said that if I could get the computer out of the country they would send a plane to pick it up and fly it to Moscow. They couldn't understand that this couldn't be done.' Finally, the Russians went with Thompson to the American Embassy in Moscow and suggested that Belle might be shipped in a diplomatic pouch. This idea, too, met with a less than enthusiastic reception." The citation is Science (Vol. 216, Number 4553), 25 June 1982, page 1392. Incidentally, the next article in the magazine discusses controversy about the future of Bell Laboratories as it might be affected by the recent consent decree or by H.R. 5818. --Rick ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 17:00:24 EDT (Thu) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: Resale of WATS lines To: telecom at unc What do folks on this list think of the viability of reselling WATS lines? A new company has started up locally (Heins Call Saver, 919-549-8247) that's doing just that; they're promising 20-50% savings on out-of-state calls. Now -- I'm a bit suspicious of that, because that's how Hart-Line was implemented. (They charged $65 plus $65/mo. for an unlimited number of 15-minute calls; Heins is charging $15 ($25 for businesses) plus $6/mo. plus per-call fees, with a $3 credit if your monthly bill is less than $50.) They're also promising a busy rate of less than .3% -- is that attainable economically? ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 13:28:28-EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> Subject: coin & non-coin place names I've seen 2 situations in Delaware County, Pa., where the prefix found on pay phones has different place name from those on surrounding residence & business phones. (area code 215) pay phone residence & business where prefix phone prefix 494 Chester 485 Marcus Hook Marcus Hook, Linwood, Boothwyn 461 Glenolden 583,586 Sharon Hill Sharon Hill, Darby ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Jun-82 16:29:26-PDT,2403;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 29-Jun-82 16:29:18 Date: 29 Jun 1982 1629-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #80 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 30 June 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Options For A Second (Data) Telephone Line Dialing 900 Numbers From Hotel Phones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jun 1982 09:14:57-PDT From: Kim.luria at Berkeley Subject: Options for getting a second line for using a modem Cc: Kim.luria@Berkeley I just wanted some simple advice about what options were best. I have a h19 terminal hooked up to a Ventel 212+ 1200 baud modem, and enjoy working at home. This has been problematic for people trying to get in touch with us. Do I have to tell the phone company that I am using this as a data line? We make few calls, is it worth while to get one line which is charged per call, and merely receive calls on it?, does call waiting make any sense with a modem? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Kim.luria@Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: Tue 29-Jun-1982 18:13-EDT From: Richard Kenner <KENNER at NYU> Subject: 900 numbers from hotels Last Monday I was in a hotel in Florida covered by Southern Bell (305-783) and was trying to call the "Dial-A-Shuttle" service (900-410-6272). The hotel's instructions were: "To call long distance, dial 8-1-number, to call local, dial 9-number". I tried both and a few other things and got the TELCO intercept "Your call cannot be completed as dialed.". I called the hotel operator who didn't know what I was talking about. So I called the TELCO operator. At first she just said "Just dial it like any other long distance call." I told her this didn't work so she asked me the number. I gave it to her and she tried it. After a ring she cut it off and then said: "You can't call that number from a hotel.". Does this make any sense? How come she only discovered this when she tried it? Is there any way to call this from a hotel? It's a bit ironic that when you go down to observe a Shuttle launch you can't get Shuttle information until you get home! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Jul-82 02:40:51-PDT,5133;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Jul-82 02:38:25 Date: 1 Jul 1982 0238-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #81 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 1 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 June 1982 20:14-EDT From: Mark Saltzman <MSALTZ at MIT-AI> Subject: AUTOVON (?) What *IS* Autovon? I was leafing through some recent issues and saw it mentioned along with something else... It said something about the government... Mark ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 22:29:51 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: Re: Options for getting a second line for using a modem To: Kim.luria at Ucb-C70 Via: UNC; 30 Jun 82 0:31-EDT I concluded a few years back that if I was going to use my terminal at home at all, I had to have a second line. Too many people couldn't get through, and I felt too inhibited about using my terminal when I