Telecom

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

/ Telecom / 1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso / back.issues / 1981-86.volumes.1-5 / vol3.iss001-083 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1991-01-20 | 604.7 KB | 15,063 lines

1-Jan-83 23:18:53-PST,8663;000000000001 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Jan-83 21:01:26 Date: 1 Jan 1983 2101-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #1 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 2 December 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Administrivia - New Year - New Volume - TCP/IP Cutover Life Line Service And Unmeasured Service Interstate Vs Intrastate Long Distance ANI Failures Common In Some Areas Holiday Dialing Trivia Mixed Flat- And Timed/Measured- Service In Providence, RI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 January 1983 2045-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLC> Subject: Administrivia First of all, I wish to extend best wishes to all of TELECOM's readers on this new year. This year marks the beginning of the deregulation of Telephone companies across the country. I would like to encourage discussion of what the telephone companies seem to be doing now that they are in a more relaxed regulatory market. I heard a rumor that at 1201 AM on Jan 1st, AT&T opened a computer company, anyone have news about that? Also, there are some articles on measured service, and while I realize that this is a hot issue right now, I would like to remind everybody that TELECOM (and the ARPANET for that matter) cannot be used to rally support for any particular viewpoint because the DCA consideres that abuse of the network resources. TELECOM is forced to comply with this. Please, no political messages, thanks. We are now in Volume 3. Volume 2 has 141 issues in it, the last issue of Volume 2 (#141) was delivered on December 28th. If you did not receive it, please let me know. Also, the ARPANET is now running TCP (Transmission Control Protocol)/IP (Internet Protocol) instead of NCP (Network Control Protocol). Basically this transmission protocol was developed to facilitate the growing number of networks and media to connect them with. This protocol is expected to bring a great improvement in functionality over the next coming months, but during the initial phases of installation, stability on the ARPANET is expected to be marginal (if at all). If you receive garbled digests, or repeated copies, it is most likely due to this conversion. Finally, I wish to publicly apologize to Alyson Abramowitz, who sent the note about the DEC ENet addressing bug. She apparently did not wish me to broadcast her note on the digest (she sent it to TELECOM-REQUEST, and I felt it was appropriate to distribute as useful information, but I neglected to ask her permission). Once again, I wish everyone an excellent year in 1983! [--JSol--] ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 27 December 1982 22:09-EST From: Chuck Weinstock <Weinstock at CMU-CS-C> Subject: Life-Line Service [TELECOM Digest V2 #141] When I lived in Menlo Park, I had two phones in my apartment, one lifeline, and one unlimited. How did I get away with this? The second phone was billed directly to my employer. I understand the rule is actually that you can only have lifeline if it is the only phone billed at the installed address. (Or some such.) Chuck ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 82 2:38:12-EDT (Tue) From: Randall Gellens <randall.CC@UDel-Relay> Subject: interstate vs intrastate calling -- re: V2 #140 I was thinking about this intra-state vs inter-state calling on alternate carriers, and it occurs to me that (a) the legal loophole is rather vague -- who can say how a call is physically switched? Is someone going to die the electrons? (b) since the FCC only deals in interstate matters, they probably aren't terribly concerned. (c) since intrastate calls are regulated by the various state PUC's and such, they are the ones that would (if anyone) care about this. (d) if some state were to realize the above points, and also that they might get away with defining an intrastate call as one in which both phones are physically located within the same state, then they would have legal authority over such calls placed by the various carriers. They could then enact some liscensing provision, and collect annual fees. They probably could even slap some past charges on. If a carrier wanted to fight, there is a good chance a court will agree with the state -- after all, what more reasonable criterea for interstate vs intrastate than effect? ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 82 2:48:02-EDT (Tue) From: Randall Gellens <randall.CC@UDel-Relay> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V2 #141 I think our ANI billing stuff gets sick now and then, because sometimes almost every LD call gets intercepted by an operator who asks for my number, and then the call completes. (Once I traced it to one specific line of a key-set, where the other lines seemed to work fine.) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 82 10:25:20-EST (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL> cc: cmoore at BRL Subject: dialing miscellanea Sample incident where people forget to dial area code: N.J. set up a drunk-driver reporting line at 800-SOBER83. Some people in 201 area forgot to dial 800, and about 50 calls went to a Millburn residence (because most N.J. points do NOT have 1+, I guess these misdirected calls could have come from anywhere in 201 area). I haven't checked for 609-762 yet, but I half suspect it doesn't exist. (This item was in newspaper recently.) I also guess that, on average, people in 609 aren't smarter than those in 201. How would things have happened differently if 1+ was required? I have just heard that calls within Port Deposit exchange (301-378) can be made by dialing 3 + last 4 digits. This would reduce the available phone numbers within 301-378, because it's my understanding that local calls are made by dialing 7 digits, and 301-378's local area includes 378, 392, and 398. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Dec 1982 0205-PST From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@USC-ECL Subject: Mixed Flat- and Timed/Measured- Service in Providence, RI I had a knock-down, drag-out battle with N.E. Tel in Providence this summer over this PRECISE issue. I was at Brown for just the summer, shared an apartment with three other folks (with whom I had had no previous acquaintance), and needed my own line for my terminal. I requested unmeasured, untimed service for obvious reasons. The company REFUSED service on the grounds that the line that was already in the apartment -- not in my name, mind you, but in the name of one of the other' people who already lived there -- was a timed measured line! They cited, in support of their refusal, a tariff which read, "Measured service may be installed where a customer does not already have flat-rate ." I pointed out to them that the tariff they cited had nothing whatever to do with my order: that I was asking for flat-rate, not measured, service. They still refused. I pointed out to them that, in any case, I had no service whatsoever, and there was no reason to refuse me service on the grounds that I had some other kind of service, when their own records would show that I didn't! Their response: the service existed on the premises, and so they were considering it "my" service. My counter- response: show me a tariff that states that the two services cannot coexist on the same premises. Their response: no such tariff exists, but we're still right, and you're still wrong, so we're not putting your service in. You don't like it, take it to the P.U.C. I did just that, and made both my arguments in both "informal" and formal hearings. Of course this took most of the summer. And of course I lost -- but the ruling is incredibly 1984ish. Aside from the fact that it is written in some incoherent language only vaguely resem- bling English, it failed to address even in a perfunctory way my simple and direct argument. Moral: in dealings with Telco, the Customer is Always Wrong, at least in the sovereign state of Rhode Island. I would have liked to have taken the case on appeal to some court, but, unfortunately, the summer ended. Needless to say, I didn't get much telecomputing done this summer. I may yet still do something like suing N.E.T. for damages, but I don't want to be Quixotic about it. Any comments? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 5-Jan-83 18:37:41-PST,4931;000000000000 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 5-Jan-83 18:37:18 Date: 5 Jan 1983 1837-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #2 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 6 December 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Self-Installation Of Second Line Flat Rate, Measured (limited), N.E.T. & New Hampshire Massachusets N.E.T. vs New Hampshire N.E.T. Actual Costs For Service Intrastate Vs. Interstate Interconnects ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jan 1983 1705-MST From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20> Subject: Fishing Expedition Speaking of having two phone lines in your home, I'd like to prepare to do that. The easiest way to implement that at my house would be to fish the two wires in the walls and install wall outlets for modular jacks at convenient locations. I've seen wall plates with a single modular socket for sale at various stores, but I've never seen a duplex modular outlet (ie. two modular sockets in one wall plate, like an AC power outlet). If I could find such a wall plate it would be a big convenience. Does anybody know where I can buy such a device? Also, where would I buy a fourteen foot phone-to-wall cord to replace the one on my current (rented) phone when I buy my CPE? Thanks in advance -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: 4 January 1983 04:10 est From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: N. E. Tel in New Hampshire won't allow mixed flat/message service Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston) One thing I've noticed is that no one at a Telco knows the rules. I've been told I can't get mixed flat/message, I've also been told I can. I've been told I couldn't get residential hunt, then I got it, and then they called me to tell me that they were wrong about the rate they quoted. In fact, there is no charge for the service. It seems more a matter of luck and tariff as to what services you can get. ------------------------------ Date: 4 January 1983 13:04-EST From: Jeffrey R. Del Papa <DP at MIT-ML> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #1 Gee, in mass I had two phones both billed to me, one measured, and one "20 mile circle". when I moved, I even got them to install hunting between them. I am told this is illegal in mass, but the order takers don't seem to know this... Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 1983 0931-PST From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL> Subject: actual costs of misc. items charged for by TPC cc: king at KESTREL Reply-to: "King@Kestrel"@ml Can anyone out there (perhaps in BTL) give a reasonably athoratative figure for some of the following? 1) the cost of making a local connection 1a) with touch tone 1b) with impulse 1c) with touch tone, if it is stipulated in advance that that line can't use impulse 2) the cost of maintaining a local connection for one minute 3) the monthly cost to the phone company of maintaining a compatible touch tone (also able to handle impulse) line 4) the cost that the phone company would face if they were to maintain a non-compatible touch tone line I realize that there are variations, but all I want is some rough figures and ranges. Dick ------------------------------ Date: Wed Jan 5 10:58:03 1983 From: cca!dee@decvax.UUCP.Berkeley.ARPA Subject: re: interstate vs. intrastate Re: Randall Gellens argument that a state could take over jurisdication by defining an intrastate call as one with both instruments in the state. In our system, the Federal government has pre-eminent jurisdiction (i.e., if the Feds and a state get into an arguement, the Feds win 99.9+% of the time). Since local lines, local telephone exchanges, local instruments, etc., are clearly necessary to complete interstate calls, the Federal government would have no trouble asserting total jurisdiction of the telephone system. Only purely local systems with no interconnection to any interstate facilities would have any chance and I am sure that if the Federal government wanted to, it could take them over based on the argument that they affect interstate commerce, etc. The only thing that might really stand up to a concerted Federal effort would be a purely intrastate system owned, operated by, and serving the state government as a "sovereign" entity. The Supreme Court might keep federal hands off that. So, the reality is that state PUCs have jurisdiction over what the Federal Government / FCC lets them have and that's all. Donald Eastlake (dee@cca, decvax!cca!dee) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 11-Jan-83 15:18:19-PST,6004;000000000000 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 11-Jan-83 15:13:20 Date: 11 Jan 1983 1513-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #3 S To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 12 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Baby Bell - The First Day Cellular Mobile In Washington, D.C. Area V&H, Area Codes 307 & 308 Query - How To Deal With Harrassing Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 5 Jan 83 17:02:33-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. <CSL.JLH.Celoni@SU-SCORE> Subject: 1st-day encounter w/ Baby Bell We've been deciding on a new PBX, and Pacific Telephone was one of the contenders. I decided to call our account executive Monday, but didn't have her number at the new local American Bell, Inc. office (a different building from Pac Tel), so called her old number. A secretary from another group answered and told me what she thought the new number was. I called it and got a recording ("not in service ... no referral"), so called our Pac Tel Market Administrator (who worked with her on the proposal). He said he couldn't give me her number, that he'd signed an agreement that if he talked business to an ABI rep without a customer designating ABI as its agent, he was fired. (He also said that last year he had ten accounts, now 300.) So I called local directory assistance, but all they had was one American Bell *PhoneCenter* (there are many in the area!). Then I called 415 directory assistance, which gave me the SF office, which gave me the numbers for the ABI National Response Center (800/ 247-1212), which gave me another SF office I could call collect (but "wasn't likely to be for our account"--we're over cutoff of 40 stations), which gave me a local ABI employee's number, which I called but got no answer. Then I called 800 information, which gave me an ABI "general business" number (800/ 521-5221), which gave me a local "general business" number (also 800, even though office is 3 mi away) . The one at the last number didn't know whether our rep or her boss worked there, but that I'd gotten the right number. Next, I called the local ABI employee, who answered this time and had numbers for my AE and her boss (and the correct local office number, which differed from the one that gave me the recording in one digit). I was disconnected when she tried to transfer the call to her. (Today I found out the ABI office has a Dimension PBX, incidentally.) I talked with the AE today, who gave me her address (but didn't know zip) and said she still has the file on us she had as a Pac Tel employee, except for the network-related binders she couldn't take. She confirmed the PBX pricing she preannounced last month (20% off tariffs--still high--and no change on Applications Processor). Switches still aren't for sale, but peripherals will be (are?), and other maintenance options will be available (less service for less cost). According to her, the local ABI office is now a profit center--if it doesn't achieve E-to-R (expenses to revenue) ratio better than 12:1 this year, it vanishes. ABI is part of AIS (AT&T Information Systems), as is AT&T International. At mid-year, when the Operating Companies' installed base (e.g. existing Dimensions & Horizons) is transferred to ABI, ATIX (AT&T IntereXchange Service) will become part of AIS to handle current Long Lines accounts. Finally, she said there's a lot she still doesn't know. (From my understanding of the breakup, it's not clear some of what she told me is right, either--please publish corrections.) Many questions remain about Baby Bell, big and little. (Our former Pac Tel repairman works for ABI now. What will he be doing until the installed base moves?) I hope to hear about developments, as they break, in TELECOM. +j ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 8 Jan 1983 17:26:37-PST From: John R. Covert <decwrl!RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta at SU-Score> Subject: Cellular mobile in Washington, D.C. area Am currently on the phone with a friend who is driving down Interstate 270. Just at the moment, he changed cells. We noticed as it muted. Sounds bad for modems. In D.C., it turns out that whichever non-wireline company gets the licence will simply purchase Motorola's test system and be ready to go. By the way, all of Metrorail is expected to be one cell. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 83 10:33:17-EST (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Bmd> Subject: V&H, areas 307 & 308 As noted earlier, most of Wyoming (307 area) is routed via area 303. Interesting pattern in 308 area (part of Nebraska), ignoring about half a dozen points along Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and S. Dakota borders: western part of state (roughly that part due N of Colorado) and a smaller, noncontiguous part (western Buffalo County, including Kearney, and a little bit of eastern Dawson County) much further E are routed via 308; rest of area 308 routed via 402. (Can't find coordinates of 308-555 anywhere else in 308 area.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon 10-Jan-1983 14:01-EST From: Richard Kenner <KENNER@NYU> Subject: Harassing phone calls A friends's relative is getting harassing calls. At her request, the phone company (NY Tel.) put a trap on her line to get the calling numbers. However they say that they are not allowed by law to tell her the calling numbers and can only tell the police if it is life-threatening. Does anyone know if this is true? If not, do you have anything that can be given to NY Tel as proof? If so, do you have any ideas as to what can be done about the calls (other then getting a new phone number)? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 14-Jan-83 14:58:19-PST,13156;000000000000 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 14-Jan-83 14:57:40 Date: 14 Jan 1983 1457-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #4 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 15 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Administrivia - TCP SMTP Mail Development Outgoing Only Payphones/MD WATTS Lines Harrassing Calls - Federal Laws Re. Calling Number Alternatives To Unlisted Number Local Measured Service - Commentaries Call Waiting Makes It To Ann Landers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 1983 1450-PST From: The Moderator <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Administrivia We are receiving reports of digests arriving mangled and of mail system problems both related to ECL's mail software and with the software of other systems. During the conversion effort, it will be commonplace to have digests misdirected, or to arrive garbled, or partially missing... Some people are submitting mail to the TELECOM@MIT-AI and TELECOM@MIT-MC addresses and are encountering difficulties. I strongly urge readers to use the TELECOM@USC-ECLB address to send submissions. TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB seems to be receiving messages properly. I will be happy to remail to you any issues you don't receive. I need to know the issue number of the last digest you received successfully. If the above addresses should fail after this point, I want to be informed. My personal address is JSOL@USC-ECLC, feel free to direct things there if all else fails, but PLEASE TRY THE OTHER ADDRESSES FIRST! Send to me the failure notices so I can find out just what is going on. Thanks. TELECOM is being used as an experiment to help us maintain a high quality mail service. I want to thank you all for your patience in this matter. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1983 1315-PST From: Mike Newton <Newton@CIT-20> Subject: Outgoing only payphones/MD WATTS lines Old TELECOM archives discussed pay phones that could not be called. There are some of these at LAX, but I have never remembered to look carefully carefully at them at the time I was there -- my question is: Do they have any kind of `phone-number' at all? If they are like some WATTS line in Maryland they may not be truly "out-going only". When working for a small financial company in the Annapolis area I was often puzzled by the two watts lines. While the other buttons on the phone had normal numbers like 268-1234 (prefix is close but not necessarily right -- I don't remember) the two watts lines had numbers of the form 015-9876 written on them. On day I realized that the nine in the fourth position signified a special (pay ... ) phone. I then tried dial 268-9876 and while this did not work, after a couple more tries I found the correct prefix -- the watts line rang. The same prefix (??? 267 ??? -- another Annapolis prefix) also worked on the other line. Is this possibly true of the outward only payphones?? (Note that since these watts lines were for interstate calls, using them for an intrastate call was probably "against the rules" -- but the calls probably cost more than a local call anyway.) (I think the lines were for out-going call, but I do not remember.) mike ------------------------------ Date: 12 January 1983 16:46-EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: harrassing calls I don't know about a possible New York law, but there is definietely NOT a federal law which would prevent the phone company from giving you or the police the phone number of the harrasser. In an important Supreme Court decision in 1979 (Smith v. Maryland) the court ruled that the information as to what number someone dials is the property of the tlephone company and they can do with it what they will. (There are laws against WIRETAPPING without a court order, but the number, as opposed to the content of the communication was held not subject to the requirement of a warrent.) Smith, who had been discovered to be making harrassing calls to someone was caught because a PEN REGISTER had been placed on his phone--a device which records what local numbers an individual dials. The pen register had been placed at the request of the police, but without a warrent. The argument went that a caller voluntarily turns over his number and the calling number to the phone company as part of the "contract" in which the phone comapny agrees to complete the call. The phone comapny can then do what they want with this information, including choosing to give it to the police, without the requirement of a warrent. As far as I know, this decision still stands at the Federal level.. ------------------------------ Date: 10 January 1983 18:51-EST (Monday) Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN From: _Bob <Carter at RUTGERS> Subject: 'Unlisted No.':Only $299.95 The following appeared in the Sunday New York Times, section 6 (the 'magazine'), page 65, Jan. 9, l983. ----------------------------------------------------------------- @b(PSST!) @b(WANT AN UNLISTED TELEPHONE NUMBER?) * * * How? With PriveCode(R): the Telephone Access Control TerminalTM ...an affordable, convenient alternative to Ma Bell's unlisted number system. @i(Here's how it works:) Just plug PriveCode into any modular jack in your home or apartment, turn it on, and you're in complete control over who can reach you. You simply assign a three digit Access Code to people you want to hear from. Whenever anyone dials your regular listed telephone number, PriveCode intercepts their call and @i(stops all your phones from ringing.) PriveCode then asks the caller to enter their Personal Access Code. Only after a valid code has been entered will PriveCode signal you with a pleasing electronic sound, and display caller's personal code, so you know who is calling @i(before) you pick up your phone. PriveCode even tells you who called while you were out. Callers without valid Access Codes never get through. Since PriveCode handles up to 16 different codes at a time it's just like having 16 private lines...on your present Ma Bell line. * * * PriveCode is available in fine department stores, electronic specialty shops and phone stores. --------------------------------------------------------------- The accompanying cut shows a flat base (about 12"x9"x1") with a standard TouchTone desk set resting on the LH top. On the RH half of the base, there is a protruding vertical console, about the size of a deck of cards resting on its long edge, about 3" back from the front. On the front of the console, what is apparently a plasma or LED display shows the digits '139' and some unreadable garbage. On the base just in front of the console are two buttons and a slide switch. A similar device has been mentioned before in the Digest, although I seem to recall that in a previous case, investigation showed that screening was actually by a simple call-back-and-count-rings trick. I called the 800 number in the ad, and got the following info. The unit is FCC registered. The recommended retail selling price is $299.95, although the clerk has heard of some discounting. The unit takes the line off-hook on every call. No claim is made that the unit 'senses' the caller's number. Instead, it generates a digitally-stored woman's voice which asks him to enter his access code. He may do so by tone, or by responding with a 'verbal pulse' to a number as she cycles through the numbers 1-0, pausing after each digit. Any monosyllable counts as a 'verbal pulse.' The caller is given three chances to enter a valid three-digit access code, and if he fails the unit hangs up. Tone entry may take place as soon as the phone is answered, and a maximum of nine tones may be entered. If he is responding with 'voice pulses,' the recorded voice will cycle through the digits a maximum of 9 times. The unit may be connected to an answering machine (or to a standard phone) through an output port and callers giving the access code '123' are always routed to the output port. Callers may be given a bogus access code which causes the unit to present a phony ringing signal to the caller but not to ring the phone. The number '123' is reserved for the output port, and ten three-digit combinations are reserved for programming. The user may select the 16 access codes from any of the remaining 990 combinations. There are four ringing modes, which may be bound to access codes, to allow the user to get some information about who is calling from the ringing pattern. The unit displays the successful access code in the console window whenever the caller succeeds in generating a ring. It remembers uncompleted calls by valid access code holders, and will display their codes on demand. I asked the clerk about the odds of breaking through. (As I understand it, three tries to get 16/990 combinations gives the caller a 5 percent chance of bingo on the first call, and greater chances on later calls.) The clerk said that of course 'hackers could use computers' to get through. The distributor of this device is International Mobile Machines Corp. 100 North 20th St. Dept. No. 104 Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 800-523-0103, Ext. 110 In Pa. 215-569-1300, Ext. 110 I called my N.J. Customer Service Representative to ask about the price of getting an unlisted number for an existing residential line. She said that there would be a one-time charge of either $12 or $16, and no increment to the monthly bill. I do not know what the odds are that a caller could find an unlisted number by stochastic calling. (I.e. Could a caller on my ESS get the number by permuting the four final digits?) I assume they would be higher than 1 in 20. _B ------------------------------ Date: 4 January 1983 16:12 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Local Measured Services (LMS) cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Acknowledge-To: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON I just joined this mailing list last month and have reviewed the previous "archived" issues since its origin. I am involved with a committee to suggest the rate structure alternatives to the Local Telephone CO. Later this Spring the local teleco will propose the new LMS request. The request will include four basic factors in determining the telephone rate for local telephone customers (both residential and business). They are: 1. Distance - the rate will be based on the distance between two central switching stations regardless of what boundaries. 