though someone might be trying. Call waiting is no good -- the tone will upset the machine, and you can't put the machine on hold to talk to the other party: all it will notice is that the carrier has gone away, so it will assume you've hung up. Whether or not you can get metered calling on one line and unlimited calling on the other is a matter for local tarrifs. As was discussed on this list some time back, such arrangements are often prohibited by the regulatory agencies. This is especially true for the ultra-cheap "life-line" services, such as they have in California. I don't know whether or not you have to tell the telco that one of your lines will be a data line; I never did, even when I was renting a modem from them. (And boy did that confuse matters -- they really couldn't deal well with data equipment on a residential line, especially since the order had to go through the Business Phone office in Raleigh, rather than the Residential Office here in Chapel Hill. And then I tried to combine it with a newly-tarriffed extended calling area feature -- it took at least a year to straighten out the paperwork enough to make them leave me alone about it, and for all I know they're still trying to figure it out -- I moved, and for assorted reasons (and at my request) they treated my new set of lines as a different account, apparently without a forwarding pointer.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 7:56:42-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: 900 area code I just read in Telecom of "dial shuttle" phone 900-410-6272. Are you sure that is a correct number (given the long discussions in this digest about N0X and N1X prefixes and their effect in NYC and in LA area)? Other uses of 900 as area code: Then-President Carter had a national dial-in set up for a Saturday afternoon in March(?) 1977, where the number used was 900-242-1611(?); and the "Dial-It national sports news is 900-976-1313 (latter costs 50 cents plus tax, and I got "900 serv" displayed in lieu of city name when my phone bill came). Incidentally, I heard that somebody in Milwaukee got flooded with calls for Carter call-in above (his number was same as Carter's call-in except for 414 area code); that a big consideration for Carter call-in was the other phone traffic (having something to do with the use of that 900 number); and that DC area calls for Carter call-in were routed by way of Wayne, Pa. [Most dial-it services use 900-976, and conveniently 976 is not a widely used prefix (212-976 is the same thing only local to NYC dial-it service numbers) --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 30 June 1982 09:27-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #80 I used a Vadic 1200/150 modem at home, where I have Call Waiting. The beep tone reliably busted the connection, leaving me free to observe this fact and pick up the phone, and later reestablish the severed connection. Of course, I have to be reasonably active at the terminal to notice promptly that the connection has been severed. I often, but not reliably, get garbage characters on the screen when the Call Waiting beep happens. Dick [And of course if your call lasts longer than the time it takes for your operating system to kill your job, assuming it even detaches it for you, you may have just lost several hours of editing for that poor call wait. Seems to me to be worth a second line. --JSol] ------------------------------ From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Dial-it service & hotels, coin phones, etc. It's a direct dial service and can't be used if it requires an operator's assistance. You could have left your home phone call forwarded to it, but that might have cost a bit and left your friends and telephone solicitors confused. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Jul-82 03:08:04-PDT,5133;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Jul-82 02:38:25 Date: 1 Jul 1982 0238-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #81 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 1 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 June 1982 20:14-EDT From: Mark Saltzman <MSALTZ at MIT-AI> Subject: AUTOVON (?) What *IS* Autovon? I was leafing through some recent issues and saw it mentioned along with something else... It said something about the government... Mark ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 22:29:51 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: Re: Options for getting a second line for using a modem To: Kim.luria at Ucb-C70 Via: UNC; 30 Jun 82 0:31-EDT I concluded a few years back that if I was going to use my terminal at home at all, I had to have a second line. Too many people couldn't get through, and I felt too inhibited about using my terminal when I though someone might be trying. Call waiting is no good -- the tone will upset the machine, and you can't put the machine on hold to talk to the other party: all it will notice is that the carrier has gone away, so it will assume you've hung up. Whether or not you can get metered calling on one line and unlimited calling on the other is a matter for local tarrifs. As was discussed on this list some time back, such arrangements are often prohibited by the regulatory agencies. This is especially true for the ultra-cheap "life-line" services, such as they have in California. I don't know whether or not you have to tell the telco that one of your lines will be a data line; I never did, even when I was renting a modem from them. (And boy did that confuse matters -- they really couldn't deal well with data equipment on a residential line, especially since the order had to go through the Business Phone office in Raleigh, rather than the Residential Office here in Chapel Hill. And then I tried to combine it with a newly-tarriffed extended calling area feature -- it took at least a year to straighten out the paperwork enough to make them leave me alone about it, and for all I know they're still trying to figure it out -- I moved, and for assorted reasons (and at my request) they treated my new set of lines as a different account, apparently without a forwarding pointer.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 7:56:42-EDT (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: 900 area code I just read in Telecom of "dial shuttle" phone 900-410-6272. Are you sure that is a correct number (given the long discussions in this digest about N0X and N1X prefixes and their effect in NYC and in LA area)? Other uses of 900 as area code: Then-President Carter had a national dial-in set up for a Saturday afternoon in March(?) 1977, where the number used was 900-242-1611(?); and the "Dial-It national sports news is 900-976-1313 (latter costs 50 cents plus tax, and I got "900 serv" displayed in lieu of city name when my phone bill came). Incidentally, I heard that somebody in Milwaukee got flooded with calls for Carter call-in above (his number was same as Carter's call-in except for 414 area code); that a big consideration for Carter call-in was the other phone traffic (having something to do with the use of that 900 number); and that DC area calls for Carter call-in were routed by way of Wayne, Pa. [Most dial-it services use 900-976, and conveniently 976 is not a widely used prefix (212-976 is the same thing only local to NYC dial-it service numbers) --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 30 June 1982 09:27-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #80 I used a Vadic 1200/150 modem at home, where I have Call Waiting. The beep tone reliably busted the connection, leaving me free to observe this fact and pick up the phone, and later reestablish the severed connection. Of course, I have to be reasonably active at the terminal to notice promptly that the connection has been severed. I often, but not reliably, get garbage characters on the screen when the Call Waiting beep happens. Dick [And of course if your call lasts longer than the time it takes for your operating system to kill your job, assuming it even detaches it for you, you may have just lost several hours of editing for that poor call wait. Seems to me to be worth a second line. --JSol] ------------------------------ From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Dial-it service & hotels, coin phones, etc. It's a direct dial service and can't be used if it requires an operator's assistance. You could have left your home phone call forwarded to it, but that might have cost a bit and left your friends and telephone solicitors confused. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 3-Jul-82 18:52:14-PDT,4583;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 3-Jul-82 18:51:32 Date: 3 Jul 1982 1851-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #82 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 4 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: [Happy 4th of July] Doubled Digits Dial-A-Shuttle & 976 Prefix Pseudo FEX Exchanges Vadic Doesn't Make Split Speed Modems Cmoore at BRL: A Retraction Second Line For Modem Vs. Call Waiting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jul 82 7:59:27-EDT (Thu) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: 900 & 976 That Carter call-in I just wrote about was a toll-free number. Also, I see that 900-410-6272 is correct (I called it myself) for the "dial shuttle". I have found 976 prefix for recorded info in some other areas besides NYC 212. Just from memory, I have found it in NYC suburbs (914, 516); N.J. (609,201); Phila. (215); Detroit (313); Chicago (?)(312). At this time, I do not know of 976 prefix ever having been used for something else. [Thanks also to John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> for also validating the shuttle number. Does that make currently 3 NPA's where N0X and N1X are permitted as prefixes? 818 will probably be the forth NPA when it is put into operation in the Valley suburbs near Los Angeles. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 8:03:04-EDT (Thu) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: doubled digits Does the "bounce" problem ever come up on pushbutton phones? (I.e., you get 2 or more consecutive repetitions of same digit where only 1 was in- tended.) Sidetrack: On some keyboards, such as the one I am using, you put the "repeat" into effect by holding the desired key down. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 11:36:39-EDT (Thu) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: pseudo-foreign (As used in this note, "pseudo-foreign" means, as far as I can tell, that no mileage is charged.) Previously, this digest has referred to pseudo-foreign exchanges in suburbs of Baltimore, Washington, and Los Angeles. I think the fol- lowing prefixes in Phila. (215) area are also pseudo-foreign: 835, 839 Bala-Cynwyd (Phila. service) 891 Media (Chester Heights service) The latter (891) only came to my attention last Jan. when it showed up in calling areas of Holly Oak, Wilmington, and Newport, Del. (latest Wilmington directory came out that month). ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 1982 1010-PDT From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN at SRI-AI> Just a note to avoid future confusion.. Vadic makes a modem that talks 1200 baud both directions or 300 baud both directions. UDS, Prentice, and some garage operation make the 1200/150 "split speed" modems that talk 1200 one way and 150 the other direction.... Paul Martin ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 82 10:29:59-EDT (Fri) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: oops In digest 77, I made error in saying from where I had made a long-distance call within Md. to a Md. suburb of DC. I used an office phone, not a pay phone (checked my phone bill today for this). It is true, though, that the pay phone I would have used is not equipped for 0+. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 16:19:39 EDT (Thu) From: decvax!duke!unc!wm at Berkeley Subject: second line for modem I use a terminal at home and have call waiting. When a second call comes in I get about 10 garbage characters on the screen and my connection is severed. I then take the handset out of the modem and answer the call. This works very well on Unix since hangups are handled properly most of the time, especially in the editor and other places you might worry about. The only problem I have had is if I am reading a long article in news and get cut off, the article is marked as read even though I might not have seen most of it. Other than that it has worked very well. I live in a house with 4 other people and use the terminal 1~2 hours a day and have had no problems. Wm Leler University of North Carolina ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 7-Jul-82 17:36:51-PDT,5325;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 7-Jul-82 17:33:50 Date: 7 Jul 1982 1733-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #83 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 8 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: Bouncing Buttons - Double Digits One Line Connects Right, The Next One Fails N0X and N1X in Area code 900 France - Operators Being Replaced By Computers - A TTY In Every Home Mailing List For List Of Mailing Lists ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jul 1982 10:37:35-PDT From: CSVAX.halbert at Berkeley Subject: bouncing buttons We have two phones with phone numbers of the form abc-xxxy. We get lots of wrong numbers (one a week, say). When we ask, most people say they are trying to dial abc-xxyz. So I'll bet people stutter on the buttons, though they could also be mentally stuttering when using a rotary dial. --Dan ------------------------------ Date: 5 July 1982 10:46-EDT From: Richard K. Braun <RKB at MIT-AI> I found an interesting bug in the local phone exchanges today. Just recently, the MIT-OZ system had its phone dialups installed, and I was given 8 phone numbers to use. A few days ago, I tried several of them. A couple of them got me through (alas, no 1200-baud Bell compatibility), and the others gave me this message: "The number you have reached, xxx-xxxx, has been changed. The new number is 253-1000. Please make a note of it." Yesterday, I remarked on this to a friend, who claimed he hadn't seen that behavior when he used the system. That seemed a bit weird. This morning, I tried the number again. Only I veged on my outgoing phone-line selector, and was dialing from the "main" house line rather than my terminal line. It worked! Then I tried the second phone line, and I got the same old message. So Ma Bell has a bug: I can get through OK from one phone line in the 497 exchange, but not from another. Pretty bizarre behavior! Can anyone take a guess as to what might cause that in an ESS system? I reported the problem to the phone system repair service, so it'll probably get fixed soon. rich P.S. Could you imagine dialing 617-253-1000 and asking her to connect you to OZ? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 82 14:05:29-EDT (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: N0X, N1X & 900 area I raised the question about that "dial shuttle" 900-410-6272 because the only other places we have seen N0X and N1X have been in NYC and in LA area, both of which had been running out of prefixes before adding these. But I can count on my fingers the number of prefixes I have found in 900 area. ------------------------------ Date: 6 July 1982 19:10-EDT (Tuesday) From: Sam Hsu <FHSU at BBNG> Subject: French phone system Cc: fhsu at BBNG i was told that the French government was doing some sort of project where operators would be replaced by computers, and a terminal and screen would come with a phone so that customers could just query a local data base instead of calling an operator. Does anyone have any pointers to documentation that is readily, or even not readily, available, or who to contact? thanks in advance, Sam [That information would be nice to have in the TELECOM archives, and if some kind soul is willing to send it to me I will put it up for FTP distribution. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 1982 2328-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich) Subject: Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices For those of you not previously aware of it, I maintain a master list of ARPANET mailing-lists/digests/discussion groups (currently 756 lines or ~29,000 characters) on OFFICE-3 in file: <ALMSA>INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT For ARPANET users, OFFICE-3 supports the net-standard ANONYMOUS login within FTP, with any password. To keep people up to date on the large number of such lists, I have established a mailing list for list-of-lists \update notices/. I do not propose to send copies of the list itself to the world at large, but for those ARPANET users who seriously intend to FTP the updated versions when updated, I will send a brief notice that a new version is available. For those counterparts at internet sites who maintain or redistribute copies for their own networks (DECNet, Xerox, etc.) and can't reach the master by ARPANET FTP, I will send out the complete new file. I do \not/ intend to send file copies to individual users, either ARPANET or internet; our system is fairly heavily loaded, and we can't afford it. There is no particular pattern to the update frequency of INTEREST- GROUPS.TXT; I will occasionally receive a burst of new mailing-lists or perhaps a single change of address for a host or mailing-list coordinator, and then have a long period with no changes. To get on the list, send requests to ZELLICH@OFFICE-3, \not/ to the mailing-list this message appears in. Cheers, Rich ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 8-Jul-82 22:52:12-PDT,5331;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 8-Jul-82 22:51:26 Date: 8 Jul 1982 2251-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #84 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 9 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: Cellular Radio - Gold Rush At The FCC Installation Wiring - Do It Yourself Problems With OZ Dialups - Two Possible Ideas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 1982 1856-PDT Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Gold Rush At The Fcc. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL Is the title of an interesting article on the 'Unprecedented Returns' and licensing aspects of cellular radio in the july 12th edition of fortune on pages 102-112. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 82 00:36:55 EDT (Thu) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: Installing your own wiring Here are some items from a N.Y. Bell billing insert I thought would be of interest to readers of this list. In N.Y. customers are allowed to install their own wiring. The monthly charge for wiring is separated into an "investment charge" ($1.04/mo. for residential lines; $.72/mo. for businesses -- a curious reversal) and a "maintenance charge" ($.75/mo. for each residence phone; $3.51/mo. for each business phone). Customers can avoid both charges if they supply all of their own wiring; also, they are not liable for the investment charge if their wiring was installed after April 3, 1982. If you want to install your own wiring, N.Y. Bell offers three options: a "Standard Network Interface" at $11.25 (plus a premises visit charge), a "Network Interface" at $4.25, and a "Demarcation Point Arrangement". The first two are modular jacks installed where the phone line enters the building ("The SNI is more expensive because it is equipped to make testing of your line easier for you and the company if a trouble condition should develop. But, it's your choice...." [sic]. Anyone know what the difference is, or how repairs are billed in such situations?); the DPA is just an officially-blessed modular jack that you can plug your own wires into. They will supply a free kit to convert non-modular jacks to modular ones, thus making them eligible to be declared DPAs. A new booklet, "Providing Your Own Telephone Wiring" is available through PhoneCenters or the local business office; it sets out the regulations for rolling your own. One other item in the same insert: they no longer charge for Touch-Tone lines (line charge only; equipment not included) for folks who use the feature only to "access computers services and/or specialized long distance common carriers", and who do not use it to make local calls. If you're in such a situation, they