2. Frequency- the rate will be based on number of calls made per month. The higher number the costlier will it be. 3. Time of Day - the rate will be higher at peak hours and for peak users. 4. Duration - the rate will be based on time the phone is connected. The higher the duration the costlier will it be. In conclusion, the committee has expressed five negative aspects which may be resulted from the initiation of LMS as: 1. Consumer confusion be created by the complexity of four factors. 2. Uncertainity to their monthly bill's figures. 3. Increased customer anxiety. 4. Discouragement of phone use by user-sensitive pricing as well as impacts on cohesiveness of volunteer community organizations. 5. Differential negative impacts of duration charges on speech and hearing impaired persons. (Insider's Report: Duration rates will be scary to the data-line users as well as can damage all CBBS systems!!!!) Alternatives will be reported in the next issue. <LJ> ------------------------------ Date: 14-Jan-1983 09:42 From: decwrl!RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta at Sumex-Aim Subject: Call Waiting makes it to Ann Landers Dear Ann Landers: What is proper when one has the new telephone device that allows a person to receive a second call while engaged in a first? I believe it is rude to cut off the first caller just because another call comes in. A once-close friend of mine always did that. Recently she bawled me out for avoiding her, complained that I never call anymore. Just as I began to explain, her phone clicked. She told me she had to take another call. Unless the second call is an emergency, I believe one should tell the second caller, "I have someone on the line and will return your call as soon as possible," then go back to the first call and wind it up gracefully. Right or wrong? - San Antonio You are right. This problem is one I'be been hearing a lot about since all the high-tech telephone equipment has been popping up. Thanks for writing. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 16-Jan-83 16:21:05-PST,4238;000000000000 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 16-Jan-83 16:17:41 Date: 16 Jan 1983 1617-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #5 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 17 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Administrivia - More Mail Service Problems Cellular Mobile In Washingon, D.C. Area. NPA 555 + Not Always Directory Assistance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 1983 1553-PST From: The Moderator <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Administrivia - More mail service problems We are still (!) having problems related to the delivery of TELECOM. Things are firming up in the mail software, but we are far from being "home free". Issue #4 was delivered at least 3 times to quite a few addresses, and never made it to at least half of the recipients of TELECOM. I'm hoping for a better record today. If you receive this one (it's pretty small) you know that we are up to issue 5 of volume 3. The last issue of volume 2 was #141. If you want duplicate copies of issues, please send to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB asking for said duplicates. Please be sure to include the specific issues you want, it will be sufficient to ask me for "all the issues since Volume 2 Issue <nnn>"... I will fill in the rest of the details and shuffle all of the issues out to you, barring unforseen mail problems. TELECOM continues to serve as a "guinea pig" for testing new mailers so if you get multiple copies, garbled messages, etc. etc. Please let me know. Thanks for your cooperation and patience in this difficult time. Enjoy, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1983 1312-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #3, Cellular mobile in Washingon, D.C. area. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL You are quite correct in that the moment the cellular mobile changes cells (i.e. hand-off) the channel is muted. However, only the mobile side is muted. The mute duration is 50ms. This would only cause a minimal glitch at 300 baud. I would expect that most people using data over cellular systems would be stationary (after all it is kind of hard to drive your car and type on your terminal at the same time, isn't it?), and hence not be subject to the hand-off mute. A way around the 'glitch' in hand-off is to have your receive modem directly attached to the MTSO (so it knows you are communicating digitally), and when it comes time to hand you off, the MTSO could either stop transmission (by sending an X-OFF down the pipe) OR the MTSO could momentarily buffer the data while it does the hand-off. The Motorola developmental system in Washington you referred to is really the American Radio Telephone Service (ARTS) developmental system supplied by Motorola and is totally owned by American Radio Telephone Service. The system is therefore not subject to purchase by who ever wins the non-wire line license in the Washington DC and Baltimore SMSA's. As far as Metrorail being one cell: none of the 5 applicants filed for Metrorail coverage initially on June 7th, but the idea of stringing leaky coax thru out the Metrorail system has been banded about as a possible future enhancement. ------------------------------ Date: Sat Jan 15 1983 19:18:13-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Subject: 555+ Pacific Telephone has just announced a "Let's Talk Response Center" for people interested in finding out "details" regarding the AT&T breakup's effects on PacTel services. The really interesting aspect of this is the number: (800) 555-5000 This is the first instance I've ever seen of a ten digit 555+ number being used for *anything* other than directory assistance. In fact, in most areas, it has usually been possible to dial: NPA+555+XXXX to get D.A. for a remote area code -- any random values for the last four digits were sufficient. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 19-Jan-83 20:09:33-PST,12127;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Jan-83 19:57:14 Date: 19 Jan 1983 1957-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #6 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 20 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: More Administrivia Local Measured Service (LMS) 555-xxxx Measured Service (2 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 1983 1938-PST From: The Moderator <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: More administrivia Mail system development continues, as you are well aware I'm sure. There are at least as many new bugs cropping up as there are fixes made daily. No end seems in sight for this torture(!) I've been fortunate that our mail system is as robust as it has been. It is getting better every day. This issue is yet another guinea pig tester for the mail system I am about to install on our system. Wish me luck! Most of this digest pertains to the current issue of Measured Local Telephone service. I would like to hear aired various points of view on the issues surrounding Measured Service. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 17 January 1983 13:23 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Local Measured Service (LMS) cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON [This message was originally sent to TELECOM, but was incomplete. The complete message is contained here in today's digest. --JSol] I just joined this mailing list last month and have reviewed the previous "archived" issues since its origin. I am involved with a committee to suggest the rate structure alternatives to the Local Telephone CO. Later this Spring the local teleco will propose the new LMS request. The request will include four basic factors in determining the telephone rate for local telephone customers (both residential and business). They are: 1. Distance - the rate will be based on the distance between two central switching stations regardless of what boundaries. 2. Frequency- the rate will be based on number of calls made per month. The higher number the costlier will it be. 3. Time of Day - the rate will be higher at peak hours and for peak users. 4. Duration - the rate will be based on time the phone is connected. The higher the duration the costlier will it be. In conclusion, the committee has expressed five negative aspects which may be resulted from the initiation of LMS as: 1. Consumer confusion be created by the complexity of four factors. 2. Uncertainity to their monthly bill's figures. 3. Increased customer anxiety 4. Discouragement of phone use by user-sensitive pricing as well as impacts on cohesiveness of volunteer community organizations 5. Differential negative impacts of duration charges on speech and hearing impaired persons. Two Alternatives to LMS are suggested as follows: 1. Establishment of a basic access service consisting of dial tone for incoming calls and minimum number of "free" outgoing calls in addition to flat-rate service; 2. Use of technology to separate voice from data communications. We have noted that utilization of a "life line" service with the reasonably high message unit charges once the initial allowance has been exceeded, as an adjunt to present flat-rate service, would satisfy the "universal service" objective, and avoid most of the complexity, uncertainity, anxiety, and disabled persons' concerns. It would not however, address the potentially high cost of regular service to most customers, the desirability of placing increased networks capacity costs on those whose increased(computer) use occassioned them, or the encouragement of more efficient telephone use. It is emphasized that under any rate design including present rates or LMS, such a basic "lifeline" service should be offered. Also, the recommendations are made as follows: 1. Distance: Due to the uncertainity of the distances between the parties to be called, the variability of the actual path taken by the call, the complexity added by distance in enabling the customer to control or project his phone bill, the difficulity of drawing, simple, fair and relevant distance boundaries, and the objective of encouraging the wides economical communication within the metropolitan area outweigh any benefit to the telephone co from improsing a distance element. The suggestion is the use of a flat monthly area access charge. 2. Frequency: In the form of a per-call set-up charge, the incremental cost of set-up is relatively low. But a per-call charge (no matter how high) does not address the basic capacity problem by increased computer use. In short, it is neither cost related, nor productive of mere effective phone use. More important is the potentially negative impact of any substantial per-call charge (probably 5 cents per call) on volunteer community organizations. The suggestion is the imposition of substantial set-up charge during the peak period as will be explained under "Time of Day" below. 3. Duration: Duration appears the most important element to both local telephone company and the public. A per-minute charge produces a high level of anxiety in consumers; reflectedd in "clock watching" concern over the uncontrollable actions of others such as parties wanting to continue conversations, family members, and being "put on hold" and fear of "surprises" in the bill at the end of the month. To reduce the potential anxiety in personal and business communications, the suggestion is that duration be measured not on a per-minute basis, but on the basis of the time interval used in most (not average) cases comfortably to complete the type of call in question. That interval or duration could be determined by statistical studies of actual experience or consumer preference. For example, 10 minute interval for daytime (mostly business-related) calls and a 30 minute interval for evening (personal) calls. In addition to discourage "tying up the system" with long calls characteristic of most data transmission, the suggestion was made that each succeeding interval be priced higher than the previous one. Also, in order to alleviate the expenses to callers of being "put on hold" business , the idea of offering businesses a local "toll free call-in" service when LMS is implemented is endorsed. Time of Day: The most potentially powerful element in the LMS design is "time of day". When properly designed, a rate structure would encourage more efficient use of network capacity, give customers greater control over phone bills, and reduce the repressive impact which LMS might otherwise have on communications by volunteer groups and individuals. In order for peak-load pricing to work effectively, those suggestions were made: 1) The off-peak period must be long enough and convenient enough for customers to use it rather than the peak; 2) the incentive differene between peak and off-peak must be great enough to encourage a shift to off-peak use, but not so great as to create a new "peak"; and 3) the peak rates must be high enough to cover capacity costs but not so high to discourage use to the point of threatening revenue requirements. For the sake of growth of the teleco, three periods were suggested: a day time peak 9AM - 5 PM, an off-peak 7PM - 7 AM, and to prevent "spillover", an intermediate period 7 - 9 AM and 5 - 7 PM. The ideas are still continuing to see that placement of personal calls be encouraged during non-business hours. Conclusion on above-mentioned suggestions: We are aware of various ulilities such as electricity, gas, water, sewer, and also, the postages. All are based on actual use in number of units where unit can be kilowatt, cubic feet, gallons, ounces, etc. So the telephone company is geared to change to such factors so it will earn actual revenues rather than the universal theory (the average cost spreaded to every one regardless of distance, time, frequency, and duration). Any comment or suggestion is welcome. Also, any of you, readers, have any better issue to comment about your local telephone company? <LJ> (Reply to: LSchwarz.Activate@USGS1-MULTICS) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1983 1739-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: 555-xxxx For about four years now, 555 has been translated so that only 121x goes to directory assistance. Massachusetss has been using 555-1611 for repair service for three years. The use of 800 555-5000 for "Let's talk" is pretty much nationwide. The destination depends on the operating company in your area. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 17 Jan 83 08:37:35-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. <CSL.JLH.Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Re: Unlisted numbers [v. 3 #4] An old alternative to an unlisted number (here non-published "service" is $0.30/mo) is to list your number under your dog's name. You can hang up when greeted with "Hello, Mr. Prince." (He also gets the bills.) If you don't mind being in the phone book but want to reduce the amount of junk mail you get, you can ask not to be included in street address directories (our last bill had a postcard to return to do that), or just list your name with no address. Both are free. +j ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1983 10:25 EST From: clark.wbst at PARC-MAXC Subject: Local Measured Services (LMS) cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON On the subject of charging for local service based on the distance between to central switching stations... While it is clearly true that it costs more to connect a call BETWEEN switches than WITHIN one, the distance between phones does not directly correpond to the distance between their switches. The extreme case is where two people live next door to each other, yet are on different switching stations... The phone company decided where to put the switching stations and who to hook to which. The consumer should not be penalized by being forced to pay for the structure of the phone companies internal switching. He should pay for the service he gets. Charge should be based on the distance between phones. The user did not tell the phone company how to set it up ! That was their decision, they should now have to live with it. --Ray [A counter proposal to this is that you should not get a break just because you are switched off the same physical ESS machine as the phone you want to call. I may live in the area too but on another machine. Resource consumption notwithstanding, it will get even *more* complicated to deal with! --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1983 1949-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Measured Service - Caveat While it is clear to me that "Computer users" are being made the "enemies" in this case, it is clear that the people who will hurt the most from this will be the person who doesn't read their Telephone company inserts describing the changes. I was in the "residence service center" of GTE in Santa Monica getting a phone for a friend, and I was not surprised to find that the majority of the people who were in the business office were trying to figure out why their phone bills had just grown 10 times in size! There was one person with "Extended service" to an area, who hadn't noticed that his "extended service" was usage sensitive, and who had suddenly gotten himself a bill of over $300 just in calls to that area alone! I'm sure most of us computer users will simply stop using the phone for computer use BEFORE it becomes too expensive, right? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 20-Jan-83 15:48:55-PST,2495;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Jan-83 15:47:56 Date: 20 Jan 1983 1547-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #7 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 21 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Small Digest Measured Local Service Proposals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 1983 1540-PST From: The Moderator <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: More mail troubles - small digest Today's digest is smaller, and hopefully easier to handle in people's mail files as I continue to test the mailer. If you receive more than one copy (if you get at least one GOOD copy) then you need not send mail to me, as I am probably aware of the duplication. The mailer currently aborts the entire distribution of TELECOM when it gets to a specific point which I have yet to catch (because it is subtle). One time it appeared to be a monitor problem, but now I'm not so sure (it's that specific). PARC-MAXC - I have one complaint from PARC about receiving "null messages". Specifically the digest is delivered entirely containing nulls instead of the normal characters. I send the digest through a local indirect distribution, so it would be most helpful if any of the other PARC recipients of the digest mail to me that they have received a good copy. This is the only time I need to know if you GET the digest. For everybody else, I need to know if you MISS one. They don't get distributed every day, so the thing to do is look at the issue numbers. I'm sorry to take up so much of your time, but it will result in a more stable implementation of mail system if we fix these bugs early. Thank you for your cooperation... The Moderator -- JSol@USC-ECLC ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1983 1150-PST From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN at SRI-AI> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #6 Concerning the proposal to charge an increasing amount per time block for successive blocks in a continuous call (e.g. the second 10 minutes costs more than the first, etc.), it seems to me that this would just encourage the development of hacks to hang up and redial periodically, which cannot improve any aspect of service or loading that I know of. .... Paul ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 22-Jan-83 12:14:00-PST,4821;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-Jan-83 12:13:37 Date: 22 Jan 1983 1213-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #8 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 23 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Protected Exchanges Local Toll-Free (Automatic Collect) Service [Another short digest, another new mailer to test...] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 83 9:59:47-EST (Fri) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: protected exchanges A while ago, there was a note here about protected exchanges (the particular topic was about local service from NJ--most of whose points do not require 1+ on long-distance calls--across area code boundaries). Would the following indicate that 255 is "protected" in Delaware? (If not, what extra info is needed?) 215-255 is local to 302-239 Hockessin and to 302-366,368,453,454,731,737,738 Newark. The Delaware calling instructions say that 1+ is required, although I had found that this was not necessary from 475 & 478. As far as I know, 1+ is required in Newark; don't know about Hockessin. If, from 302-731, I dial 1-255-xxxx, it is recognized as local call and thus does NOT go thru. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1983 1348-PST From: Wmartin at OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Local toll-free dial-in Regarding the comment in recommendation #3 in LSchwartz' message: Instead of just "offering" businesses a local toll-free dial-in where the business pays for the measured service of the caller, this should be the MANDATORY characteristic that distinguishes a "business" line from a "personal" one. This is exactly parallel with the use of Business-Reply Mail, a subject I have long been concerned with. It is obvious to me that a business should pay for all postage and, in this case, all telephone service expenses expended by its customers; this especially applies in the case of businesses dealing directly with the general public, like retailers and service firms. The only argument against this principle is that placing these costs on the business increases its cost of doing business; it must raise its rates to recover these costs. I have no quarrel with that, and I am willing to pay the higher rates if I do NOT have to pay the postage or telephone costs. The essential factor which makes this principle the only right way to go is the tax situation. The business' postage and telephone costs are tax deductible as a cost of doing business. My own postage and telephone costs are NOT so deductible. If I pay it, I am out the full amount. If the business pays it, it is out the same cost (essentially) LESS the tax benefit of the deduction! It costs the combined group (the businesses and their customers) LESS in total if the businesses pay ALL the fees and charge somewhat higher rates in consequence. With the computerized billing processes available to telcos now, this sort of thing should not only be easy to implement, but it should cost no more to charge the one end of the connection than the other. This is where the principle currently breaks down in postage -- the USPS takes the opportunity to stick businesses an extra two cents or so for each Business-Reply Mail item, over the regular postage, plus they charge an annual permit fee. These extra charges, which are not really justifiable, cause Business-Reply mail to cost more just because it is paid for at the receiving end instead of the sending end. (It should really be cheaper, since it is obvious that it is more economic to collect larger amounts in chunks from the businesses than it is to sell stamps one at a time and cancel them. However the USPS is hidebound by the past, and hopefully the telcos are better than that.) Anyway, this is exactly parallel to the telco situation, and the telco can just as easily bill the recipient instead of the caller. It is vital that the business is billed NO MORE than the individual would be for the same call. There should be a savings due to combining the charges all on the business bills; really the businesses should pay somewhat LESS. However, it is doubtful that this would get implemented. The important thing is that this situation is MANDATORY for ALL "business" telephone lines, so that there are no options in the situation. The businesses will gripe at first, but that will die down eventually. If it is optional, it will be perpetually a subject of contention. Get it done once and for all. Will Martin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Jan-83 13:37:41-PST,6408;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 26-Jan-83 13:32:28 Date: 26 Jan 1983 1332-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #9 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 27 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Business Vs. Residential Service Cheaper Calling Query - Long Distance Measured Service, Comments, Please Coin Phone Woes - Deposit Coins AFTER Dial? "Calling Card" Security - ? Calling American Bell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jan 83 22:56:55 EST (Sat) From: J. C. Pistritto <jcp@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> On the subject of business vs residential service: At the small company I am working for, (about 10 employees), I have noticed that the local telco, (Cheasapeake & Potomac Telephone), seems to charge more to businesses for the same services as it does residential customers. For instance, the line rate for a simple rotary dial instrument is approximately 20% higher than the listed rate in the local directory for residential service. Also, rented telephone equipment (in this case key equipment), seems to be unduly expensive for the relatively limited services offered. On the other hand, some of the higher-level equipment that larger companies use, (such as PBX systems and WATS services), seem to be fairly reasonably priced. Does this reflect Western Electric subsidization of the more modern equipment, or is the local telco just taking advantage of the high entry cost of digital equipment to rip off small businesses? -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 83 20:33:01 EST (Wed) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-TCP> Subject: cheaper calling Reply-To: ~smb.unc at UDel-TCP Can anyone suggest a cheap way for my parents in Brooklyn (212-251) to call my sister in Nassau Country (516-763)? MCI et al. don't help, because it's in-state. NY Bell has something called "Dial-A-Visit", which is a cheap way to call one number in-state; however, my mother was told that it doesn't apply to calls between NYC and the surrounding area; such calls are considered to be to your local calling area rather than toll calls. I've tried reading the tarriffs (there's an excerpt in at least the Manhattan phone book, all I have here), but I'm not enlightened. --Steve P.S. Please reply to me directly; I've received only one digest since the TCP/IP cutover (#3). Not that I'm certain what the address should be, though it's probably one of smb.unc@udel-relay or smb@unc.csnet or smb@unc.phonenet -- but there are reasonable odds that the header-munging code at Delaware will do the right thing as it passes this note on... ------------------------------ Date: Sat 22 Jan 83 22:19:50-PST From: Richard Furuta <Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA> Subject: Measured Service, comments, please cc: Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA I would like to solicit comments from readers of Telecom on the concept of measured local service. I had the experience of sitting in on a discussion with the director of our University's Telecommunications services. Also in the room was an employee of General Telephone. During the discussion, I heard the justification for going to measured local service (connect time) given several times as "it's only fair that people pay for what they use." I'm wondering if anyone has thought about that justification. On the face of it, it seems to be a truism. Is it? Does it conflict with the (apparently) desirable social good of universal telephone service? Are there technological innovations which make the notion of connect time charging irrelevant (much as satellite circuits make the concept of distance based charges less relevant for long distance). If time based rates are put into effect, I'd imagine that many of us will tend to make many shorter calls rather than single longer calls. How does the cost of maintaining a single connection over a long period of time compare with the cost of switching these several shorter calls (what are the comparative costs of connect time versus switching time)? Please send comments to me and I'll try to get a summary written up. --Rick ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 83 11:02:08 EST (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> Subject: deposit coins AFTER dial? On 378 & 642 prefixes here in Maryland (area 301), it says (on pay-phone local calls) to dial the number and wait for 2nd tone before depositing money. When does the receiving party hear any ringing? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 83 23:51:33-PST (Mon) From: Friedman%UCI@USC-ECL Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #8 I have obtained a "Calling Card" from Pacific Telephone that allows me to charge calls I make from pay phones. The number on the Calling Card consists of my area code followed by my phone number followed by four mysterious digits. My question is, Are these four digits some function of the other ten, or are they arbitrarily assigned, or what? Do operators have access to some database of valid numbers, or can the validity of the number be ascertained by some intrinsic property of the number itself (as in a parity code)? It would seem impractical to maintain a database of valid numbers that is checked upon each placing of a call, since the card is supposedly valid all over the world. On the other hand, if some intrinsic property of the number is the only determiner of the number's validity, the system does not seem too secure. Mike Friedman (friedman@uci) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1983 1039-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Calling American Bell It seems they now have an 800 number: 800 555-8111. I called to find out the price of a Model 2500 Desk Set: $61.95. Competetive with the consumer market. However, any business can order them wholesale for about $38.00. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Jan-83 11:29:49-PST,12975;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 29-Jan-83 11:29:16 Date: 29 Jan 1983 1129-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #10 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 30 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Calling From NYC To Long Island Trailing 4 Digits In A Calling Card Number Interstate Vs. Intrastate Calls Payphones And Calling Cards Calling Card Code An Important Announcement For Alabama Customers Alternatives To INWATS?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 1983 1557-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: Calling from NYC to Long Island To: smb.unc at UDEL-TCP Address: Kestrel Institute, 1801 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (415) 494-2233 I believe Sprint lets you call within state (a friend of mine says he's done it, but this was about a year ago or so). You might want to have your folks check them out. --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1983 1802-CST From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive at UTEXAS-20> Subject: Trailing 4 digits in a Calling Card Number Mike Friedman's query about the 4 digits on the end of the calling card number is something I've been wondering about too. For the reasons stated, maintaining a database is too impractical. I once made a calling card call from an area where I had to tell the operator my number rather than using the keypad. She told me that she would have to validate it, and I heard her as she pushed the digits of my phone number. Then a recorded voice came back and spoke the last four digits, which she compared with the ones I gave her. That immediately struck me as being a dumb way to do it. Suppose that somebody managed to figure out how to access that validation line. It would be easy to get full calling card digits for as many phone numbers as they cared to supply. A much safer procedure would be to require the entire calling card number, and then respond with a "Valid/Not Valid" message. Another interesting point is that Bell apparently changes the last four digits periodically. I recently received a new calling card which contained a different trailing 4-digit number than my original card. This implies that the mapping algorithm changes periodically, or that it is an encryption procedure in which the key changes periodically. It also implies that Bell is probably capable of accepting either the old or new sequence for some suitable overlap period. Again, I don't know what procedure is used for generating the 4 digits, but if I had been my job to design the system, I'd use a suitable encryption algorithm and encrypt some constant string using the phone number as the key, and then "normalize" the encrypted string to 4 digits if necessary. You could also do it the other way, by treating the phone number as the plaintext and using some constant key. The basic object of all this is simple: you want to prevent people from generating valid calling card numbers from random phone numbers. You have to assume that a villain might get possesion of many valid calling card #'s, so it needs to be secure enough that this wouldn't provide enough info to break the pattern. Clive P.S. If anybody has further INFO about how it's REALLY done, let us know. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 83 17:22:50-EST (Wed) From: Randall Gellens <randall.udel-cc-unixa@UDel-TCP> Subject: V3 #2 ------------------------------ Date: Wed Jan 5 10:58:03 1983 From: cca!dee@decvax.UUCP.Berkeley.ARPA Subject: re: interstate vs. intrastate Re: Randall Gellens argument that a state could take over jurisdication by defining an intrastate call as one with both instruments in the state. In our system, the Federal government has pre-eminent jurisdiction (i.e., if the Feds and a state get into an arguement, the Feds win 99.9+% of the time). Since local lines, local telephone exchanges, local instruments, etc., are clearly necessary to complete interstate calls, the Federal government would have no trouble asserting total jurisdiction of the telephone system. Only purely local systems with no interconnection to any interstate facilities would have any chance and I am sure that if the Federal government wanted to, it could take them over based on the argument that they affect interstate commerce, etc. The only thing that might really stand up to a concerted Federal effort would be a purely intrastate system owned, operated by, and serving the state government as a "sovereign" entity. The Supreme Court might keep federal hands off that. So, the reality is that state PUCs have jurisdiction over what the Federal Government / FCC lets them have and that's all. Donald Eastlake (dee@cca, decvax!cca!dee) ------------------------------ You are talking about the State not being able to rest control from the Feds -- but the Feds are ignoring intra-state calls. The alternative carriers are claiming that the calls are really interstate in order to avoid dealing with state PUC's. My point is that, given the Fed's vacuum, a state could step in and define any call between points within its boundaries is under its jurisdiction, and set tarrifs and taxes and such. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1983 0939-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Payphones and Calling cards Postpay phones are common in many areas of the world The called party usually hears the same tone you hear; i.e. the tone comes on AFTER the called party answers. This is used when the local phone system does not support coin return logic; i.e. if you put your coin in, you'll never see it again. In previous years, the Calling Card code was a function of the other ten digits. Now there is a nationwide, distributed database which TSPS automatically checks and which other operators have to manually check. If you'll look carefully at your card, there is one number used within World Numbering Zone 1 which contains the new P.I.N. Calls from other parts of the world have a separate number which contains a simple code which is changed once a year. In many states it is a crime to reveal the code. Please note that the new cards do not have an expiration date. This means that your P.I.N. need not change each year now. Also, if you lose your card, you should be able to get a new P.I.N. (I don't know what is planned for the international code.) The "telephone police" are very good at tracking down fraudulent use of Calling Cards. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 1983 0524-PST From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@USC-ECL Subject: Calling Card Code cc: friedman%UCI@USC-ECL The four "mysterious digits" at the end of your calling card number break down as follows: the first three of them are a code for something called the "Revenue Accounting Office" in Bell parlance -- this is the bureaucratic entity to which billings are ultimately sent so that the charge can appear on your monthly bill, and is a function (altho not a single-valued function -- there can be more than one RAO code for any given RAO) of the area code. In cases where multiple RAO codes exist for a given area code (generally the "denser" area codes -- those area codes with large numbers of central offices), the RAO code is a function of area code plus prefix. Here, again, the function is not one to one, but in the reverse direction: there can be multiple prefixes designated by the same RAO code. The RAO codes are changed annually on the calling card -- for example our Orange County, Calif., area code 714 RAO code in 1982 was 782 (the 82 is just coincidental); in 1983, it is 389. The fourth and last of the "mysterious digits" is a simple encoding of ONE of the digits of the telephone number: which one, specifically, changes from year to year, as well as the encoding schema itself. You are correct: the system is not very secure. It would not take much more than an examination of a small sample of calling card numbers (say, two dozen) to figure out at least some of the RAO codes for a given year and also to decode the fourth digit. However, since this system has been used since the introduction of the "Calling Card" system (known as the "Credit Card system" prior to this year), apparently Ma Bell is not concerned enough about it to tighten it up. I presume they reckon that the revenue lost through fraudulent use of deciphered Calling Card codes is too trivial to justify paying some cryptologist a consulting fee for constructing a tighter system! Since I would be happy to do it for them at premium rates, it must be the case that they lose next to nothing this way. ------------------------------ Date: 28-Jan-1983 15:34 From: "decwrl!RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta" at SU-Score Subject: An Important Announcement for Alabama Customers The Alabama Public Service Commission recently granted South Central Bell an increase of $52.5 million, effective January 11, 1983. Monthly access line charges for a one-party residence customer increased $1.75. One-party business access lines increased $3.50. Proportionately smaller increases apply to party line customers. Other changes in rates also occurred. For instance: - the charge for a coin telephone call increased from 10 cents to 25 cents - a call to Directory Assistance now costs 40 cents instead of 20 cents - the charge for local operator assistance (asking an operator to complete a call) will go from 20 cents to 50 cents - a charge is now applicable for asking an operator to verify a busy number. A 50 cent rate will be charged for verification while a $1.00 rate will be applied if an operator is asked to interrupt a call. - long distance charges were lowered for hearing- and speech-impaired customers who use non-voice equipment. In addition, the rates for service connection charges were affected as were charges for specialized channel services used primarily by businesses. Also effective are changes in other areas. First, charges for telephone installation work at a customer's home or office are now based on the actual time a technician spends doing the work instead of a fixed charge. They also include an amount that covers the cost of miscellaneous materials. This new procedure is called "Time and Materials" charging. In addition customers now have the option of buying any standard, Princess (R) or Trimline (R) telephones that are being rented from South Central Bell. This offer applies to single-line rotary dial and Touch-Tone (R) telephones, both desk and wall models, but not those behind complex systems such as key sets. It also includes some automatic dialers, the AutoMatic TelePhone (R) and the TeleHelper* products. Until May 10, these sets will be sold at special low prices. All customers will be receiving detailed information on this subject in an insert in their next bill. In the interim, residence customers can get information about the plan by calling, toll-free, 1-800-626-1700. Business customers can call 1-800-282-8883. Finally, a new charge, an Unrecovered Telephone Equipment Charge, will be applied when customers don't return or reuse their telephones upon moving or disconnecting service. *Trademark of AT&T Company South Central Bell ------------------------------ Date: 29 January 1983 02:04 EST From: Frank J. Wancho <FJW @ MIT-MC> Subject: Alternatives to INWATS?? Is there a service that provides INWATS at a better price structure than Bell? The table below is the monthly rate schedule for the target number in Detroit: Bell wants $74/mo. for two lines (we need only one)...note also that all times are the CALLER's local time... the numbers in parens are values for the lowest rate schedule - for phones in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska... Measured || 08:00-17:00 | 17:00-23:00 | 23:00-08:00 Time tiers || weekdays | weekday and | weekday nites (in hours) || (dollars/hr) | Sunday eves | all day Saturday ============||===============+===============+================= 00.0 - 15.0 || 20.35 (19.92) | 14.66 (14.34) | 9.70 (9.49) 15.1 - 40.0 || 18.59 (18.21) | 13.39 (13.12) | " 40.1 - 80.0 || 16.82 (16.48) | 12.12 (11.81) | " 80.1 - up || 14.90 (14.59) | 10.70 (10.20) | " --Frank ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 30-Jan-83 18:08:26-PST,5230;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 30-Jan-83 18:07:50 Date: 30 Jan 1983 1807-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #11 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 31 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Sprint - 212A Modems Calling Card Security Alternatives To Inward WATS AT&T 800 Service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jan 1983 at 1853-CST From: mknox@utexas-11 Subject: Sprint -- 212A I am a recent SPRINT user and fairly satisfied so far. One problem however. I cannot seem to use SPRINT for 212A long distance calls. The modem I am using (an antique MI**2) detects the tone and responds with the familiar 212A trash signal, but never sets the 'carrier detected' light. Apparently it is not able to synch up. Everything sounds o.k., plenty of volume. Works fine over Ma Bell. Ideas? ------------------------------ Date: Sat Jan 29 1983 14:18:27-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@Lbl-Csam> Subject: Calling Cards The "official" view of most operating companies toward calling cards is not to worry too much about card security until AFTER a problem occurs. My most recent card showed up in an unsealed envelope (apparently never sealed due to a mechanical defect.) I felt a bit insecure about this, and called my local PacTel office (where the ACD recordings now remind you to ask for your free calling card!) The rep asked me how many cards I had ordered. I told her just one. She then said that (obviously) I had nothing to worry about, since the card was still in there! It took me about five minutes to explain to her that anybody could just copy the numbers off the card and then start making calls. She then checked with her super, who informed her that they took no action on such situations unless I started actually getting billed for calls which weren't mine. THEN they'd be willing to give me a "fictitious number" card (not tied to my actual telephone number) and of course to remove the bad billings. From their standpoint, this is obviously a nice solution. It minimizes hassles with people wanting more secure cards, and no doubt is worth direct bucks as well -- since we can assume that many businesses and individuals who are heavy calling card users never have time to carefully check their bills for illicit calls. I must admit, however, that I've never had a problem getting such a call removed from my bill when I've brought it to their attention. The CTI (Central Toll Investigation) people work continually on tracking down violators (many of whom apparently are very much habitual). The losses are very significant (well, at least they would be to most companies) but are not terribly large compared with total revenues, of course. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 83 22:45:51-EST (Sat) From: Randall Gellens <randall.udel-cc-unixa@UDel-TCP> Subject: Alternatives to Inward WATS Many of the alternative carriers provide inward-wats type of service -- you receive an access code which you can distribute to people who want to call you. They will need, of course, a tone-dialing phone and the local number to reach the carrier. I don't think they need your phone number as well (ie, it is sufficient to call the carrier and enter the access code) but I could easily be wrong. As an example, some of the carriers provide the service as a method of reaching their billing or repair offices. It is cheaper for them that TPC WATS (which most of them maintain as well). I think SPRINT calls their service "IN-SPRINT". ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 1983 1602-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: 800 Service Unfortunately it is difficult for anyone else to offer a competitive service to AT&Ts 800 Service. AT&T has the advantage of having access to the local network at every single local exchange. It will be a long time before the competitors have this kind of access. If the goal is to reach customers in certain cities, FXs with the circuit provided by another carrier can save money, but the magnitude of the calling has to be quite high; someone who needs only one 800 Service line probably couldn't win on this. The reason AT&T requires you to have two lines is to reduce the amount of network time wasted when callers get a busy signal. On 800 Service, AT&T can demand that you increase the number of lines if there are too many busies. (They can on any other service, too, but their argument is better on 800 Service.) The rate is determined by the time where the 800 Service line is located, not by the caller's time. And you have to average the usage over all the lines to determine the rate you are charged; this forces your rate to be higher when you have a large number of lines but not a large amount of calling. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 27-Feb-83 16:26:10-PST,3684;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 27-Feb-83 16:24:47 Date: 27 Feb 1983 1624-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #12 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 28 February 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Administrivia (naturally!) Phone Loggers Touch Tone/Area Code 619 Fully Cut Over/High Volume Discounts 800 Prefixes Pacific Plantronics IN-WATS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Feb 1983 From: The Moderator (of course) <JSol at USC-ECLB> Subject: Administrivia (naturally!) There hasn't been a TELECOM digest in about a month. This is all of the traffic I have collected since the last digest. Due to a mailer bug it is possible that some mail has not been received. If you sent something that you haven't seen yet (and you aren't missing a digest) then you will have to resend it to me, Sorry. People are reporting that some of the digests appear garbled. There's not much I can do about this since the hetrogenous network topology doesn't leave much room to find the bugs, and of course nobody has any reasonable tools available to debug network software. The best I can hope to do at this point is to ask you to send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB and ask me to retransmit the digest. Please be sure to include the issue number. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 1983 1352-PST From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL> Subject: phone loggers cc: king at KESTREL Is there any device "out there" that monitors the line and logs phone numbers dialed, connections made or not made, and call durations? People who are suspicious about their phone bills ought to be able to get one of these (for approximately the price of a printing calculator) and plug it into their phone line. This may become especially important when there is "local metering". Dick ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 83 8:18:33 EST (Wed) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> cc: cmoore@Brl-Bmd.ARPA Subject: miscellanea There are some services available to pushbutton-phone users, including some bank stuff and after-hours recorded messages from IRS. (I have rotary dial, and I don't do enough of these at this time to justify pushbutton.) Area code 619 was being enforced by last night. (I.e., no more use of 714 for that area.) What high-volume services would be available for someone who works outside of his residence's local area and has to make some personal calls from work back there? ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 83 7:36:35 EST (Fri) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> cc: cmo 9-Mar-83 15:29:35-PST,14508;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 9-Mar-83 15:28:40 Date: 9 Mar 1983 1528-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #13 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 10 March 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: OCC Parity With ATT Japanese Phone Question Star Set/Plantronix NYC Area Code Split Basic Telephone Sales Request For Info - Functional PBX Fun With Cordless Phones & California Vacuum Cleaners --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Feb 27 1983 20:18:06-PST From: Dave Siegel <vortex!dave.lbl-csam@UDel-TCP Return-Path: <vortex!dave@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Subject: OCC PARITY WITH ATT A friend of mine who works for one of the large independent telcos in the area recently gave me some interesting details pertaining to the way TSPS will be handling the effects of the consent decree. As you may have heard, ATT Long Lines and the Operating Companies are to be separated. OCCs such as MCI, Sprint (GTE), WU, ITT and countless others to come must be given equal access to the Long Distance Business. The way this is going to be handled is as follows: Instead of dialing 1 + NPA + NNX + XXXX for a Long Distance call you may dial 10 + (Carrier Code) + NPA + NNX + XXXX. The Carrier Code will be a two digit number assigned to the common carriers doing business in your area. If you dial 1 + instead of 10 + the call will be routed via the default carrier. The default carrier will be Longlines but it might be whoever the customer assigns as default. ANI information from TSPS will be forwarded to the common carrier for billing. I wonder what happens when you dial through a common carrier you don't have an account with? Or maybe you won't need and account. I wonder if one will be able to choose which common carrier will be used on a Calling Card call? I imagine that OCCs like MCI will embrace this type of network connection since it will lessen the fraud associated with stolen account numbers. I wonder if the OCCs will be able to handle the load. It will be harder to blame the local telco for a bad access line like they do now. What will be the new excuse for being billed for a call completed? Previously the cop out was that the OCCs couldn't get the supervision information from the terminating central office. We will have to wait to find out. Dave ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1983 at 1226-PST Reply-To: dan at SRI-TSC Subject: Japanese phone question From: dan at SRI-TSC I saw an interesting phone at a local antique (aka "junk") show. It was an old, black, desk-style dial telephone, made by "NEC". There were no markings on it other than the NEC logo on the underside of the handset and on the body. And some handwritten Japanese pictograms on the paper insert in the middle of the dial. It looked like it might have been 10 or 20 years old, had an interesting "cup" around the microphone apparently for ambient noise reduction, and had three wires to attach it to the phone network. Two bells were visible through the holes in the bottom. Anyone know anything about Japan's phone network, and especially whether I could ever get this beast to work with Ma Bell? Or would it be cheaper and easier to just strip the insides and put in new workings? Please reply to "dan@sri-tsc" -- I'm not on this list. Thanks! -Dan (dan@sri-tsc) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1983 1556-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS> Subject: Plantronix, etc. Sigh. They still want $163.60 for the StarSet. Does anyone know of a cheaper source of these things? I'd love to replace my old black over-the- head klunker. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1983 15:42 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Basic Telephone Sales cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Refering to Washington Post, 2/2/83: The C & P Telephone Co asked permission yesterday to sell basic telephone equipment to residential and one-line business customers in the District of Columbia and Virginia. Prices would be the same as those now charged in Maryland, where equipment sales to customers began Jan. 13, a company representative said. The proposal, which is an outgrowth of the government-ordered reorganzation of the company, includes three basic types of telephones in both rotary dial and Touch-Tone: the standard desk or wall set, Trimline phones and Princess sets. Prices for equipment sold from inventory would range from $34.95 to $74.95, according to the petition. Prices for equipment on customer premises would be discounted during first 90 days of the sale, ranging from $19.95 to $54.95. After the sale, this equipment would be increased by $15 to $20 for each instrument, the company said. C & P asked the Virginia State Corporation Commission to allow the plan to take effect March 2. In the District, the effective date of the plan would be set by the Public Service Commission. C & P officials pointed out that customers who don't want to buy equipment would be able to continue leasing. <Contributor's Note: If any customer is to buy, he is to be advised to buy any Touch-Tone instrument since rotary dial will become obsolote for future features on telephone services. Also, any of you have similar announcement in your state? Are such price ranges same ? <LJ>> ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 83 15:19:13 EST (Wed) From: smb.mhb5b at UDel-TCP Subject: NYC area code split Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin The local politicians in New York are very upset about the forthcoming area code split (into 212 and 718). Many, especially those in Brooklyn and Queens, feel that the image of their boroughs as part of the city will be hurt by this; some are complaining that the phone company shouldn't be allowed to do this without regulatory assent, and are talking about getting legislation passed to block the split.... Tell me -- did this kind of nonsense go in California, too? --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 83 15:16:57 EST (Fri) From: Robert Shnidman (VLD/VMB) <robert@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> Subject: Request for info Can anyone tell me about the availability, sources of supply, and/or costs of a small PBX system with the following capability: An outside caller can call in to the system and then by giving a code avail himself to a special outgoing trunk (such as a WATS line) from the PBX. Please use computer mail to me directly as I am not on the net. Thanks. P. S. A source for information on the above would also be appreciated, if the information is not at hand. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1983 1733-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Fun with Cordless Phones & California vacuum cleaners. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL n083 1726 11 Feb 83 BC-CORDLESS 2takes (Art en route to picture clients) By PETER KERR c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - As the telephone industry in the United States changes and more people buy their own phones, cordless models, which allow users to wander as they speak, are capturing the fancy of a growing number of Americans. As many as 2.4 million sets may be sold in 1983, according to an industry source. Consumers, distributors and manufacturers tell tales of both electronic wizardry and electronic woe. Lawyers describe the deals they arranged while basking on the beach. Mothers recount the calls they answer while feeding their babies. However, technology buffs repeat rumors about cordless telephone raiders - criminals who are said to prowl suburban roads in search of dial tones that enable them to place long-distance calls. Some owners complain of interference from household appliances and the cordless phones of neighbors. In one case last year, according to the GTE Corp., a California vacuum cleaner dialed a nearby cordless telephone by generating electrical impulses through the house wiring. This caused chagrin in the offices of the local phone company, a GTE subsidiary, and surprise in the home of the physician who owned the two appliances. ''There were some problems that had to be worked out, but they are being solved,'' said Robert L. Petkun, vice president in charge of marketing for Phone-Mate Inc. of Torrance, Calif., one of several dozen companies that distribute cordless phones. ''Business now is somewhere between fabulous and amazing.'' The cordless telephone's attraction, those who deal in them say, is that owners need not miss a call while they are in the garden, at poolside or even in the bathtub. The product is also a boon to invalids in wheelchairs and to the elderly who cannot rush to a ringing phone. Petkun said that on the basis of a mail survey of 40,000 households made by Industrial Market Research, a Chicago concern, sales of cordless phones grew from 50,000 in 1980 to slightly more than a million in 1982, with 700,000 sold in the last three months of the year. Petkun predicted that 2.4 million units would be sold in 1983. Spokesman for other companies dealing in telephone equipment, while offering different sales figures - some higher, some lower - agreed that the product had experienced dramatic growth in the last two years and foresaw a potential market of more than 20 million households, second only to conventional phones. Seventy-nine million American households have phones. ''The cordless phones are virtually a sellout in PhoneCenters across the country,'' said Charles Wright, a spokesman for American Bell, the new subsidiary of the American Telephone and Telegraph Co., which operates 461 retail telephone stores that offer three cordless models. 'This year cordless phones are taking off,'' said Peggy Odenbach, telephone editor of Mart Magazine, a consumer electronics publication. ''With the deregulation of the telephone industry, people see they can buy their own phones, and cordless phones are catching their eyes.'' Cordless telephones come in two parts, a base station and a handset, that communicate byradio waves. The base station, which is attached to the regular telephone circuit by a jack, runs on household current. A rechargeable battery operates the handset, which, except for those with antennas, looks like a regular telephone receiver and can be clipped on or, in smaller models, slipped into a pocket. The handset can receive and place telephone calls at ranges of 50 to 700 feet (700 feet is the maximum under Federal Communications Commission regulations) depending on the model. Most are manufactured abroad and they generally range in price from $100 to $400. Extra handsets may be added. ''I sit on a gorgeous beach and look at the Pacific Ocean while I do business,'' said Robert Rifkind, a Los Angeles lawyer whose base station is plugged into his seaside home. In Washington, Walter Sommers, proprietor of the Fourways Restaurant, a converted four-story 1890s mansion, had contemplated installing 40 jacks so that patrons could have telephone service at their tables. ''We bought two cordless telephone units instead,'' he said. ''They were less expensive and, it seemed, more luxurious.'' In Manhattan, Victoria Horstmann, a free-lance writer, was worried about her infant son's habit of rummaging through closets and drawers while she was on the phone. A cordless phone relieved her fears that she might lose track of the child or miss an editor's call. ''There's only one problem,'' Mrs. Horstmann said. ''Sometimes the phone will ring and nobody's on the line.'' Her complaint underlines the cordless-phone industry's problem. Someone in an apartment near Mrs. Horstmann may also have a cordless phone operating on the same frequency. Mrs. Horstmann could probably exchange her unit for one that operates on a slightly different frequency or channel. But the FCC allows only five channels for cordless phones, which means that any two neighbors have a 1-in-5 chance of interfering with each other. If large numbers of units are sold to people in apartment houses or closely situated private homes, owners of cordless phones may find themselves picking up neighbors' rings or conversations more and more. The Electronic Industries Association, a trade group, has asked the FCC for at least 25 channels to alleviate the problem, but the agency is not expected to grant act until late this year at the earliest. Channels are not the only difficulty. In theory, at least, it is possible to drive through a neighborhood with a handset until a dial tone is heard and make long-distance calls that would be billed to the cordless phone's owner. While talk of such ''telephone raiders'' is heard among the electronically sophisticated, their existence is difficult to substantiate. ''Such thievery may have happened in the past, but I don't think it is happening now,'' said Sydney Bradfield, an electronics engineer with the FCC's Office of Science and Technology. Noting that some newer models employ coded signals to prevent such abuse, he added: ''The FCC feels that the technology has really increased the security of the products. It is not a major problem.'' A problem does arise when certain motorized household appliances are plugged into the same electrical system as a cordless phone, affecting it by electromagnetic impulses. In a case last year, the General Telephone Co. of California discovered that ''bizarre numbers'' were being dialed every Thursday morning from the home of a physician in Banning, Calif. According to Tom Mattausch, a spokesman for GTE, the house, where an early model of the cordless telephone was in use, was vacuum-cleaned then. ''The vacuum cleaner never succeeded in placing a phone call,'' Mattausch said, ''but it sure made them curious at the central office.'' nyt-02-11-83 2038est *************** ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 14-Mar-83 15:51:48-PST,9482;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 14-Mar-83 15:50:54 Date: 14 Mar 1983 1550-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #14 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 15 March 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: PBX Dial-Through Local Charges; Ring-Then-Busy 10+ Long Distance Dialing FYI - MCI To Purchase 150,000 Km Of Single-Mode Fiber Usage Sensitive Pricing Of Telephone Service (Organizations) Measured Local Service (Again) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Mar 1983 0919-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> To: robert@BRL-BMD Subject: PBX dial-through Most PBX systems offer a feature called DISA (Direct Inward System Access or some call it Direct Inward Station Access). In any case, such a service usually uses something like the following scenario: Caller: Dials in DISA: Answers into dial-tone Caller: Enters special code If the code is invalid, an error tone is played. If it is valid, another dial-tone is played and the caller is given complete control of a 'station', perhaps analogous to a PTY device. Some systems allow a special sequence of touch-tones to dump the outgoing call, or another to flash the 'switchhook'. Information on this type of service can most often be obtained from the PBX manufacturer. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 83 14:11:43 EST (Thu) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld.arpa> Subject: local charges; ring-then-busy The following pertains to earlier discussions on message-unit plans in general. TODAY'S TOPIC: A Plan to 'Measure' Local Telephone Calls WASHINGTON - Despite the resistance of consumer groups and state regulators, telephone companies across the country are trying to apply their long-distance pricing procedures to local phone service. Local calls would be ''measured'' or billed on the basis of time-of-day, day-of-week, the length of a call and distance - just like long-distance. Also, how's this grab you? I tried a local call in Delaware last nite to 302-658 exchange (ESS), got at most 1 ringing signal, and then it clicked over to the (slow) busy signal! The operator I called said it indicated some full circuits (a condition I would expect to get fast-busy) after trying the call himself. (The line I was calling was clear, as was verified.) [I have seen this before. In some situations ESS will do this when it needs more time to actually do the verification, such as in a hunt group of more than 50 lines. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 1983 14:33:42-??? (Thursday) From: rsi!forrest%Shasta@SU-SCORE Subject: 10+ Long distance dialing Of course, what would be extremely powerfull from a consumers point of view would be the ability to specify a carrier code which specifies an "auction" is to take place, and that the call is to be placed via the lowest cost carrier based upon a estimate of the number of minutes the call will take. Forrest Howard ------------------------------ Date: 11-Mar-83 00:27 PST From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-3 Subject: FYI - MCI to purchase 150,000 km of Single-Mode Fiber Under an agreement announced early in February, Siecor of Hickory, N.C., will supply 150,000 km of cabled single-mode optical fiber to MCI Communications. Corning Glass Works, Wilmington, N.C. will supply the fiber. The transaction, estimated at $75-100 million, is the largest domestic single-mode cable order, according to Siecor. The contract announcement came three weeks after Northern Telecom disclosed it would provide 100,000 km of cabled single-mode fiber to MCI. ==================================================== I have sent the above item for the readership's speculation on MCI entry into the use of fiber optic technologies. --Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sat Mar 12 1983 20:18:36-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@lbl-csam> Subject: Usage Sensitive Pricing of Telephone Service (Organizations) I've recently received some queries about the various organizations involved in both sides of the telephone "Usage Sensitive Pricing" issue. Outside of the telcos themselves, there are various telephone industry groups involved with the pro-usage-sensitive side of the question. The interested reader should investigate the last few years of "Telephone Engineering and Management" magazine for more details. On the other side of the issue, the only organization I know of that takes the "consumer" viewpoint on telephone rate proposals (in California) is called T.U.R.N. (Toward Utility Rate Normalization). I believe they are a very small and understaffed group -- I'm not sure how effective they can be or have been. They're based in the S.F. Bay area. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 13 March 1983 1802-mst From: Paul Schauble <Schauble @ M.PCO.LISD.HIS> Subject: Measured local service (again) This argument occurred to me while preparing a paper on another subject. I would appreciate comments both on the technical accuracy of the description and on the validity of the viewpoint. I am now typing this note on my home terminal. It is an Ann Arbor Ambassador connected to a Honeywell Multics at 1200 baud using Vadic data sets. I am typing at about 40 words/minute or 4 characters/sec. Of course, with stopping to think, my average is only about half that. Host responses are minimal. I have previously estimated that the AVERAGE bandwidth I use for an editing session is less than 300 baud, half duplex equivalent. Let's take that number for discussion. So, I have a 300 bps stream coming out of my terminal and going to my data set. It is there converted to analog audio, constant carrier, bandwidth about 400 to 4000 cps. That goes by dedicated wire pair to my central office. At the central office, an ESS system, my signal gets digitized into two 56000 uni-directional bit streams. The reasoning behind this is that the phone call is expected to be voice and full duplex. The characteristics of voice are well known. Normally only one person speaks at a time. There are often pauses where neither person is speaking. To conserve channel capacity, TPC will multiplex these digital channels using a technique very like packet voice. I will lose my channel whenever I stop speaking and that bandwidth will be given to someone else. So, of this total 112000 bps capacity, a normal voice call will use notably less than half. None of this multiplexing works for data calls! My data set never stop sending carrier, therefore the line is never silent and I never get switched off of my channel. Same for the other direction. Those two channels are mine full time, so my load is several times that of a voice call. My signal is sent to the central office serving my computer using this technique. The channels used are computer quality high-speed data channels with error control. At the receiving central office, my signal is switched and converted back to analog audio. This goes by dedicated wire pair to the computer center, where it is received by a modem and converted back to a 300 baud digital data stream and sent to a computer. So, to send an effective 300 baud, I am dedicating two 56000 baud channels or 112000 baud, and operating at a .268% efficiency. In other words, I am buying almost 400 times the bandwidth I need. Is there a better way? Yes. TPC has even test marketed it. Using the better way, I get a digital connection into my house and connect my terminal to it. My data is then carried by well known packed data techniques to the computer center where it is given to the computer in digital form, having never been encoded into analog audio. I have a box replacing my modem that provides line drivers and line control. This should be a wash in all respects, since I don't think this box would be any more expensive than the modem I presently have. Nor should the local loop be any more expensive than a second telephone line. I am personally very convinced that this is going to happen, probably within the next 10 years. Already TPC is talking about it. Several cable TV firms are talking about it. It will happen. Now, what does this have to do with measured service? Just this. My data call is a heavy load on the phone system. Data calls have long holding times and a heavy channel load. Data calls are one of the major targets of local measured service. TPC wants me to pay for what I use. Or do they? No, they want me to pay for 400 times what I use. If I could get the direct digital connection I described, and reach my computer using it, and get charged by character or by packet like Tymnet or Telenet does, I would happily buy it. In the meantime, since TPC won't sell me that service, they are saying I must use 400 times the service I need or want, by their choice, not mine, and then pay for it. And to that, I object vigorously. Comments? Paul Schauble Schauble at MIT-Multics ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 15-Mar-83 19:54:25-PST,2981;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 15-Mar-83 19:53:57 Date: 15 Mar 1983 1953-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #15 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 16 March 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: MCI Fiber Optics Purchase GTE "Demon Dialer" Direct Digital Connections ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Mar 83 20:35:53 EST From: Chuck Weinstock <Weinstock%TARTAN-20@CMU-CS-C> Subject: MCI Fiber optics purchase It is common knowledge (at least among rail buffs) that MCI intends to string circuits utilizing fiber optics along the northeast corridor right of way owned by Amtrak, as well as along the right of way of CSX (a railroad holding company whose properties are in the Southeast, Northeast and Midwest. They intend to shift substantial traffic from microwaves to these channels. The railroads will share usage for their internal signalling needs. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 83 17:56:59 PST (Monday) From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: GTE "Demon Dialer" cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Didn't we just have this big discussion about how MCI, Sprint, etc., can't distinguish between busy, no answer, and call completion, until they get TSPS supervision, or whatever it's called? Then how come this month with my General Telephone phone bill I get a brochure pushing their "Demon Dialer": "$99.95 - Stores up to 93 phone#s, up to 55 of up to 32 digits. - Listens for and detects both dial tones and computer access tones. - Redials busy numbers repeatedly at high speed until it hears the phone ring! - Automatically redials unanswered numbers every 10 minutes for up to 10 hours! - Plugs into any modular jack in seconds. order toll-free 1-800-352-5151" Is this a total crock or what? --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 14 March 1983 2320-mst From: Paul Schauble <Schauble @ M.PCO.LISD.HIS> Reply-to: Schauble%M.PCO.LISD.HIS@MIT-Multics Subject: Direct digital connections My last message contained the observation that someday soon we could expect direct digital connections into the telephone network for home computers and terminals. The basic argument is that using an analog audio channel to carry a low rate data stream is too inefficient and too expensive. So, any thoughts on when this will happen? When will I be able to get a direct digital connection to a nationwide switched network from my home at a cost comparable to that of a second voice line? Guesses? Also, what will that connection look like? Does anyone have any reason to think that it won't be X.25? Paul ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 16-Mar-83 22:00:43-PST,6959;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 16-Mar-83 21:59:31 Date: 16 Mar 1983 2159-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #16 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 18 March 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Ringback Detection And Home Data Services Test Market For Digital Access Line Slow Digital Connection Pricing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Mar 83 21:32 PST (Tuesday) From: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Tapping into TPC's digital transmissions To: Paul Schauble <Schauble@M.PCO.LISD.HIS.ARPA> Your observations about the planned analog/digital extortion seem exactly right to me. I know of one company in Upstate New York that was (they just went bankrupt because of inadequate capitalization) planning on providing exactly the service you were asking about. They were planning on bringing digital right from the CO into your home or business and vice-versa. This seems possible in Rochester NY because Rochester Telephone is a private company and is small enough to convince about these things. In talking with the president of the (ex)company, I also discovered that a few other businesses are planning on doing similar things on the scale of PBXs rather than entire regions. Any other rumors? -- Dan -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 15 1983 21:18:11-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@lbl-csam> Return-Path: <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Subject: Ringback Detection and Home Data Services A couple of points regarding issues in recent digests: 1) Quite a few modern telephone devices can detect a steady dialtone, and some can even "attempt" to detect the rhythmic ringing tone, particularly where ESS precision ringback tone is present. Some devices even attempt to determine when voice signals are present on the line. However, most such detection systems (with the exception of dialtone detection, which is pretty simple) are "hit or miss" in nature, and may not represent a "chargeable" call in any case. Calls may be answered before enough tone has been present to establish the presence of a ringback sequence, or calls may "ring" into various sorts of recorded announcements. The Special Information Tones that eventually will be present on most recordings (three tones at the start of the message) will help this situation a bit, but problems will still exist. For a cheapo dialer mechanism, simple detection techniques may be adequate. They are not sufficient for "common carriers" who are actually charging people for long distance services. Of course, their current techniques, which mainly consist of charging for all calls that last longer than 30-60 seconds or so, is even worse! 2) I wouldn't sit around holding my breath for "cheap" home data services. Without going into too much detail, there seem to really only be two "data" oriented services that would be installable in homes in the near to middle future: a) Very low bandwidth signalling systems -- mainly for burglar/ fire alarm purposes. b) Expensive packet data connections (e.g. into the "AIS" network). These services are very much oriented toward businesses with LOTS of data to move. They are not cheap. I know of no current plans to offer any "inexpensive" data services of the sort the "home" user might desire or could afford. I might add that comparing data service cost with the "cost of a second voice grade line" may not be a terrific comparison -- the way things are going, that simple voice line will soon no longer be "inexpensive", at least not in comparison to current rates. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 16 March 1983 13:32 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #15 Beginning in the summer of 1983, residents of Coral Gables Florida will be able to get a digital access line in their homes which provides a 4.8 kbps data link to a packet switch. The protocol on the data link will be a version of the X.25 link protocol called LAPC, proposed by AT&T There will be a telco owned box which sits on the user's premises and mediates between the user's CPE and the access link. This box will probably present an RS 232 interface or an X.21 style interface to the user. How long it will take for this service to be available everywhere is anyone's guess. Probably 7-10 years. Starting in 1986 you may be able to get a digital interface which provides both circuit switched and packet switched service at data rates up to 64 kbps. Again, that will come in very slowly, not being available everywhere beforethe year 2000. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 1983 0822-PST From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL> Subject: slow digital connection pricing cc: KING at KESTREL It doesn't seem likely to me that a digital connection to a subscriber for the purpose of carrying low speed traffic is likely in the near future. Without adequate knowledge I surmise that most of the cost of a phone number is the cost of the wire and of the port into the switching system, and that much of the cost of maintaining a connection is a fraction of the cost of making the switching system not block for N connections. As the average amount of time per month used by a subscriber increases N must increase. None of this relates to the bit rate. (It is possible to envision a device that will switch low-speed calls at a slightly lower cost than a full audio quality signal, but it's hard to see how it would be much cheaper. Yes, I realize that a "connection" is actually multiplexed in ESS, but I still doubt that there is much money to be saved by lowering the bit rate.) Switching and bandwidth (within a building) are reasonably cheap these days; it seems to me that providing a low-cost low-bit-rate connection would be similar to designing an electric clock to use 2.5 watts instead of the usual five in order to save electricity. It DOES strike me a likely that phone companies will offer a digital connection that comes closer to using the full capabilities of the channels; say 19.2KB or even 56KB. It would then become possible for private multiplexor companies to grow up in industrial parks and large buildings. Does anyone know how much of the long distance network is digital? The possibility of usage charges for local phone service makes packet radio sound really attractive. Regional Ethernet over the airwaves, anyone? Dick ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 23-Mar-83 19:48:36-PST,11348;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Mar-83 19:47:14 Date: 23 Mar 1983 1947-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #17 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 24 March 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Digital Service Into The Home Home Digital Data Services KP FWD And RING FWD, Anyone? Phone Company Line Utilization : Voice VS. Data Why Go Measured? - Fewer Interruptions DEMON Dialer(r) Slow Digital Connection pricing Query Re Modem-Less Data Communication ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Mar 83 23:07:10 PST (Wed) From: sun!gnu (John Gilmore) Full-Name: John Gilmore Subject: Digital service into the home I recently got a report of hearings held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The chairman, Bob Packwood of Oregon, wants to extend First Amendment protection to electronic media, including broadcast TV, cable, radio, as well as e.g. Washington Post on Teletext. Part of the argument is that spectrum space is not the scarce resource it was originally thought to be. In that vein the committee heard testimony from various people, one of whom was Dr. Solomon J. Buchsbaum, executive VP of Bell Labs. Two paragraphs of his testominy relate to digital phone connections to homes: "Although services such as this [digital voice, fax, video, etc -- JCG] are not yet widely available, the technology to provide them exists. Their deployment awaits market opportunities and the availability of capital. "In 1970, about 40 million of the 60 million lines in the Bell System could have supported 56 kilobits/second digital capability, and, in 1980, 50 million lines. By 1990, it is expected that as many as 110 million of an expected 130 million lines will have access to 56 or 64 kilobits/second capability." Oops, there's one earlier relevant paragraph: "Today's integrated circuit technology is making it economical to place electronics in the local loop -- the pair of wires connecting the telephone subscriber to the telephone company's switching center. The introduction of electronics leads to exciting new capabilities through the use of digital carrier facilities, similar to T-carrier, in the loop. Originally, digital systems were used to reduce the number of physical wire pairs required to serve several customers; now they also provide the means to bring digital transmission directly to the customer premises." You, too, can get this report by writing to: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington DC 20510 and asking for the hearings on "Electronic Media and the First Amendment". There's a lot of interesting reading in there. John Gilmore, Sun Microsystems ------------------------------ Date: Thu Mar 17 1983 22:19:00-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@lbl-csam> Return-Path: <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Subject: home digital data services Just to clarify the issue -- there are certainly a few home digital data "testbeds" that will be appearing in the near future. However, I don't believe that any of these are being realistically priced, and so I'll stand by my statement that when data services become generally available, they will be priced for businesses with substantial data needs, not the home user. Regardless of what the companies may claim, testbed services are almost never priced in a realistic manner and are usually heavily subsidized by the company conducting the "tests". --- Regarding radio techniques: there are a number of companies planning to offer radio-based data services, mostly using MDS and other microwave technologies. All of the plans that I have seen to date are oriented toward businesses with lotsa bucks. There isn't one hell of alot of spectrum left for services that could be implemented with relatively inexpensive equipment. Ham radio packet radio is fine for non-commercial use -- but this does NOT include calling into your work computer for a couple of hours of programming, and there are other restrictions as well. Cellular radio techniques present some possibilities, but I don't think the current implementations being planned include general purpose data services of the sort we'd probably desire. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 83 19:06:53 PST (Fri) From: D.jlapsley@Berkeley Subject: KP FWD and RING FWD, anyone? I was looking at the keyshelf (keyboard) layout of the 100B TSPS console in the book "Engineering and Operations in the Bell System," and I noticed some interesting keys. There is a KP FWD and KP BACK key, which corresponds to keypulse forward and back, respectively. However, there are also some keys labeled RING FWD and RING BACK. What is the difference between KP FWD and RING FWD? It is my understanding that RING BACK will cause you phone to ring if it is pressed and you are "in" the operator's position. More than that, if you pick up the phone while it is ringing, you hear a 90V ringing signal across the line. Very strange. Any ideas? Phil Lapsley (d.jlapsley@Berkeley) ------------------------------ Date: 20 March 1983 16:11 EST From: Doug Humphrey <DIGEX @ MIT-AI> Subject: Phone Company line utilization : Voice VS. Data I was reading something a while ago re: the way that the Telephone co. multiplexes voice. When using a Bell 103 style modem, you do not use any more channel space than a voice conversation does (as implied). Bell operating companies (them that were) do not multiplex anything!!! All local exchanges are direct cut-through be they ESS or crunch-bar. [Don't forget Step-By-Step! --JSol] AT&T long lines does not stat mux the voice either, they use freq. division multiplexing (on analog lines yet!). The only digital multiplexing is done on tT1/T1c/T2/T3 channel banks, which are usually used for span lines. And these are straight TDM, not statistical mux'ed. For long distance services such as MCI and SPRINT, the gentleman is correct, as they commonly use STATISTICALY MUX'ED HALFDUPLEX. This is because they don't have the channel space of Long Lines, and they don't even claim to be able to carry voice with any degree of clarity. As for digital local transmission, this is a great idea, but it has no plot. Most local phone companies (and all Bell companies) do not have digital switches, so they have to install special equipment for digital (and you need a DSU (digital service unit) at the subscriber end for interface). As an example, a digital line (DDS) from Rosslyn, Va. to Rockville, Md (12 air miles) follows this path: Subscriber to local central office 4 wire (3 wire miles) central office to Arlington, Va. service center (4 wire miles) Service center to Wash, D.C. data hub (6 wire miles) Wash. D.C. data hub to Maryland data hub (10 wire miles) Maryland data hub to Rockville central office (4 wire miles) Rockville central office to subscriber (4 wire miles). All of these lines are 4 wire because digital signals cannot go two ways on one pair at the same time (unlike analog signals). this line travels 31 wire miles for 12 air miles, and costs $437.68 per month plus a gross^ ammount for installation. An equivalent private analog line (3002 type circuit c2 conditioning) is only $240 per month and 24 wire miles, and both types of lines will support 9600 bps data. I am sorry for the long message, but I thought that this needed clarification. Carl Zwanzig [CZWANZIG @ DIGEX] via DIGEX @ MIT-DMS Fred Bauer TROLL @ MIT-ML Doug Humphrey DIGEX @ MIT-DMS ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 1983 at 1354-PST (Sunday) From: tekmdp!laurir.Tektronix@Rand-Relay Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #6 Why the concern about "volunteer community service groups"? If a measured rate system will decrease the number of times my dinner is interrupted because someone wants to sell me light bulbs, I'm all for it! -- Andrew Klossner (laurir.tektronix@rand-relay) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1983 1118-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Subject: DEMON Dialer(r) I just received the latest North Supply catalog update, and it contained a description of the DEMON Dialer. Since somebody already printed such a description, I won't type in the whole thing. Knowing even a little about telephone systems and the way they operate, many of us suspected that there was something they weren't telling us about this device. On the one hand, they say it installs at any modular jack position, and on the other, that it will operate with all the phones in the house. This dialer features easy modular installations. @i{If dialer control of all phones in a home or office is desired, series installation is required.} That is a quote from the north catalog description. This would indicate to me that the product may actually work; not be a crock, but I suspect it will do something like the following: I pick up the phone and hear a C/O dialtone. I dial a DEMON Dialer speed dialing code. The dialer seizes the line from me, hangs it up, and redials the number connecting me when it is done. Not too bad, but perhaps a little slow. I still like my ESS-provided speed calling. The device is made by ZOOM Telephonics, North Catalog numbers: S-450496......................Model 93H DEMON Dialer, Tone S-450495.......Model 176T DEMON Dialer W/Series Jack, Tone I don't have their prices yet. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 23 March 1983 04:00 est From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: slow digital connection pricing Reply-To: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston) Videotex is the most likely motivating force for Telco to provide digital connections. But then it might instead by the local cable company. The question is whether these services will be so tuned for the videotex offering that they will be useless otherwise. It is also unclear whether Videotex is viable given that most service I have read about a so meager compared to what is already available in the computers sold at toy stores. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 83 07:47:33 PST (Wed) From: npois!npoiv!harpo!ihps3!ihuxx!robert1@Berkeley Subject: Query re Modem-less data comm Postmark: Robert.L.Duncan-55242 -ih6c520 Postdate: Wed Mar 23 09:30:40 1983 Does anyone know of products/techniques providing modemless communication from the terminal interface? I seem to recall a company that provides a system to do this, but I can't recall the name/technique. Perhaps I saw it mentioned in bell.compete? Please send guesses/pointers to: Robert Duncan ihuxx!robert1 Bell Labs, Naperville IL Winners will be announced by net mail. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 25-Mar-83 21:35:40-PST,3037;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 25-Mar-83 21:34:55 Date: 25 Mar 1983 2134-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #18 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 26 March 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Telex-ing Reply: Phone Company Line Utilization : Voice Vs. Data Why 56kbit AND 64kbit -- Trivia Question Answered ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Mar 22 16:33:14 1983 Subject: Telex-ing We are interested in the possibility of sending and receiving telex material under Unix. Any ideas? Would it be possible to use a telex link under uucp? Would it be possible/legal to forward FYI information on USENET? P. Tucker Withington Automatix Incorporated ...decvax!genradbolton!linus!vaxine!ptw (617) 667-7900 x2044 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 1983 0940-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: Phone company line utilization : Voice vs. Data Please refer to the following: 1. Brady, P. T., "A technique for investigating onn-off patterns of speech", Bell System Technical Journal XLIV, (1), January 1965, pp 1-22 2. Miedema & Schachtman, "TASI quality - Effect of speech detectors and interpolation", Bell System Technical Journal, July 1962, pp 1455-1473 These documents describe the work done to develop the TASI (Time Assignment Speech Interpolation) technique now widely in use on medium and long distance carriers. It DOES stastically multiplex! <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 83 01:55:43 PST (Fri) From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Why 56kbit AND 64kbit -- trivia question answered Talking to a phoney friend (Bell Labs PBX designer) last night he mentioned the reason that both 56kbit and 64kbit capacities keep getting tossed around. When the T-1 carrier was designed they had so much bandwidth available. They divided it up into X channels of 64Kbits each. (He told me X but I forget.) They had some extra bandwidth for synchronization and such outside this allocation. Well, later in the project they realized that they needed a leetle more synchronization -- so they stole the low- order bit of every 6th channel! Rather than transmitting 8-bit samples at 8k samples/sec they were transmitting 7-bit samples for a total of 7*8k bits/sec. So, as your call goes thru various T-1 facilities, it has a 5-in-6 chance of getting thru with all 8 bits, and a 1-in-6 chance of dropping the low bit. The more sites the call goes thru, of course, the more certain the dropping. But look on the bright side...unlike analog, once the bit is gone the situation never gets worse no matter HOW many sites you go thru... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Apr-83 08:39:16-PST,16631;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Apr-83 08:38:31 Date: 1 Apr 1983 0838-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #19 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 2 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Clarification - Stat Muxing Product Info - DEMON Dialer(r) Pricing Query - Telex And TWX Telephone Purchase Prices--Washington Query Reply - Some TSPS info Verfication Of Third Number Calls From Public Phones FCC Ruling Info - Access Charges Technical Query - Multi-Device Hookups Response Query - Access Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Mar 1983 1048-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Stat muxing AT&T uses stat muxing exclusively on undersea cable. It is not used anywhere in the domestic network. Articles in the Bell Labs publications do not mean that the technology described is in use in the network. The phone company implements its systems in the real world, under real world marketing considerations. The equipment to do TASI is not cost effective on terrestrial circuits. Newer TASI equipment is now available which makes it cost effective for END-USERS to use TASI over leased circuits. This is usually only the case for very long haul (e.g. Massachusetts to Colorado or Puerto Rico) where the TARIFFED price of the circuit makes the circuit much more expensive than the cost to the carrier to provide the service. ------------------------------ Date: 24 March 1983 00:09 EST From: Mitch Wolrich <MITCHW @ MIT-MC> Subject: DEMON Dialer(r) To: MERRITT @ USC-ISIB Remailed-Date: 28 Mar 1983 0959-PST Remailed-From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> The address of Zoom Telephonics is: Zoom Telephonics 122 Bowdoin Street Boston, MA 02108 (617) 523-6281 DEMON Dialer Model 176T Quantity 1-3 $200, Greater than 4, $121 (I have used one of these, they aren't bad, but Ma Bell speed dialing is better and you are correct about how they work; you type in a speed dialing code, it seizes your line and does the retries, BTW, you also have to leave your phone off the hook... Thats how it signals you to pick up your phone when it suceeds, It make a LOUD audible noise.. They at least should have been able to make it do some sort of distinctive ringing...) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1983 1422-PST From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode) Subject: Telex and TWX What are their rates like? Are they cheaper than non-prime telephone usage to transfer data with modems? The data rate ought to be considerably higher with the latter. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 29 Mar 83 00:27:07-PST From: Richard Furuta <Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA> Subject: Telephone purchase prices--Washington Interesting you should ask how much the telephone company wants for their telephones in various areas of the country. We just received an offering from Pacific Northwest Bell. A phone has a 30 day warranty if it's already installed, 90 days if it's new, and the effective date of the offer is February 14, 1983, although the notice was actually received in mid-March. Here's the first few prices: Purchase Price Product Not Presently Current Current presently installed monthly repair installed rate charges Standard Rotary $45.00 $25.00 $1.50 $25.00 Std. Touch-tone 65.00 45.00 2.50 30.00 Princess Rotary 55.00 35.00 2.75 30.00 Princess Tch-tn 75.00 55.00 3.50 35.00 Trimline Rotary 65.00 50.00 3.00 35.00 Trimline Tch-tn 80.00 60.00 4.00 40.00 The "Presently installed" prices expire on May 14, 1983, after which the prices are the same as "not presently installed. Repair charges apply after the warranty period. There's lots of other models on the list, but I think this covers the most common. I seem to remember the prices in last summer's California offering were a bit lower, plus Pacific Telephone offered financing which Pacific Northwest Bell doesn't do. --Rick ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 1983 0418-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS> Subject: Some TSPS info In answer to a recent inquiry about TSPS specifics: I used to play the May I Help You game, so I dealt with this firsthand. The TSPS machine is more or less a gateway between local customers and outgoing calls, and includes timing and logging capabilities. It also can do some rather wizardly things with your local central office. First of all, the terms ''back'' and ''forward'' refer to originating caller and destination number, respectively. The Release Forward key does just that: Hangs up on the called party, while keeping the calling party connected to the console. The KP FWD key enables dialing the ''forward'', or called, number. KP BACK enables dialing a number and having it become the calling party, but there is a hook in this that prevents entering a new back number for an *incoming* call. It is used rarely. RING BACK does exactly what someone mentioned - regardless of the hookswitch condition of the back line, it sends it a second or so of ringing voltage. This is done by sending some sort of packet to the central office that tells it to do this. RING FWD is a little different; all it really does is momentarily disconnect the called end of the loop, in a pulse. It doesn't *ring* the forward phone. It is helpful sometimes when dealing with overseas operators; when they put you on hold you can ring forward and their indicator will flash on and off. There are a couple of other KP keys, e.g. TBL [used to enter trouble codes], SPL [used to enter billing numbers]. Basically a KP key tells the machine that you are about to place a number in a register, that register being defined by which KP key you pressed. ST [Start] terminates the sequence. One major screw that TSPS does to the calling end is that it disables hangup timeouts. If an operator wishes to hold on to your line on a loop, she may do so. This also applies to the forward end once it has been answered, as there is no end-of-call supervision timeout recognized by a TSPS machine. I believe that the only way to break free of this is create some real hairy error condition [like running AC line voltage down your ESS line] that will clear a few switches. All TSPS billing is done in-house; that is, the CO has nothing to do with operator-handled calls after it passes the ANI packet and disables hangups. The billing details are written to a magtape [?!??!] and later sent to the billing department. Further details desired? Just ask. My info may be a couple of years out of date [it's been a while], but it still gives the basic idea. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 30 March 1983 08:54 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Verfication of Third Number Calls from Public Phones cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Beginning March 15th in all Bell Operating Companies' areas, operators will not place third number calls from public telephones without authorization from an answering party at the third number. If the third number (billed party) is busy or does not answer, the call will not be put through. This will apply to such calls made during the night hours as well as during the day and evening hours. BOC have implemented this policy to help reduce third number toll fraud. BOC are trying to encourage the customers to use Calling Cards (formerly called Credit Cards) to place long distance calls when they are away from home. There is no charge for the Calling Card and in many areas customers can place a calling card call without the assistance of an operator. Calling Cards provide customers a lower price charging option as well as a convenience and privacy. Customers can call their business office to order a Calling Card. (Contributor's Note: I am wondering how can each Calling Card customer be protected if the number ever was revealed to the culprit? Does the customer have the same rights as the credit card holder, such as up to $50.00 limit, etc? Any comment?) <LJ> ------------------------------ Date: 30 March 1983 09:25 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Access Charges cc: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Here is the summary of the FCC filing on ACCESS Charges (The FCC's 254 page interstate access charge order released on February 28th does not vary greatly from news accounts of the FCC's Dec. 22, 1982 decision approving new charges by which teleco may recover network access costs): Under this order, ATT and BO, filing seperate tariffs, will file with the FCC before Oct. 3, 1983 if the charges are to go into effect on Jan. 1, 1984. Highlights of the order: Customer Charges: During 1984, the minimum access charges plus customer usage charges will recover $4 of the total access costs per line per month (a total of $4.3 billion a year); Minimum monthly customer access charges will be set at $2 per line for residence customers and $4 per line for business customers; Customers will pay their full share of access costs at the end of a five-to-seven year transition period in 1989 or 1991 (when all customers will pay a flat rate charge); Maximum access charges cannot exceed what customers would pay for an access line dedicated to interstate private line service (nationally, this average about $28 a month). Maximums must be reduced 10 percent a year between 1984 and 1989; and Teleco will have the flexibility, however to adjust the recovery of access costs through a combination of flat and usage charges in keeping with the threat of uneconomic bypass of their facilities. Carrier Charges: In 1984, all Long Distance carriers will pay a carrier access charge to the local teleco to recover fixed access costs above the $4 level (the cost to be paid by customers). Nationwide, this will amount to about $4.2 billion a year; The carrier charge will be a uniform nationwide rate based upon minutes of use of the local network; Of the $4.2 billion to be paid by long distance carriers, ATT will pay $1.4 billion in 1984 to the local companies through an Exchange Carrier Association as a fixed-cost premium access charge. This amount is based upon the FCC's estimate of differences of interconnection quality provided to the various long distance carriers; The premium access charge will be phased out over four years, or within the same time span as the phase out of interstate customer equipment costs. Universal Service Monitoring: As the FCC's mandate from Congress, the FCC will monitor the shift of fixed access costs recovery from Long Distance carriers to customers during the transition period and modify its plan as necessary. The Universal Service Fund: In order to preserve of Universal Service, the fund will be established next year to enable teleco serving high cost areas - those with higher than average access line costs due to demographic, geographic, and technological differences - to set phone rates at levels that will not drive customers to cancel services; this Fund will be supported by payments made by all long distance carriers to the Exchange Carrier Association and will continue to operate indefinitely; and the size of this fund and the formula used to collect and distribute this money will be proposed by a federal-state Joint Board of Regulators this Spring and approved by the FCC before divestiture. Exchange Carrier Association: This is an association of local exchange telephone companies that will file and adminster access charge tariffs, oversee the operation of the Universal Service Fund, and distribute the carrier access charge funds; Membership is limited to local teleco. Consumer groups, regulators, and long distance carriers are ineligibnle to join; and ATT is required to file the association's first access charge tariffs with the FCC, but the company is not expected to be responsible for future filings. State Regulation: The FCC acknowledged that the interstate access charge plan would influence the development of intrastate access charge plans but did not require state regulatory commissions to follow its approach; The FCC believes, however, that its plan offers the states a well though-out approach to recovering access costs and that a uniform approach would increase adminstrative effieciency for commissions and companies alike; and the FCC also believes customer payment of intrastate access charges will help reduce differences in inter- and intrastate long distance charges and discourage uneconomic bypass of phone company facilities. Bypass: There are two kinds of bypass - economic and uneconomic; Economic bypass is the direct supply of new kinds of services that aren't presently available from the Telecos; Uneconomic bypass is the supply of traditional kinds of services at prices below what the telephone companies can charge - but above their actual costs; The FCC recognizes bypass as a growing phenomenon but believes that cost-based access charges will discourage uneconomic bypass; The FCC decline to prohibit bypass, however, because new technologies may serve customer needs not adequately met by the telecos; It also believes the development of new, sophisticated technologies will spur the telecos to provide needed customer services that are technologcally possible; and it said regulatory action is needed now to discourage uneconomic bypass because the next three to five years will be crucial to the deployment of such systems. <LJ> ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 1983 1341-PST From: Wmartin at OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Multi-device hookups We have an application (teleconferencing) which could be better realized if we could hook a number of data communications devices together all at once, via a conference call. What we want to do is have a number of microcomputers running communications software with 300 bps modems all cross-connected via this single conference call. When one micro sends data out over its modem, all the others should receive it and act as programmed to display or accept the data, as appropriate. As far as I know, we have never been able to do this. We can connect one micro directly to another via dial-up using this combination of hardware and software, but trying to bring another set in doesn't work. I think that the problem is carrier-tone recognition and timing; the software expects to be talking to one other modem only, and new ones joining a connection in progress have missed the initial handshaking. Is this the problem? Can it be overcome by something simple, like strapping pins on an RS-232 connector or otherwise forcing the later-joining modems into believing that they have a valid connection? Or is it more complex, or even fundamentally impossible? Advice and comments welcomed... Will Martin IRM Division USArmy DARCOM ALMSA ------------------------------ Date: 31 March 1983 08:45 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Access Fees Who should pay? It is understood that residential telephone subscribers may see a new item on their monthly telephone bill - a long distance "access charge" of about $7.00 per month. What is most unusual about this new charge is that it must be paid every month even if the subscriber makes no long distance calls. Of course, we do understand how a phone bill is engineered, how costs and rates are determined, and how recent legalized technological developments have revolutionized the telephone industry. But the long distance costs are recovered on a per minute basis, how can the customers be treated fairly whether you make one or 101 calls while being charged for the "local loop" costs which does not vary with usage (in other words, the cost is same for the expense of laying and maintaining your phone line no matter how many calls you make!) Any comment on determining more reasonable access charges? WHat guidelines should be established to assure all telephone customers nationwide? <LJ> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 2-Apr-83 15:20:52-PST,18127;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 2-Apr-83 15:20:12 Date: 2 Apr 1983 1520-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #20 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 3 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: DTMF->Ascii Conversion Long-Distance Access Charges (2 Msgs) Is Local Measured Service Fairer? An Anecdote From The History Of Telephony Calling Card Query Multi-Device Hookup With Modems Data Conference Calls Measured And Unmeasured Service In New Hampshire (2 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REX::MINOW c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Date: 3-JAN-1983 20:54 Subj: Submission -- DTMF->Ascii conversion Several recent Human Nets messages have discussed generation of Ascii by means of a DTMF (Touch-Tone) keypad. I've done a bit of work on this and hope the following might be of interest to Telecom readers: First, holding multiple buttons down at the same time probably won't work in the real world. There are several companies offering DTMF decoders (coupled with FCC approved telephone line interfaces) which are generally set to reject single frequencies (as required by the AT&T specifications). Using multiple keystrokes seems to offer the best of a bad situation (clumsy, but workable). Several such systems have been done. For example, there is a very nice automated weather forecast system using synthesized speech and DTMF control done by the