want you to call them. ------------------------------ Date: 8 July 1982 06:03-EDT From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI> Regarding the OZ dialups: The problem you were having is that the OZ tips were on MIT-restricted lines. This is a problem that the clone company propagated on MIT by making assumptions. And yes, when this occured, I called the MIT operator (253-1000), and told her I needed an inside mit data phone dialed for me, and could she plese dial mumble. As far as I know, this problem went away after Ma Bell had the facts explain at her. James ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 1982 1442-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> cc: rkb at MIT-AI Subject: Intercept anomaly It is VERY unlikely that the problem you are having has anything to do with which line you are calling from. Much more likely is that at the time you were calling from your regular line, the number you dialed was available, but when calling from your other line, it was busy. But why didn't I get a busy signal, you say? Well, it's not uncommon for lines in hunting groups to hunt to numbers which have been removed (i.e. the size of the hunt group has been reduced or the hunt number was improperly entered). But why did it tell me that the number I dialed was out of service, rather than the number that was hunted to? Because No. 1 ESS sends the number dialed, not the final number, to AIS. (I once forwarded my phone to a friend's phone in the same C.O. the day his phone was to be removed. Calling my number dropped you into AIS with the recording refernecing my number.) Why did the AIS database point the number to the MIT main number, even though that number was actually in service? One of two reasons could be responsible for this: The AIS database often, in order to save memory, points to the same recording for large groups. Also, the AIS database is not always changed immediately when a new number is connected (in fact, it very seldom is). [That seems inconsistent with the above statement by JMTURN, which states that the OZ dialups had been restricted MIT numbers. Can Rkb's main number can call restricted phones at MIT? 617-497 and 617-258 are on the same ESS machine, I believe. --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Jul-82 15:54:32-PDT,1990;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 9-Jul-82 15:54:24 Date: 9 Jul 1982 1554-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #85 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 10 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: "Talking" Rate Computers 1+ DDD Coming To Chicago (312) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jul 1982 03:11:00-PDT From: pur-ee!davy at Berkeley Subject: "talking" rate computers Last evening I needed some information on the long distance rates to Canada, so I called the operator. She asked for the entire number, plus what time I was planning to call (what rate schedule). She then did some button push- ing, and a "computer" (as she called it, it was actually a recording(s) I think) came on and said "rate one-nine-five repeat one-nine-five", meaning $1.95. I've seen (heard?) this sort of thing before, and I've grown sort of curious about it. How does this stuff work? Is it all the local computer, or do they call the computer which "controls" that number, or what? Also, is it possible for the average person to call these things? If it were the local computer, I could see where the TelCo could save some money on operators if we could get our rates ourselves..... Any explanation would be appreciated. Thanks, --Dave Curry ucbvax!pur-ee!davy pur-ee!davy@berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 1982 07:28:04-PDT From: harpo!ihps3!ihldt!jhh at Berkeley Subject: 1+ DDD coming to Chicago (312) Illinois Bell announced that Chicago area customers will have to dial 1 before dialing the area code for long distance calls. They are doing this to allow area codes to be used as prefixes. The change is effective in October. John Haller ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 10-Jul-82 20:03:35-PDT,3647;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 10-Jul-82 20:03:13 Date: 10 Jul 1982 2003-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #86 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 11 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: MIT Phone System - External Exclusion Proposed Non Code Amateur Radio License Could Help Data Users ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 July 1982 11:17-EDT From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI> Subject: MIT exclusion The exchange of the restricted number has nothing to do with it. You have to remember that the MIT system is the last working panel setup in America (I think), and they can treat calls coming in any way they want. MIT "owns" 253 (voice) and 258 (data), and they can make any number they want inaccessable from the outside. Since the switching stuff is Ma Bell (albeit *old* Ma Bell), Ma Bell has to do the bit/wire twiddling for new numbers, and they screwed up. This is the reason 253/258 numbers give an MIT boo-boo message, just like UMASS/Amherst "owns" the 545 exchange and has their own wrong number message. I, in fact, was the person who diagnosed the cause of the problem (MARTY was as shocked as I was that it was inside only, as he had only tried it from MIT phones.) James [253/258 are ESS, the last I checked, 225 is panel, but not the only one. It could be the only privately owned panel, but I know of at least 3 exchanges in Connecticut which are still panel. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 1982 11:22:17-PDT From: eagle!karn at Berkeley I originally posted this on the usenet group net.ham-radio. I am sending it to Telecom because it is probably of interest to this group, judging from the number of people who have expressed an interest in bypassing their local loops for data. ------------ July 1, 1982 To all radio amateurs -- At its July 1 open meeting FCC has instructed its staff to draft a notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with a codeless amateur radio license. This NPRM will propose to simply remove the code requirement from the present Technician class license, with access limited to frequencies above 50 Mhz. The present Technician class license requiring code and permitting access to the Novice bands would also remain in force. However, the NPRM will also explore the possibility of a codeless digital license, similar to Canada's Digital Radio Operator Certificate, which requires knowledge of digital theory. Such a digital license could either be the only codeless license or it could be concurrent with a codeless Technician license. The NPRM will be released sometime this fall, and is a proposal only. There will be a comment period during which all interested parties will have a chance to make their views known to FCC. ----End of bulletin----- Please note that the code-free license is a very emotional topic within the amateur radio community, and is likely to be strongly opposed by the ARRL. I hold an Extra class license, but I understand that not everybody is interested in (or has any use for) learning the code. This is particularly true of those technically sharp "digital people" who could contribute much to packet radio. When the NPRM comes out, I encourage all interested persons, licensed or not, to express opinions to the FCC. --Phil Karn, KA9Q/2 Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 12-Jul-82 22:03:59-PDT,5988;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 12-Jul-82 22:03:13 Date: 12 Jul 1982 2203-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #87 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 13 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: ACTS - Re: Your Automatic Operator Summary Of Splits, Etc. France Phone System - Terminals Replace Paper Phone Books MIT PBX Problems - Solution Will Never Be Found Rate Step Announcement Units ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jul 1982 2135-PDT From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT at USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Your automatic operator I think it relates to the ACTS (Automatic Coin Telephone Service) system. I submitted a paper some time ago which I had received from PAC-TEL in 1981. If you want to read it, I think JSOL has a copy; if not I will be glad to send you one. <>IHM<> [We distributed it only a month or so ago, but for the benefit of those who missed it, you can retrieve a copy from [USC-ECLB]BUG:<JSOL.TELECOM>ACTS.TXT, or if you can't; I will mail you a copy if you send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 82 7:56:16-EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: summary of splits, etc. Here are the Washington Post references for 1973 implementation of 804 area code in Virginia (which until then had only 1 area code, 703). May 16, 1973; section B, p. 1, col. 5 June 24, 1973; section B, p. 1, col. 4 The above articles say that the last previous implementation of new area code was in July 1965 when Florida got 3rd area code. I located older area code maps in microfilm of old Wilmington (Del.) phone books (this was in the Wilmington library), and saw that 904 used to be part of 305. (Also, long-distance dialing instructions from at least one of those old books used 904, which didn't exist then.) So we have the following dates (note that the implementation of N0X and N1X was an alternative to dividing the area immediately). July 1965: Fla. gets 3rd area code (904, split from 305). June 1973: Va. gets 2nd area code (804). July 1973: LA area (213) gets N0X and N1X. Nov. 1980: NYC (212) gets N0X and N1X. Nov. 1982: Calif. gets 9th area code (619, split from 714). 1984: Calif. gets 10th area code (818, split from 213). Objections to splitting an area are that you thus change phone numbers of half the people in it, and that you require 10 digits for calls from 1 side of it to other side. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1982 11:40 EDT From: Sewhuk.HENR at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #83 I read in a trade magazine that France is eliminating paper phone books and giving all their customers a home terminal instead. They justified putting a terminal in everyones home on the savings in paper alone. If that system works the entire phone directory would in effect be on-line and up-to-date at all times, that should eliminate the operators I would assume, or turn them into data base maintainters... Dave ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1982 1431-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> cc: jmturn at MIT-AI, braun at IO Subject: The MIT/OZ problem It is unlikely that we will ever know precisely what the problem was. As JSol pointed out, 253/258 is plain vanilla No. 1 ESS CENTREX ser- vice, completely provided by New England Telephone. If the problem was that the numbers were restricted, the MIT operator would also have been prevented from connecting an outside call (Yes, ESS is that smart). I suggested that it could have been a hunting problem, but RKB said that he tried it from each of his 497 numbers, rapidly alternating between the one from which it worked and the one from which it didn't. The 497 machine is a separate machine from 253/258/494. (I'm sure of this, I just checked it from my 494 number.) I still think hunting is likely -- if RKB alternated in just the amount of time it took for the modem to time out, it may have appeared busy from one line and not the other. Since both of his numbers are in a different machine and ESSs don't send the calling number between each other, the problem has to be related to the instantaneous state of the number he was calling. His call would have to be processed the same regardless of which phone he was using. [Yes. I made the mistake of assuming that 497 and 258 were on the same ESS machine. --JSol] The 225 MIT-Dorm-phone numbers are *NOT* panel, and never have been. These phones are served by a privately owned SxS PBX which is treated as a satellite PBX by the CENTREX (i.e. the No. 1 ESS outpulses to the PBX). There are NO panel exchanges in Connecticutt, and there never have been any. Panel and SxS have a compatibility problem, i.e. they can not be interconnected, so there have never been any areas with both SxS and panel. ------------------------------ Date: 12 July 1982 2056-PDT (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: rate step announcement units Operator-access rate step announcing units have been around for quite a few years. They are *not* reachable by customers -- they have six digit intertoll access numbers (NPA+3D) which cannot be dialed from subscriber telephones. Similar simple (but useful) voice response announcement units have been used for telephone credit card (now named "calling cards") validation for a number of years as well. --Lauren-- P.S. Operators are generally not supposed to bridge the subscriber into calls to such announcement systems. Somebody is getting sloppy somewhere... --LW-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 16-Jul-82 08:24:49-PDT,2347;000000000000 Mail-From: JSOL created at 16-Jul-82 08:23:47 Date: 16 Jul 1982 0823-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V2 #88 Sender: JSOL at USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 16 July 1982 Volume 2 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Last Panel In The World VOX Rate Machines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 1982 1122-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Last Panel in the world 201 243 in Newark, NJ is the one and only remaining Panel office in the world. There were some terminating-only mass calling panels in SFO and OAK, but they are gone. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 1982 0323-EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS> Subject: VOX rate machines Barefoot: Yes Back when I was hacking the TSPS game, we had a similar thing to tell us rate steps. It was accessed from the TSPS position by dialing an *overseas* sequence, and then some meld of the called NPA NXX and calling NXX. It would then come back with the rate step. Apparently this was hung off the overseas equipment, because that part of the software could handle the long number sequences better than the local switching stuff. A special overseas prefix was used, which would pass the rest of the packet on to the machine. Also, there was software at the TSPS office that *would* *not* allow the operator to dial this thing on a customer's forward circuit! This was a real lose, cause you'd have to tell the guy to hold on and then go get a new outgoing trunk to do it. Therefore the system described by pur-ee!davy sounds like something new, implemented after I left the busy buttons of Mother's bosom. It apparently gives the *cost* of the call, and can be accessed on a customer's forward trunk. Anyone have any more detailed info about it? Just before I left the company, they *de*implemented the RQS [the machine described above], leaving us with only rate&route operators and the little leaflet pack to get rates for customers. Perhaps they were making way for a new system [but of course they didn't *tell* us that!!] _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** -------