FAA. Also, Lauren Weinstein implemented a telephone interface to Unix at UCLA, using the Unix speak program (text to speech for a Votrax ML1) and a Bell 407 telephone line interface. With much help from Lauren, I implemented a telephone interface to RSTS/E about 3 years ago using the NRL text- to-speech system. All three systems used essentially the same DTMF to Ascii encoding method: Letters are entered by pressing the button containing the letter, followed by a button indicating which of the three (left, middle, or right) letters is desired. Thus ABC would be 21, 22, 23. The FAA system accepted only 1/2/3 for the second button, while the other systems allowed "any number in that column". Thus, on the UCLA and DEC systems, "HUMAN" could be encoded 45, 88, 64, 21, 65. There are two letters missing from the keypad. The DEC system put them on the '1' key as "<space>QZ" (The other systems used something similar, but I felt that 11 was a good way to encode space.) Digits were encoded in the DEC system by combining them with the ZERO key. Since I could never remember whether the zero came first or last, my program accepted either encoding. Now, the fun begins... The SHARP key was used for control characters: #1 Z == end of file (CTRL/Z at Dec), #2 C == CTRL/C, #3 D == Delete (rubout), #6 O == CTRL/O (Cancel output) #7 R == Retype line (CTRL/R) #7 U == CTRL/U (Delete line) ## == Carriage return. The STAR key was used for control functions. Lauren and I implemented case shifts and locks as yhwell as numeric, control, and 8-bit octal input. There was also a punctuation mode (courtesy of Lauren) whereby the next three button pushes were interpreted as a graphic character. For example, 365 (DOL) for '$', 758 (PLU) for '+', 277 (BSP) for backspace, etc. Many characters had several definitions. For example '<' was both 522 (LAN) and 535 (LES). Finally, there were a few predefined messages: 910 Logout 911 MAIL 990 run games:dungeon While it was a nice toy and a fun demo, and once in a while was very useful, the amount of button pushing you had to go through was extremely frustrating. Also, the quality of the Votrax voice was not satisfactory for anything more than games playing. I'd appreciate hearing with anyone with ideas on improving this system; especially someone who would have no other access to a computer. Finally, the IBM voice mail system uses the keypad to enter user names. They use the digits (MINOW would be entered 64669) as a hash function. On the IBM system, Q is on the 7 key (PQRS) and Z on the 9 key (WXYZ). Martin Minow ------------------------------ Date: 1-Apr-83 23:19:29-EST (Fri) From: cbosgd!mark@Berkeley (Mark Horton) Subject: Re: Access Charges >From the April 1 Columbus Dispatch: "Ohio Bell rate bid is blasted" (This is an excerpt from an article quoting William Spratley of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, in response to a requested Ohio Bell rate hike.) Ohio Bell's announcement that it is seeking a 46 percent rate increase for residential customers "is highly misleading", Spratley said. Ohio Bell officials said the basic service charge of $12.95 will be increased to $18.80 a month, and the $1.50 rental fee for a telephone would remain the same. ... However, another $8 in new charges for long distance service will be added to everyone's bills. That will raise the current $14.45 basic service charge to $28.30, if the new rates are approved by the PUCO, Spratley said. "That is a 96 percent increase." ... People who now pay $9.75 for message rate service would pay $21.50 a month - a 121.5 % increase. Those who use measured service would see their $7.30 basic charge increased to $18 a month, for 147% increase. ... Half the $8 charge is being sought by Ohio Bell to pay for the service of long-distance calls within Ohio. The FCC is expected to add on another $4 charge to subsidize Ohio Bell's service for long distance calls to other states. Ohio Bell will lose its current subsidy next January when AT&T is forced to divest itself of local telephone companies such as Ohio Bell. Spratley said only those who make lots of long distance calls would benefit from Ohio Bell's proposal. [End of excerpt.] I don't understand what's going on here, and would appreciate it if someone would explain it to me. I'm going to suddenly have to start paying an extra $8 each month, for "the ability to make a long distance call". Who does this go to, and what costs does it pay for? What is paying for this now? Is this $8/month going to be optional if I never want to make long distance calls? What if I use MCI or Sprint or whoever exclusively? How is my ability to RECEIVE long distance phone calls affected? By the way, I am OUTRAGED at a 100% increase in my phone bill (you'll notice that the part I can avoid: the $1.50 phone rental, isn't going up) in an era where improved technology and increased competition should be driving my phone bill DOWN. Even the gas and electric rates aren't going up this fast, and they have a good excuse (the Arabs raised the price of oil). ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1983 1157-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: Long-distance access charges We have MCI; my father has a calling card. If there were to be a long-distance charge, we'd want to use MCI instead of Ma Bell for far-away calls, but to call my folks, we'd want to be able to use my father's card. How would the phone company enable one to do this? (WOULD they?) --Lynn ------------------------------ From: "DRAGON::DONJON::GOLDSTEIN c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Date: 2-FEB-1983 10:13 Subj: Digest comment -- Local measured service fairer? [In-real-life: Fred R. Goldstein] The local measured service issue has been floating around the telephone industry for a decade or so, and the recent round of plans and arguments has a familiar ring. GTE especially uses the old line "fair to pay for what you use", while Bell cos. talk about keeping rates down. Politically, they think the heat is worse when they raise basic rates (which will go way up soon anyway due to the FCC's "pure 2 access" decision) than when they charge your pants off when you call your grand- mother down the block. Some studies done in the mid to late 70s showed that the fixed, usage-insensitive portion of local telephone costs were roughly 80% of the non-toll total, with incurred by local usage. A Denver study showed that the "cost to the phone co" of local usage ranged from <.001/min within a short-haul local rea, and less than $.03/min on the longest local call in Colorado, 58 miles (Castle Rock to Boulder). NY Tel's rates, though, for LMS in NY City are based on, among other things, a study done by NYPIRG that showed much higher costs than that in NY, but still below what most telcos ask for. The present NYTel local usage rates are contributory (above cost) but not hugely so. I don't see what's so "fair" about paying more to use a super-cheap resource, local usage, to hold down the cost of basic service to some pitiful fraction of true cost. Let the telcos be forced to show their true marginal costs of service, and charge accordingly (they are mono- polies, right?, and regulated supposedly to meet costs) if it seems worthwhile. Were that done, many LMS plans would be dropped as costing more to administer than they take in. In the meantime, pressure your local cable companies (if you have one -- we're still waiting for Boston to get wired) to give some competition to telcos. ------------------------------ From: "JOHN CROLL AT KIRK c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Posted-date: 03-Feb-1983 Subject: An anecdote from the history of Telephony In the February 14, 1983 issue of Forbes, this anecdote is related: Cincinnati, December 26, 1982: A Mr. A. H. Pugh, dissatisfied with the service of the telephone company, was moved to strong language: "If you can't get the party I want you to, you may shut up your damn telephone!" Aghast, the phone company removed its instrument from Mr. Pugh's home. He sued to get it restored, but the courts decided in favor of the company. "Damn" was not to be said over the wire. -- American Heritage ------------------------------ From: "KENNETH GOUTAL at ELMO c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Posted-date: 03-Feb-1983 NAME-IN-REAL-LIFE: Kenn Goutal Subject: Calling card query Over the years, I have heard phrases like "telephone credit card" and, lately, "Calling Card", and even seen the phone company promoting such things. They seem to be particularly big with sales types who make calls from random parts of the country and charge the calls to their company. Such a use I can understand. However, a lot of the promo literature seems aimed at just random people. How many every folks have need of such a thing? What's the problem with just telling the operator "Charge this to my home number"? Is there a cost benefit? If so, how come? From the discussion lately, it sounds like just more overhead all around. Have settled down somewhat in recent years, I haven't done this *as often*, but I don't recall *ever* having any trouble doing this. The closest I ever came was being asked by the operator "Is there someone at that [home] number that I can check with at this time?"; when I answered "yes", the call was put through unquestioned! ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1983 15:06:18-PST From: Robert P. Cunningham <cunningh@Nosc> Reply-to: cunningh@Nosc To: wmartin@office-3 Subject: Multi-device hookup with modems. I have actually tried that, using 4 modems on a conference call. It doesn't work very well. Here's why: Each modem uses one pair of tones to send messages, and 'listens' for a completely separate pair of tones. At 300 bps (Bell 103 standard), that's all done with frequency-shift-keying (FSK). If a modem has no data to send, it just puts out one of the tones constantly (the 'mark' tone). To send a bit, it changes quickly to the other tone. Right away, there is a problem. The modem never 'listens' for the tones it is sending...it wants to hear the other set of frequencies instead. That's fine with just two modems, one is in the so-called 'originate' mode, the other in 'receive' mode, which just means that one modem's sending tones correspond to the other's receiving tones. What happens when you add a third modem is that it never 'hears' one of the other two (tone assignments guaranteed incompatible with one of the others). Adding additional modems make things even worse. The way we did it was to have all the modems except one in the same mode. That one could send to all of the others, and could hear all of the others (but they couldn't hear each other). Think of a UN meeting where everybody wears earphones except the speaker. Each of them can hear him/her, but they can't hear each other---but the speaker can hear all of them. At least that's what we (naively) thought. And we even tried to set up the next logical step: have the single modem (the 'speaker', that everybody listens to) echo whatever was heard, therby broadcasting to all of the others (trying to create a contention broadcast scheme like the ALOHA or ETHERNET systems). Unfortunately, that didn't work. Remember, all these modems are sending the 'mark' signal all the time. What actually happens is that a modem locks onto one particular signal (using a phase-locked-loop = PLL, typically). Only the strongest signal seemed to get through in our setup. Imagine all the delegates in the audience of that UN session mumbling all the time -- when they had nothing to say. Only the loudest one could cut through all the mumbling when he/she had something to say. In reality, it is a bit more complicated, since there are small differences in frequency (and certainly phase) between the 'mumblers', which complicates matters a bit. Note that true contention systems (ETHERNET, and I believe the old ALOHAnet) are very careful only to have a carrier on the medium when a message was actually being sent. If you can figure out how to do that with your modems, you might have a working system (but you will probably still need a constantly-active 'headend' repeater). On the other hand, you will have to add addressing, etc., and at 300 bps you will probably be disappointed with the throughput. In particular, with a true contention system (no modem 'listens' to see if anybody else is sending before it puts something on the line), and assuming fairly short, random sending (no channel hogging), your throughput in the long run is probably limited to about 18% of full-time 300 bps, with strongest signalers having a considerable edge in getting their messages through. Bob Cunningham <cunningh@nosc-cc> ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 83 20:57:47 EST (Fri) From: UCBVAX@Berkeley (Steven M. Bellovin) Subject: data conference calls I suspect that your problem is modem tones. Here's the normal sequence. Site A calls site B; site B's modem answers the phone and responds with tone B0 (i.e., the 0-bit coming from B). Site A's modem detects that tone, raises the Carrier Detect signal, and responds with tone A0. B can then use B0 and B1 to talk to A; it in turn responds with A0 and A1. Note that there are four distinct tones in use -- A0, A1, B0, and B1 -- and that selection of which tones are used is made based on who originated the call and who answered it. This explains what your problem is. Assuming that you're making the conference call manually (or do you have an autodialer that can flash the hookswitch to get dial-tone again), each of the modems knows that it's answering a call, and hence responds with B0/B1 and listens for A0/A1. No one is talking A0/A1, though; furthermore, all the constant B0 tones will interfere with any B1 tone generated. It isn't clear to me what you should do about it, either. Your best bet might be to get some true half-duplex modems; they know how to monitor the line for the presence of another tone, and only send when the line is free. Something like the Bell 202 might do (Novation makes a cheap 202, incidentally), though I decline to guarantee it. Note, though, that you'll need some way of telling the modem when you want to talk; this is normally done by controlling the RS-232 Request-to-Send line and not talking until you see Clear-to-Send. You'll also have to distinguish between Carrier Detect (which means that someone else is actually getting ready to talk) and Data Set Ready, which means that your modem is all powered up and connected. Finally, you give up the ability to sense a hang-up. --Steve Bellovin at Bell Labs, Murray Hill mhb5b!smb@Berkeley (I think) smb.unc@udel-relay (should still work) ------------------------------ From: "REX::MINOW c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Date: 27-DEC-1982 08:28 Subj: RE: TELECOM Digest V2 #140 Re: the person who can't get unlimited local calling for the modem and message units for his voice phone. I have exactly this service from New England Tel. (In fact, I changed when I had the modem put in.) Also, they don't list the modem number and don't give it out at information: no charge as long as my regular phone is listed. If all else fails, you could always explain that the phone is being put in so you don't get charged for your roommate's calls. Martin Minow ------------------------------ From: "KENNETH GOUTAL AT ELMO c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Posted-date: 05-Jan-1983 Subject: Mixed service in NH I have a friend who lives in Manchester, New Hampshire, and I know for a fact that he has mixed rates (unlimited on his modem line and metered on his voice line), without having to declare one of them a business line or anything. As some have suggested, this may be a side benefit of living in an ESS exchange, and may not be statewide. -- Kenn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 2-Apr-83 17:16:25-PST,18127;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 2-Apr-83 15:20:12 Date: 2 Apr 1983 1520-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #20 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 3 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: DTMF->Ascii Conversion Long-Distance Access Charges (2 Msgs) Is Local Measured Service Fairer? An Anecdote From The History Of Telephony Calling Card Query Multi-Device Hookup With Modems Data Conference Calls Measured And Unmeasured Service In New Hampshire (2 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REX::MINOW c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Date: 3-JAN-1983 20:54 Subj: Submission -- DTMF->Ascii conversion Several recent Human Nets messages have discussed generation of Ascii by means of a DTMF (Touch-Tone) keypad. I've done a bit of work on this and hope the following might be of interest to Telecom readers: First, holding multiple buttons down at the same time probably won't work in the real world. There are several companies offering DTMF decoders (coupled with FCC approved telephone line interfaces) which are generally set to reject single frequencies (as required by the AT&T specifications). Using multiple keystrokes seems to offer the best of a bad situation (clumsy, but workable). Several such systems have been done. For example, there is a very nice automated weather forecast system using synthesized speech and DTMF control done by the FAA. Also, Lauren Weinstein implemented a telephone interface to Unix at UCLA, using the Unix speak program (text to speech for a Votrax ML1) and a Bell 407 telephone line interface. With much help from Lauren, I implemented a telephone interface to RSTS/E about 3 years ago using the NRL text- to-speech system. All three systems used essentially the same DTMF to Ascii encoding method: Letters are entered by pressing the button containing the letter, followed by a button indicating which of the three (left, middle, or right) letters is desired. Thus ABC would be 21, 22, 23. The FAA system accepted only 1/2/3 for the second button, while the other systems allowed "any number in that column". Thus, on the UCLA and DEC systems, "HUMAN" could be encoded 45, 88, 64, 21, 65. There are two letters missing from the keypad. The DEC system put them on the '1' key as "<space>QZ" (The other systems used something similar, but I felt that 11 was a good way to encode space.) Digits were encoded in the DEC system by combining them with the ZERO key. Since I could never remember whether the zero came first or last, my program accepted either encoding. Now, the fun begins... The SHARP key was used for control characters: #1 Z == end of file (CTRL/Z at Dec), #2 C == CTRL/C, #3 D == Delete (rubout), #6 O == CTRL/O (Cancel output) #7 R == Retype line (CTRL/R) #7 U == CTRL/U (Delete line) ## == Carriage return. The STAR key was used for control functions. Lauren and I implemented case shifts and locks as yhwell as numeric, control, and 8-bit octal input. There was also a punctuation mode (courtesy of Lauren) whereby the next three button pushes were interpreted as a graphic character. For example, 365 (DOL) for '$', 758 (PLU) for '+', 277 (BSP) for backspace, etc. Many characters had several definitions. For example '<' was both 522 (LAN) and 535 (LES). Finally, there were a few predefined messages: 910 Logout 911 MAIL 990 run games:dungeon While it was a nice toy and a fun demo, and once in a while was very useful, the amount of button pushing you had to go through was extremely frustrating. Also, the quality of the Votrax voice was not satisfactory for anything more than games playing. I'd appreciate hearing with anyone with ideas on improving this system; especially someone who would have no other access to a computer. Finally, the IBM voice mail system uses the keypad to enter user names. They use the digits (MINOW would be entered 64669) as a hash function. On the IBM system, Q is on the 7 key (PQRS) and Z on the 9 key (WXYZ). Martin Minow ------------------------------ Date: 1-Apr-83 23:19:29-EST (Fri) From: cbosgd!mark@Berkeley (Mark Horton) Subject: Re: Access Charges >From the April 1 Columbus Dispatch: "Ohio Bell rate bid is blasted" (This is an excerpt from an article quoting William Spratley of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, in response to a requested Ohio Bell rate hike.) Ohio Bell's announcement that it is seeking a 46 percent rate increase for residential customers "is highly misleading", Spratley said. Ohio Bell officials said the basic service charge of $12.95 will be increased to $18.80 a month, and the $1.50 rental fee for a telephone would remain the same. ... However, another $8 in new charges for long distance service will be added to everyone's bills. That will raise the current $14.45 basic service charge to $28.30, if the new rates are approved by the PUCO, Spratley said. "That is a 96 percent increase." ... People who now pay $9.75 for message rate service would pay $21.50 a month - a 121.5 % increase. Those who use measured service would see their $7.30 basic charge increased to $18 a month, for 147% increase. ... Half the $8 charge is being sought by Ohio Bell to pay for the service of long-distance calls within Ohio. The FCC is expected to add on another $4 charge to subsidize Ohio Bell's service for long distance calls to other states. Ohio Bell will lose its current subsidy next January when AT&T is forced to divest itself of local telephone companies such as Ohio Bell. Spratley said only those who make lots of long distance calls would benefit from Ohio Bell's proposal. [End of excerpt.] I don't understand what's going on here, and would appreciate it if someone would explain it to me. I'm going to suddenly have to start paying an extra $8 each month, for "the ability to make a long distance call". Who does this go to, and what costs does it pay for? What is paying for this now? Is this $8/month going to be optional if I never want to make long distance calls? What if I use MCI or Sprint or whoever exclusively? How is my ability to RECEIVE long distance phone calls affected? By the way, I am OUTRAGED at a 100% increase in my phone bill (you'll notice that the part I can avoid: the $1.50 phone rental, isn't going up) in an era where improved technology and increased competition should be driving my phone bill DOWN. Even the gas and electric rates aren't going up this fast, and they have a good excuse (the Arabs raised the price of oil). ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1983 1157-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: Long-distance access charges We have MCI; my father has a calling card. If there were to be a long-distance charge, we'd want to use MCI instead of Ma Bell for far-away calls, but to call my folks, we'd want to be able to use my father's card. How would the phone company enable one to do this? (WOULD they?) --Lynn ------------------------------ From: "DRAGON::DONJON::GOLDSTEIN c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Date: 2-FEB-1983 10:13 Subj: Digest comment -- Local measured service fairer? [In-real-life: Fred R. Goldstein] The local measured service issue has been floating around the telephone industry for a decade or so, and the recent round of plans and arguments has a familiar ring. GTE especially uses the old line "fair to pay for what you use", while Bell cos. talk about keeping rates down. Politically, they think the heat is worse when they raise basic rates (which will go way up soon anyway due to the FCC's "pure 2 access" decision) than when they charge your pants off when you call your grand- mother down the block. Some studies done in the mid to late 70s showed that the fixed, usage-insensitive portion of local telephone costs were roughly 80% of the non-toll total, with incurred by local usage. A Denver study showed that the "cost to the phone co" of local usage ranged from <.001/min within a short-haul local rea, and less than $.03/min on the longest local call in Colorado, 58 miles (Castle Rock to Boulder). NY Tel's rates, though, for LMS in NY City are based on, among other things, a study done by NYPIRG that showed much higher costs than that in NY, but still below what most telcos ask for. The present NYTel local usage rates are contributory (above cost) but not hugely so. I don't see what's so "fair" about paying more to use a super-cheap resource, local usage, to hold down the cost of basic service to some pitiful fraction of true cost. Let the telcos be forced to show their true marginal costs of service, and charge accordingly (they are mono- polies, right?, and regulated supposedly to meet costs) if it seems worthwhile. Were that done, many LMS plans would be dropped as costing more to administer than they take in. In the meantime, pressure your local cable companies (if you have one -- we're still waiting for Boston to get wired) to give some competition to telcos. ------------------------------ From: "JOHN CROLL AT KIRK c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Posted-date: 03-Feb-1983 Subject: An anecdote from the history of Telephony In the February 14, 1983 issue of Forbes, this anecdote is related: Cincinnati, December 26, 1982: A Mr. A. H. Pugh, dissatisfied with the service of the telephone company, was moved to strong language: "If you can't get the party I want you to, you may shut up your damn telephone!" Aghast, the phone company removed its instrument from Mr. Pugh's home. He sued to get it restored, but the courts decided in favor of the company. "Damn" was not to be said over the wire. -- American Heritage ------------------------------ From: "KENNETH GOUTAL at ELMO c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Posted-date: 03-Feb-1983 NAME-IN-REAL-LIFE: Kenn Goutal Subject: Calling card query Over the years, I have heard phrases like "telephone credit card" and, lately, "Calling Card", and even seen the phone company promoting such things. They seem to be particularly big with sales types who make calls from random parts of the country and charge the calls to their company. Such a use I can understand. However, a lot of the promo literature seems aimed at just random people. How many every folks have need of such a thing? What's the problem with just telling the operator "Charge this to my home number"? Is there a cost benefit? If so, how come? From the discussion lately, it sounds like just more overhead all around. Have settled down somewhat in recent years, I haven't done this *as often*, but I don't recall *ever* having any trouble doing this. The closest I ever came was being asked by the operator "Is there someone at that [home] number that I can check with at this time?"; when I answered "yes", the call was put through unquestioned! ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1983 15:06:18-PST From: Robert P. Cunningham <cunningh@Nosc> Reply-to: cunningh@Nosc To: wmartin@office-3 Subject: Multi-device hookup with modems. I have actually tried that, using 4 modems on a conference call. It doesn't work very well. Here's why: Each modem uses one pair of tones to send messages, and 'listens' for a completely separate pair of tones. At 300 bps (Bell 103 standard), that's all done with frequency-shift-keying (FSK). If a modem has no data to send, it just puts out one of the tones constantly (the 'mark' tone). To send a bit, it changes quickly to the other tone. Right away, there is a problem. The modem never 'listens' for the tones it is sending...it wants to hear the other set of frequencies instead. That's fine with just two modems, one is in the so-called 'originate' mode, the other in 'receive' mode, which just means that one modem's sending tones correspond to the other's receiving tones. What happens when you add a third modem is that it never 'hears' one of the other two (tone assignments guaranteed incompatible with one of the others). Adding additional modems make things even worse. The way we did it was to have all the modems except one in the same mode. That one could send to all of the others, and could hear all of the others (but they couldn't hear each other). Think of a UN meeting where everybody wears earphones except the speaker. Each of them can hear him/her, but they can't hear each other---but the speaker can hear all of them. At least that's what we (naively) thought. And we even tried to set up the next logical step: have the single modem (the 'speaker', that everybody listens to) echo whatever was heard, therby broadcasting to all of the others (trying to create a contention broadcast scheme like the ALOHA or ETHERNET systems). Unfortunately, that didn't work. Remember, all these modems are sending the 'mark' signal all the time. What actually happens is that a modem locks onto one particular signal (using a phase-locked-loop = PLL, typically). Only the strongest signal seemed to get through in our setup. Imagine all the delegates in the audience of that UN session mumbling all the time -- when they had nothing to say. Only the loudest one could cut through all the mumbling when he/she had something to say. In reality, it is a bit more complicated, since there are small differences in frequency (and certainly phase) between the 'mumblers', which complicates matters a bit. Note that true contention systems (ETHERNET, and I believe the old ALOHAnet) are very careful only to have a carrier on the medium when a message was actually being sent. If you can figure out how to do that with your modems, you might have a working system (but you will probably still need a constantly-active 'headend' repeater). On the other hand, you will have to add addressing, etc., and at 300 bps you will probably be disappointed with the throughput. In particular, with a true contention system (no modem 'listens' to see if anybody else is sending before it puts something on the line), and assuming fairly short, random sending (no channel hogging), your throughput in the long run is probably limited to about 18% of full-time 300 bps, with strongest signalers having a considerable edge in getting their messages through. Bob Cunningham <cunningh@nosc-cc> ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 83 20:57:47 EST (Fri) From: UCBVAX@Berkeley (Steven M. Bellovin) Subject: data conference calls I suspect that your problem is modem tones. Here's the normal sequence. Site A calls site B; site B's modem answers the phone and responds with tone B0 (i.e., the 0-bit coming from B). Site A's modem detects that tone, raises the Carrier Detect signal, and responds with tone A0. B can then use B0 and B1 to talk to A; it in turn responds with A0 and A1. Note that there are four distinct tones in use -- A0, A1, B0, and B1 -- and that selection of which tones are used is made based on who originated the call and who answered it. This explains what your problem is. Assuming that you're making the conference call manually (or do you have an autodialer that can flash the hookswitch to get dial-tone again), each of the modems knows that it's answering a call, and hence responds with B0/B1 and listens for A0/A1. No one is talking A0/A1, though; furthermore, all the constant B0 tones will interfere with any B1 tone generated. It isn't clear to me what you should do about it, either. Your best bet might be to get some true half-duplex modems; they know how to monitor the line for the presence of another tone, and only send when the line is free. Something like the Bell 202 might do (Novation makes a cheap 202, incidentally), though I decline to guarantee it. Note, though, that you'll need some way of telling the modem when you want to talk; this is normally done by controlling the RS-232 Request-to-Send line and not talking until you see Clear-to-Send. You'll also have to distinguish between Carrier Detect (which means that someone else is actually getting ready to talk) and Data Set Ready, which means that your modem is all powered up and connected. Finally, you give up the ability to sense a hang-up. --Steve Bellovin at Bell Labs, Murray Hill mhb5b!smb@Berkeley (I think) smb.unc@udel-relay (should still work) ------------------------------ From: "REX::MINOW c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Date: 27-DEC-1982 08:28 Subj: RE: TELECOM Digest V2 #140 Re: the person who can't get unlimited local calling for the modem and message units for his voice phone. I have exactly this service from New England Tel. (In fact, I changed when I had the modem put in.) Also, they don't list the modem number and don't give it out at information: no charge as long as my regular phone is listed. If all else fails, you could always explain that the phone is being put in so you don't get charged for your roommate's calls. Martin Minow ------------------------------ From: "KENNETH GOUTAL AT ELMO c/o" <SCHRIESHEIM.MITTON at DEC-Marlboro> Posted-date: 05-Jan-1983 Subject: Mixed service in NH I have a friend who lives in Manchester, New Hampshire, and I know for a fact that he has mixed rates (unlimited on his modem line and metered on his voice line), without having to declare one of them a business line or anything. As some have suggested, this may be a side benefit of living in an ESS exchange, and may not be statewide. -- Kenn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 6-Apr-83 06:40:03-PST,12425;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 6-Apr-83 06:39:13 Date: 6 Apr 1983 0639-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #21 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 7 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Phone Rates Ebb And Flow - Calling Cards Cable TV - Local Loop Data Services Data Call Conferencing (2 Msgs) Long Distance Access Charge Bill To Third Number vs. Calling Card Calls Zipcodes & Prefix Designations Modems - Bill To Third Number: Operator's Point Of View Speaker Phones And Ringer Equivs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Apr 3 1983 02:18:17-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@lbl-csam> Subject: misc. Greetings. Some brief comments on several previous messages: 1) Telephone rates: I'll give you 3:1 that, within the next couple of years, we'll see Congress heavily modify the structure of the FCC actions (and court actions, where possible) regarding AT&T and the broader issues of affordable telephone service. Once the folks back home really understand how high rates are going, they'll be knocked out of their stupor and will be screaming bloody murder! Watch and see. 2) Calling Cards: Very briefly, calling cards allow for fully automated call handling, and anything that reduces reliance on human operators can result in faster (and, *theoretically*, cheaper) calls. Calling cards are also important to help reduce telephone fraud. Billing of calls to a third number is now being restricted to cases where an actual positive response can be obtained from a person at that third number. Up until this change, illicit third party billings have been a serious problem for telcos and a real inconvenience for many subscribers. Since calling cards now include a changeable PIN (Personal Identification Number), they can provide a fair degree of security. Not perfect by any means, but better than nothing. 3) Competition from cable TV companies: During a speech I made at Bell Labs last summer, I said that "most cable TV companies make General Telephone look good." It's still true. Most cable operators are hardly competent to redistribute local off-air signals with reasonable quality, much less properly handle satellite equipment. To expect most of them to provide reasonable communications/data services is a total joke. Another problem is that many large cities are badly fragmented when it comes to cable service -- and each company in the area may run an entirely different sort of system with different forward and reverse capabilities. In the Los Angeles area, for example, there are no less than ten completely separate cable companies operating in different areas. Most of them are under continual fire for providing atrocious basic service. To think of them providing "advanced" communications/data type services is ludicrous. Many other parts of the country are in a similar situation. 4) Residential Data Services: The way basic telephone service rates are shooting up, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how such services as data communications will be priced. I have been asked by several persons to comment on the recent message where a Bell Labs official was quoted as saying that some (very high) percentage of telephone lines could support data services. The statement was simply that the *capability* to handle medium speed data was (or will be) present on most local loops. This of course does *not* mean that the modems required to actually provide such services will be priced cheaply -- just that most loops could support them if the user was willing to pay the price. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 83 20:40:11 PST (Sun) From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Data Conference Calls A possible solution, if you have enough money, is to use a fancy modem such as the D.C. Hayes Smartmodem. It allows the user to turn off the carrier in either answer or originate mode, allowing the monitoring of communications. Unfortunately, when I say "monitoring," I mean "monitoring" and nothing else, since the carrier is turned off. Because of the lack of carrier, you can't transmit. Still, if you only want to display data, this might be one way of doing it. Also, some modems now have a side input jack for playing data into them from a tape recorder. This, too, might be worth checking out. Phil Lapsley (d.jlapsley@Berkeley) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1983 0036-EST From: Richard K. Braun <BRAUN at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Modem conferencing The problems found in trying to wire up 3 or more modems on the same circuit aren't surprising. To work properly, each one would have to be allocated its own separate send and receive frequencies. There is an obvious solution, though. You set up N modems at the master site, connected to one machine thru separate terminal lines, and use separate phone lines to talk to each site. (Doesn't matter which end is originating or answering). The extra costs of this approach are the extra modems and phone lines, which are most likely already present at any fair-size computer facility. Software to tie them all together isn't too tough, until you get into fancy things like splitting up the screen into N sections so the users can all type in their own zones simultaneously, etc. Regards, Rich ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1983 0839-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: The "Long Distance" Charge This has been explained here many times before, but questions seem to keep coming back up: Everyone will have to pay the Long Distance charge, no matter whose long distance service they use. In fact, the long distance charge is there precisely so you can use whichever long distance service you prefer. In the past, a VERY large part of your local telephone company's income came from money they received from AT&T as a commission for providing a service to AT&T -- the service of connecting local telephones to the nationwide long distance network. This was paid by AT&T to every local telephone company, Bell Company or Independent. It was an incredibly complex system of calculations. But now, anyone who wants can provide long distance service. If you read your newspapers, you'll see adds not just for AT&T, Sprint, and MCI, but for Citicall, Skyline, and more. The courts have decided that the system of commissions won't work in the new multi-network environment. Since the local telephone companies have to have a way to recover that income (or they'll go broke, and you won't have any service at all), it's going to have to be paid by you. Why isn't it based on the cost of your long distance calls? This could cause your local company to give preferential treatment to long-distance carriers with higher rates, so that they get a larger commission. Why isn't it based on number of minutes talking long distance? Because your local telephone company may not be equipped to measure your con- versation time through all the different long distance carriers. But eight dollars per phone seems high to me. Especially since AT&T's total Toll revenue last year (Message, WATS, and private line) was $33.26x10^9, or only $133.03 per person. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 83 11:02:15 PST (Monday) From: lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Calling card query Pacific Telephone recently announced that they would no longer allow you to charge a call to another phone (not the caller or callee) until the operator receives permission from someone at the phone receiving the charges. Of course if you have to ask to charge it to your home phone (the usual case), you won't be home to give the operator permission. The fact that Pac Tel is pushing the use of their Calling Cards in such situations seems to indicate that they realize (but weren't explicityly admitting) that the new policy was in essence discontinuing a service that many people use, at least occasionally. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 83 14:52:52 EST (Tue) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA> cc: cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA Subject: zipcodes & phone prefixes Is the info regarding areas served by particular exchanges available (along the lines of the zipcode directory)? I know that a phone prefix will, in general, serve a wider area than 5-digit zipcode, but it does come in handy when you are not very familiar with a given area. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 1983 2339-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS> Subject: Modems and 3rd number fraud If you're willing to hack some hardware, you can do something like the following: You want modem A to initiate a link by calling modem B, and then put modem C online to log all that passes between modems A and B. This is how I see your intent. Ideally, you would have modem C grab its extension, and presumably under software control, first see if there is a valid carrier on the line. If so, then listen to it, but don't *transmit*, because that would interfere with A and B's protocol. You would have to install something that would prevent modem C's sending signal from reaching the line, and to effectively fake it into believing that it is really online in both directions. If you're using acoustic modems, it would be like removing the microphone disk from C's handset. The incoming carrier would kick C into action, but its answering tone would never get to the line. With direct-connect, you could probably install something in the path of the sent signal that would disable its getting out under certain conditions. The next step after this is to interface two receive-only modems to your micro, one in answer mode and one in originate mode, and have a program to display both sides of a given ''conversation'' on a split screen. I had the notion to build such a thing for diagnosing modem line problems a while back; it more or less stagnated because there are much easier ways to troubleshoot. As regards 3rd-number billing: When I was hacking TSPS, we used to get obviously fraudulent 3rd-number calls all day long. These were ones in which someone would call home and 3rd charge, say ''come pick me up'' and then hang up and leave. The lose was that we were *required* to connect the original call first, and then go check the billed-to number for verification. By the time the 3rd party answered and said ''no'' [if they answered at all], the original call was over and done with. If the attempt to get the calling party to stick money in the pay phone failed, it was passed off as a loss. When I brought all this to the attention of the management [of course they knew all about it already], they informed me that it was company policy and there was nothing they could do about it. And you wonder why I left?? They seem to have finally seen the light now. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 6 April 1983 00:37 EST From: Richard P. Wilkes <RICK @ MIT-MC> Subject: Speaker Phones and Ringer Equivs Two unrelated questions: I have been looking for a speakerphone that does not inflict the echo-chamber effect on whoever happens to be on the other end. I currently have one of the Radio Shack speakerphones but the echo is horrible and the voice activated circuit makes the conversation almost unintelligible (why can't I talk and listen at the same time?) Anyway, if anyone has had any positive experience with a brand of speakerphone, I would appreciate hearing from you. Next question: what is the "maximum" total ringer equivalence that I can hook onto one phone line? What happens if this is exceeded? Thanks. -r <Rick at MIT-MC> <zza_a116.jhu@UDEL-RELAY> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 7-Apr-83 06:50:04-PST,7155;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 7-Apr-83 06:46:38 Date: 7 Apr 1983 0646-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #22 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 8 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: American Bell Speaker Phones Phone Rate Restructuring Headsets Vs. Headsets Centrex/FRS - Routing Table Games [The date of this digest is one day ahead (so was Yesterday's) I will adjust for this over the weekend. --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1983 11:11 EST From: Chuck Weinstock <Weinstock%Tartan-20@CMU-CS-C> Subject: Speaker Phones [TELECOM Digest V3 #21] American Bell has a new "speaker phone" they call the Quorum. It is designed to be used in a conference room, and has a rather strange appearance, being a rod sticking straight up into the air (I assume this is the microphone). It apparently doesn't suffer from the problems of echo and voice lockout. Drawback: they want over $1,700 + $250 installation! Chuck ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 83 10:32 PST (Wednesday) From: Thompson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #21 cc: Thompson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA More regarding the whole phone rate flap. I agree with Lauren that the whole system as proposed will not wash with the public. I, too, think that the current system being imposed will produce a different political, rather than regulatory solution in fairly short order. I can't imagine that the public is willing to throw away the concept of a phone for every home without a major flap. I was of the opinion, all along, that if it wasn't broke they shouldn't have tried to fix it. On long distance access charges. I am hard pressed to see the rationale that we should get stuck with flat rate for long distance access when they are no longer willing to give us flat rate for local access. If this is supposed to be true dereg then the whole thing should be moved to "cost of service". In that case, access to a long distance carrier is a half of a local call. The long distance carrier should then be billed a half measured charge at the other end and pay it to the terminating, far end local company. Geoff [I think you miss the point, it's not Flat Rate Long Distance, it's a charge to get on, and a metered charge to use the service. Perhaps that metered charge will be the same no matter where you call (eventually?), but imagine paying $7.00/mo + measured rates per call for local service, and $7.00/mo + measured rates per call for long distance. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 83 13:42:04 PST (Wednesday) From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Headsets cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA How come everybody and his brother isn't clamoring for headsets? This "pinch handset between ear and shoulder" business is for the birds. And these kludges that you clamp on a handset to rest on your shoulder are utterly worthless. Why aren't headsets the default? Anybody know where I can get a CHEAP, LIGHTWEIGHT headset with a modular jack that I can carry around with me? Especially with all these cordless portables coming out -- why are they all handsets instead of headsets? Seems like it sort of defeats half the purpose... --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1983 0333-EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS> Subject: Routing table games Interesting recent bug: Rutgers is on a centrex in a split ESS office, no less, and the software to keep it straight must be hairy. Lots of the phones have toll restriction patterns. One type, arbitrarily named a B phone, may call a limited out-of-area radius, about 100 miles worth. This includes distinctions within our own area code [201], in that you can't call places way up in North Jersey near the NY border, but you can call New York City, Philly, and spots in South Jersey. It is really a table built to include a roughly circular calling limit. Recently I noticed that the error return for an attempted out-of-area call was being handled wrong: Instead of giving a recording or reorder, the calls were being *passed* to a couple of exchanges in Union, NJ. Specifically, anything with an area code ending in 7 would map the next 4 numbers into the 687 exchange. NPAs ending in 6 wound up in 686. Therefore if you dialed 617-253-6062 you'd get 201-687-2536. It took a while to figure out that this was happening, because not all numbers dialed mapped to real defined numbers in those offices [were met with a really crufty crossbar reorder signal]. Finally I made a wild guess as to who was in what central office in New Brunswick, and hit it on the first shot: I got a nice friendly guy at the SCC who I explained the problem to [Repair was no help, because as soon as I said something about an unpure routing table they got *very* confused!]. He actually understood, after I gave him an example number at Rutgers that was doing this. He had a look at that extension's status bits and realized what was going on. He told me to call back in an hour and by that time he should have had it fixed. An hour later I duly called back. He explained things as follows: There exists a service called Flexible Route Selection, which is basically an optimizer. If you have a centrex with tie lines to X, and some WATS lines, and some other regular ones, FRS will figure out where your call is going and route it the cheapest possible way. The service costs a lot, and is only sensible for large business applications. The B phones have something similar to this service, apparently, which is how they worked out the restriction tables. If you dial a number that is in the ''more expensive'' table, you get routed into limbo which tells you that you can't call there. A small fix could let such calls grab a different trunk and be completed; a *bug* could let calls get misrouted to Union, NJ. The guy was really nice about it, first really human switchman I've ever talked to. He did indeed fix the problem; it took all of 5 minutes to install a small patch in the table. The problem with FRS, as I see it, is that it takes forever to do the table search to find out if you can make your call or not. When you dial a number that is near the edge of the calling area [where it therefore can't consult the *local* tables], even by ''confirming'' the call with the # key doesn't help the as much as 3-second delay before it gets out of the office. Well, crufty algorithms aside, apparently the demand for such a thing is enough for it to be implemented. Does anyone know more specifics about it? The switching type didn't really go into intense detail about how it worked or why; I've reproduced what he did say as best I can. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Apr-83 13:19:28-PST,5002;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 9-Apr-83 13:19:03 Date: 9 Apr 1983 1319-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #23 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 10 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Product Report - StarMate Headsets New Proposals For Telephone Charges In Atlanta Long Distance Access Charges (2 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Apr 83 12:08:49 EST From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C> Subject: Re: Headsets To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC The device you want is a "Starmate" (MH0224-1) from Pacific Plantronics (234 Encinal St., Santa Cruz). It is one of their Starset IIs attached to a switch box that goes in series with a modular handset. It has a volume switch and a trasfer key (handset/headset). Its drawback is that it's $163.60 ($147.30 10-24) list. It does not have the standard double phone plug like an operator's headset does, so it can ONLY be used in the handset line. Other alternatives are: get a jack-equipped set from your telco, or add a Jackset youself (this would not be portable); make your own version of the Starmate; make your own station set that accepts whatever you please using one of the hybrid chips from TI ,AMD, SGS, etc. JS&A has a headset style cordless phone in their catalog, (answer only) but as of last month, they still weren't available ( I understand this is not unusual for JS&A). Gene ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 83 2:07:30-EST (Fri) From: Mljfw.emory at UDel-TCP Subject: new proposals for telephone charges in Atlanta Well, if this doesn't take the cake. At present, Atlanta, Georgia has one of the largest districts for local calls. i.e. one can call a good ways away without incurring long distance charges. But recently, it has been proposed that the local calling area be chopped up into different districts. As a result, places that are now local would be long distance. This really isn't so bad, I mean they have to make their money somehow, but what is bad is that they want to make place within WALKING DISTANCE long distance. { this may or may not be true... my info is from various sources including editorial columns in Atlanta newspapers. } I hope it doesn't pass. Jay Weiss < mljfw @ emory > ------------------------------ Date: 8-Apr-83 15:52:38-EST (Fri) From: cbosgd!mark@Berkeley (Mark Horton) Subject: long distance access charges re: [I think you miss the point, it's not Flat Rate Long Distance, it's a charge to get on, and a metered charge to use the service. Perhaps that metered charge will be the same no matter where you call (eventually?), but imagine paying $7.00/mo + measured rates per call for local service, and $7.00/mo + measured rates per call for long distance. --JSol] Are you saying the local rates are supposed to go down to compensate for the new access charge? I wouldn't mind this, but this is NOT what is happening. The local rates are going UP, and by whopping amounts that make the gas increases look reasonable! There has been no mention whatsoever of reducing the local rates. And even if you could claim that the local rates are going up less than they would have otherwise, how can you claim that the local rates would have otherwise gone up by over 100%? [You are correct, Local rates will probably NOT go down. The figures I quoted were just an explanation. Rates will go up, however the way this is implemented will end up being different than most people are used to. Local telephone service charges will probably be split into two parts, the part which is the original service charge, and the part which was the AT&T subsidy before the divestiture. Therefore you will pay more, but you will be told that you are now in fact paying the total cost of providing service to your home. AT&T's rate for long distance CALLS should go down drastically. This will in fact benefit heavy users of the network, while taxing light users for the liability of supporting their phone needs (however minimal and remote they are). --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 83 14:31 EST (Thursday) From: clark.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #22 Businesses in competition with AT&T convinced the public that AT&T was evil and that they should be broken up. The public got what they asked for. They only clear winners are AT&T and the businesses competing with them - The same 'Big Business' the public thought they were striking down. The only clear loser is the public at large, and anyone who has to use the phone system to communicate. --Ray ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 13-Apr-83 05:42:12-PST,6633;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 13-Apr-83 05:41:44 Date: 13 Apr 1983 0541-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #24 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 13 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Apr 1983 1434-PST From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode) Subject: long distance access charge The label on the bill would more properly read Monthly Service $12 Add'l Monthly Service Formerly Recovered $ 7 Out of AT&T Long Distance Revenues I do not think this has anything to do with the matter of splitting AT&T up. Rather it stems from the decision to allow competition in the long distance market. The total volume of long distance will increase significantly--AT&T will just have a smaller share, which can no longer (and never should have) subsidize the cost of local service. Another wrinkle: to avoid a further deviation would require that the increase be applied only to flat-rate customers, with measured customers subjected to metering on their long distance calls (at local rates) in addition to the costs of whatever long distance service they desire to use. Not only are the costs being shifted from long distance to local, but they are being shifted from usage-sensitive to non-usage-sensitive as well. An effect counter to those who use their phone subsidizing the "existence cost" for the phones of those who do not is being seen here. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 83 12:34:42 EST (Sun) From: smb@mhb5b Subject: long distance access charges Reply-To: smb@unc One more point about the access charges -- the alternative considered by the FCC was a surcharge on long-distance *calls*, rather than a flat rate; this was rejected because it would encourage the formation of private networks by large corporations. -Steve Bellovin smb.unc@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1983 1155-PST From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@USC-ECL Subject: Automated Calling Card authorization and dialled international calls To those of you who have been interested in Calling Cards and the new automated authorization system, I offer the following anecdote (which, by the way, has not yet ended -- I'll keep you posted): Our Story: In the predawn hours of a bleak winter morning in Brookline, Mass., a certain Bell customer (namely, me) regretfully and reluctantly leaves the warm comfort of his guest-bed (I'm a houseguest, you see, visiting some friends) to take advantage of off-peak IDDD rates to Italy (the rates change at 7 AM, and the only time of day you can call Europe off-peak without it being the middle of the night there is in the early morning hours here). Not wishing to add to my friends' phone bill, I naturally opt to use my Calling Card (issued by Pacific Tel, since my home and, therefore, my residential service, are in Orange County, California). Now New England Telephone, I know from previous experience, has recently implemented a system of automated authorization for Calling Card numbers: it works on both domestic U.S. and international calls, and eliminates the need for operator-assistance by permitting you to use the tone-dial buttons to enter your Calling Card number. The way it works is as follows: on domestic U.S. calls, you dial "0" instead of "1" as the prefix to the area code+ number, and, instead of an operator instantly intercepting with his/her customary "Your billing, please?" or "May I help you?", you get, first, a simple beep tone, and then, if you do not respond to it within a pre- specified time-out, a pre-recorded voice message which says (quite firmly, it seems!): "Please enter your Calling Card number NOW." It waits a few more seconds, and if you still insist on sitting there dumbfounded and don't do anything, THEN, finally, a live operator comes on the line. PRECISELY this same sequence of events takes place on an international call, when you dial 01 instead of 011 as the prefix to the country code, local area code, and number. Now, since I am a relatively hip user of the Bell System, I know enough to enter my Calling Card number at the first beep, thus obviating the necessity for operator-intervention. And, in fact, that is what I did on the particular occasion being recounted here in Our Story: I dialled an international call and entered my Calling Card number myself, without requiring operator-assistance. When I did this, the pre-recorded voice came back on with a courteous "Thank you," and the call went through. I talked for less than one minute, and, according to page A59 of the Orange County White Pages for 1982-83, should have been billed $1.42 for one minute of off-peak ("economy"), direct-customer-dialled conversation. But lo! Arrives my bill from Pacific Tel about a month later, and what should I find in the long-distance itemized calls section, to my dismay, but an item from precisely that time and date tagged with the code for "operator-assisted!" I am indignant. How DARE they charge me for operator-assistance when there was none? How DARE those rogues try to skim an additional $5.63 from me to pay the wages of a non-existent operator! I call the business office in a blind rage. I explain to them what happened. They of course have never heard of automated Calling-Card authorization -- "Sir, it is just IMPOSSIBLE to use a Calling Card without operator-assistance." I correct them, gently, at first, then firmly, then forcefully, then angrily. I speak to three supervisors and the business-office manager. Naturally, they think I am some sort of Crazy Person. And, naturally, I refuse to pay the $7.05 I have been billed, and instead pay the $1.42 I should have been billed, and deduct the $5.63 difference from my payment. And, just as naturally, my bill for the past few months has continued to reflect the additional $5.63 as a balance due. So far, I have not had any harassment over it, but, when and if, I am determined to take it to the PUC and/or FCC and beyond, if necessary, to receive my due redress! Callers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but the Bell System's sneaky billing practices!!!! To be continued, if and when... [Don't blame the Bell System, Pacific Telephone is on its own now! --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 14-Apr-83 05:39:15-PST,4811;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 14-Apr-83 05:38:30 Date: 14 Apr 1983 0538-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #25 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 14 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: International Calling Card Calls (4 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Apr 1983 1204-CST From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20> Subject: Calling Card Use on International Calls I too was a victim of outrageous charges when using my calling card for international calls. In this case it was to Mexico, and involved several calls before I received my next phone bill. I went through several levels of business office people and supervisors quoting the little brochure which said that calling cards were cheaper than operator-assisted on *all* out-of-state calls (my emphasis). They refused to classify international calls as "out-of-state" (what are they? in-state?!). Anyway, I was contesting a total amount of around $20, and was stunned when one supervisor actually started "bargaining"! We ended splitting the cost at $10 each. This was a first for me--I didn't know Bell would ever resort to compromising on a contested charge that didn't involve some unknown factor like the time of interruption of a long distance call, etc. And talking about Mexico, I should again mention my pet peeve with the multi-national communications establishment (whoever that is) which allows such outrageous rates for long distance calls. It is still the case, I believe, that the single most expensive telephone call I can make from Austin, Texas to ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD is to Mexico. If any newcomers to TELECOM can shed light on the reasons for this, please let me know. Clive ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 13 1983 14:20:09-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Direct Dialed Calling Card Calls At least for Domestic calls, you do NOT get "direct-dialed" rates for automated use of a calling card. In some cases (maybe all cases, by now) you pay somewhat less of a surcharge than you would for operator assisted, but a surcharge is still there. (There's nothing really wrong with the concept of the surcharge: after all, you *are* making a more "complex" call in that billing information has to be passed back to your "home" telco and integrated with your local billing.) I can't recall hearing anything about surcharge reductions for international calls with automated calling cards. Telco may have you on this one. Anybody know for sure? --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1983 2333-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Self-dialed Calling Card Calls to overseas points Sorry, but Pacific Telephone is billing you the correct, authorized, and only legal rate. The calling card rate has nothing to do with whether you dial the calling card yourself or give it to an operator. Calling card calls to overseas points cost the same as operator assisted calls to overseas points. This is the rate that AT&T filed with the FCC, the rate that the FCC approved, and the rate you are required to pay for the service you obtained. Yes, it's rotten. The only thing you can do is write to the FCC and complain that the rate is unfair. That might help change it for the future, but for now, there is no special rate for calling card calls to overseas points. (AT&T introduced the lower calling card rates on calls within the country to compete with lower rates offered by the Other Common Carriers for a similar service. The initial filing was for an even lower rate; the FCC told them that the rate they had asked for was too low. There is no competition in the international market. Also, the calling card rate has to be averaged over the cost of providing the service both for calls originating within the U.S. as well as for calls made TO the U.S. from abroad. The same rate must be charged in both cases; AT&T gets charged a higher rate by the overseas administrations for the calling card call and averages this (by FCC order) over all calling card calls.) ------------------------------ Date: 14 April 1983 00:22 est From: Schauble.HIS_Guest at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #24 Reply to Granger.RS%UCI@USC-ECL I think that the lesson here is to not use the direct Calling Card entry until Bell prices it appropriately. If you are paying for the operator, use the operator. Paul ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 15-Apr-83 05:53:03-PST,2281;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 15-Apr-83 05:52:33 Date: 15 Apr 1983 0552-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #26 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 15 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: MCCS (Self Service Credit Card Calls) (2 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Apr 1983 1026-PST From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #25 Remember that MCCS is also more convenient for the user; not just the telco. I agree that the reduced surcharge should be applied to overseas calls as well, but, as John Covert points out, the tarrifs are as they are. Why cut off your nose to spite your face Paul? <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 1983 1848-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Calling Card Calls One of our readers suggested that until you get a better rate for dialing the calling card yourself, to use the operator. On overseas, you may have a point, since there is no difference between the operator assisted rate and the calling card rate. On in-state and inter-state calls, there is a difference between the charge for a calling card call and a call which requires operator assistance for something else. But there is no difference between the calling card rate when you enter the number and the calling card rate when the operator enters the number. But PLEASE enter the number yourself, whenever possible. I've discussed this with the FCC -- I was irate when they ordered AT&T to charge $1.05 instead of $0.50 for calling card calls. They explained it this way: the charge will be the same for both self-dialed and operator entered calls because it is the same service (just like the rate is the same for direct dialed calls and calls dialed by an operator where facilities for direct dial don't exist). When the percentage of self-dialed calling card calls increases so that the cost decreases, the FCC will permit AT&T to lower the rate. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 20-Apr-83 07:02:12-PST,6064;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Apr-83 07:01:39 Date: 20 Apr 1983 0701-PST From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #27 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 20 April 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Calling Cards For International Calls Hands-Free Telephony Portable terminals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Apr 1983 at 1103-PST (Sunday) From: tekecs!stevenm.Tektronix@Rand-Relay Return-Path: <tekecs!stevenm.tektronix@rand-relay> Re: calling cards for international calls I agree with the sentiment that charges for calling cards for international calls should be normalized, but I own and use a calling card anyway. I have found it essential for overseas use. The reasons are as follows: 1) Many (most) countries have phone systems which are extremely primitive in comparison to ours; 2) Additionally, phones are not as widely available in some countries as in America. 3) Many countries will not accept reverse-charged calls These factors conspire, in many countries (eg. Ireland, where I traveled most recently) to make long distance calls from somewhere other than a fairly fancy hotel impossible. Staying at phone-less Bed & Breakfast places in Ireland, I was forced to use pay phones (typically in taverns) for my long distance calling. I placed a call, and then had a few pints waiting for the operator to put it through. The hitch is that if I hadn't had the calling card, I would have had to put about $20 (uh, 12 pounds or so) in the phone in 5 pence pieces. Because of limitations on the size of the coin boxes on these phones, that, of course, was impossible. S. McGeady ------------------------------ Date: Mon Apr 18 10:15:56 1983 From: harpo!hou2b!dvorak@UCB-VAX Subject: HANDS-FREE TELEPHONY There has been a fair amount of inaccurate information appearing here with regards to devices permitting hands-free audio. Note that in the comments that follow, headsets are not included; rather, hands-free audio pertains to a telephonic 'terminal' that has a microphone and a speaker that anyone nearby can use. For example, consider the traditional speakerphone. It is voice-switched, which basically means that when it transmits, incoming signals are essentially blocked. This feature is necessary to prevent talker 1 from having his voice broadcast in talker 2's room, only to be picked up by talker 2's mike and fed back to talker 1. Think of it as a half-duplex device as compared to the full-duplex properties of two talkers each using handsets: No voice-switching, so you can talk and listen simultaneously. More importantly, you can interrupt the other person--which is the way in which real people communicate. But with a speakerphone, when you can hear the person talking from a speakerphone, then you know he cannot hear you. Supervisory personnel here at the Labs routinely use these devices, although it is unclear whether it is (a) to indicate their status, (b) have their hands free, (c) to be the live side of a half-duplex channel, or (d) all of the above. The 'rain-barrel' effect one gets when listening to someone on a speakerphone is due to the reverbations within the room of the speakerphone. It is echo, but multiple relections of short duration. No practical technology exists to correct it other than acoustically treating the room. Which brings up the Quorum (TM) Mike, a linear array of mikes in a vertical stalk that overcomes the hypersensitivity of other systems to the dependence of volume level on the distance of the speaker from the mike. It's neat--a conference room full of people sit and speak at natural levels no matter where they are relative to the mike. The receiving station hears a fairly uniform level. But it is NOT the case that the 'echo' problem is solved. The device is still voice-switched, and acoustic treatment is necessary to avoid lots of reverb. The high price ($1700 was quoted here last week) is testimony to the fact that it is intended for business/educational use by rooms full of people who choose to teleconference rather than travel. Hope this all was of some help in clearing the air. --Chuck Dvorak (floyd!hou2b!dvorak) Bell Labs, Holmdel ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 11 April 1983 14:17-EST From: Marvin Sirbu <SIRBU at MIT-XX> Re: Portable terminals The annual report of Motorola contains this note of interest: [Motorola] has developed a unique land-mobile radio/data communications system which gives users access to computers while on the move. The basic element of the system is a handheld computer/data terminal containing both a radio and a telephone modem. The system's intelligent network controller directs messages between a large fixed computer and the portable user, and controls the operation of the radio network. The portable computer/terminal ... features read-only and random access storage, a two-line liquid crystal display, and an alphanumeric keyboard... The first customer, IBM has contracted for a system to be used by its field service personnel. The IBM system will consist of approximately 250 separate citywide radio networks, coordinated by 20 intelligent network controllers, each interfacing with the IBM nationwide computer network. Each controller is capable of supporting up to 1,500 portable users. Installation will begin in late 1983 and is scheduled for completion in 1985. The article doesn't say whether packet radio or some other technique is being used to control access. Coupled with the recent FCC decision to liberalize the use of SCA's, we may see even more of this kind of thing. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 22-Jun-83 16:19:02-PDT,11389;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-Jun-83 16:16:11 Date: 22 Jun 1983 1616-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #28 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 22 June 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: No, The Digest Is Not Dead ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 June 1983 15:53-PST From: The Moderator <JSol at USC-ECLC> Subject: Where has TELECOM been? I've been ill these past 8 weeks and have been unable to produce a digest during that time. Please bear with me as I send out the backlog of mail on the digest. Also, due to time constraints, I did not produce a today's topics section. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, April 20, 1983 6:28PM-EST From: Andrew Scott Beals <SJOBRG.ANDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-ML> Subject: NE Bell Has anyone had major problems with even 300 baud communicatins under New England Bilge's service? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1983 1044-PST From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Cordless Headset-Phone Just received a mail-order catalog of electronic gadgets and noticed the following: Hands-Free Cordless phone, #AD732446: $149.00 plus $4.50 shipping. Unit is a clip-on-belt or pocketable 4 oz. black box with a keypad. (The brand and name pictured on the unit itself is "Technidyne" "Hands Free Go Fone".) The headset is a clip-on-the-ear lightweight Walkman-type earphone with a boom mike (a little silver tube) extending toward the mouth. (One inconsistency here -- the catalog photo shows a model wearing one with an over-the-head band, but the inset photo shows no headband, but just a behind-the-ear clip.) The base unit is a woodgrain box with an hollowed-out area where the portable unit can sit. I think it recharges the portable unit (there's a control marked "charge" visible in the illustration) but the text doesn't mention it. The catalog is from SYNCHRONICS (Hanover, PA 17331) Phone 1-800-621-5809 (in Il, 800-972-5858). Maybe this is what is being looked for? The catalog blurb indicates that they previously offerred a similar model which did not have the keypad -- it was an answer-only phone. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ [UUCP readers - mail to ...!brl-bmd!telecom. Other addresses get returned undeliverable --JSol] From harpo!hou2b!dvorak Mon Apr 18 13:21:31 1983 remote from decvax Date: Mon Apr 18 09:48:39 1983 Subject: HANDS-FREE TELEPHONY There has been a fair amount of inaccurate information appearing here with regards to devices permitting hands-free audio. Note that in the comments that follow, headsets are not included; rather, hands-free audio pertains to a telephonic 'terminal' that has a microphone and a speaker that anyone nearby can use. For example, consider the traditional speakerphone. It is voice-switched, which basically means that when it transmits, incoming signals are essentially blocked. This feature is necessary to prevent talker 1 from having his voice broadcast in talker 2's room, only to be picked up by talker 2's mike and fed back to talker 1. Think of it as a half-duplex device as compared to the full- duplex properties of two talkers each using handsets: No voice-switching, so you can talk and listen simultaneously. More importantly, you can interrupt the other person--which is the way in which real people communicate. But with a speakerphone, when you can hear the person talking from a speakerphone, then you know he cannot hear you. Supervisory personnel here at the Labs routinely use these devices, although it is unclear whether it is (a) to indicate their status, (b) have their hands free, (c) to be the live side of a half-duplex channel, or (d) all of the above. The 'rain-barrel' effect one gets when listening to someone on a speakerphone is due to the reverbations within the room of the speakerphone. It is echo, but multiple relections of short duration. No practical technology exists to correct it other than acoustically treating the room. Which brings up the Quorum (TM) Mike, a linear array of mikes in a vertical stalk that overcomes the hypersensitivity of other systems to the dependence of volume level on the distance of the speaker from the mike. It's neat--a conference room full of people sit and speak at natural levels no matter where they are relative to the mike. The receiving station hears a fairly uniform level. But it is NOT the case that the 'echo' problem is solved. The device is still voice-switched, and acoustic treatment is necessary to avoid lots of reverb. The high price ($1700 was quoted here last week) is testimony to the fact that it is intended for business/educational use by rooms full of people who choose to teleconference rather than travel. Hope this all was of some help in clearing the air. --Chuck Dvorak (floyd!hou2b!dvorak) Bell Labs, Holmdel ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 83 11:07:34 EDT From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C> Subject: Re: Sources of modular plugs & tools To: smb.unc@UDEL-RELAY, smb.mhb5b.unc@UDEL-RELAY Phone: 412/578-3803 In-Reply-To: Your message of 10 Apr 83 12:36:08 EST I'm sending this again to various addresses, as the first attempt got returned and the second my own mailer didn't like.. AMP makes everything: 4, 6, and 8-position plugs, jacks and cable. I haven't gotten them to tell me what kind of availability or pricing (particularly on tooling) they have. Tools are available from Jensen at $140ea. for a single use tool. Gene P.S. We have found (empirically) that the Radio Shaft tools break REAL EASY, but they don't mind replacing them (the first time, anyway). They also don't always do an acceptable job of closing the cord grip cam. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 83 15:59-EST (Tue) From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-cs@UDel-Relay> Return-Path: <gutfreund%umass-cs.UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay> Subject: Teleports Yesterday's NYT had an interesting article in the business section about Teleports and the rising importance of telecomunications (5/2/83). The basic thesis is that while in the past, firms tended to locate near rivers, good highways, and nearby natural resources (coal, lime, electricity, etc). Now the importance of good access to various forms of telecommunications is the key. Examples: In NYC the Microwave band is full up. Most firms have moved their computer back offices to arizona, because of expensive leases and lack of fully air-conditions offices in-city. Nevertheless, the headquarters needs access to their machines. What is the answer if one can't microwave? The answer: A farm of satellite dishes on Staten Island connected via fiber optics to downtown offices. Landlords to seem to be realizing that good pbx and other telephoney gear can attract tenants. Cited in the article are new buildings being billed as having: local nets, shared communal WATTS lines (great for incubator companies like those in First Cambridge), internal mixed data and phone lines, internal teleconferncing. Also various motels are looking at putting terminals in the rooms. "At Harbor Bay Island, a residential and business community under development in Alameda, Calif. near San Francisco, a high-speed communications network will connect all homes and offices, and all homes will be given personal computers, just as they are now provided with ovens and ranges" - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 83 14:04:13 EDT (Thu) From: cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA Sender: cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA cc: cmoore@brl-vld.arpa As far as I know so far, the V&H tape does not indicate whether prefixes with the same place name serve the same or different geographic areas. The long way of checking this out is to compile some addresses & phone #'s from the area in question. ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 83 10:30:06 EDT (Fri) From: smb@mhb5b Return-Path: <smb%mhb5b%Mhb5b.UNC@UDel-Relay> Subject: recording conversations To: unc!telecom Reply-To: smb@unc What are the legal requirements for recording a conversation? I was under the impression that it was legal as long as one of the parties to the call consented; however, the phone book for the jurisdiction in question (not mine; I'm asking for a friend) says that a beeper gadget is required. Whose rule is that, the government's or the phone company's? What happens if you ignore it? --Steve Bellovin smb.unc@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 1983 11:32-PDT From: John Gilmore <sun!gnu@Berkeley> Subject: Charges for "touch tone lines" My central office was recently upgraded to ESS, and Pacific Tel is now chasing down subscribers who have been using touch-tone telephones on lines that are not billed as providing touch tone service. The line in question has never had a Bell System phone on it; it was ordered as a plain line, for use with a DC Hayes Micromodem. They charge $1.20/mo extra for touch-tone service, even when they don't provide a phone, so I didn't get it. However, I later plugged in a touch-tone phone and it worked fine. It is my belief (someone who knows, please verify) that it doesn't cost the phone company ANYTHING to provide touch-tone as opposed to (or in addition to) rotary service on an ESS subscriber line. The interface module is the same -- it's cheaper to have one kind than two, and the interfaces are built with chips that understand both. Furthermore, it costs the phone company money to gather the information and administrate the collections from subscribers who are using touch-tone and paying for rotary -- money that they presumably recoup in the $1.20 charges for people they "catch". Is there any real cost basis for rotary versus touch tone pricing? ------------------------------ Date: Tue May 10 1983 23:20:45-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Telecom Issues and C-SPAN Just as a general note, I'd like to remind the readership that many of the issues we've recently covered in this digest (including new technologies, telephone rates and the Access Charge decision, etc.) are discussed, by FCC Commissioners and other officials, on various programs viewable on C-SPAN. This service (the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network) is available on many cable systems throughout the U.S. Watch for listings like "Telecommunications Seminars" or "FCC Proceedings". The former are particularly interesting since the very issues in which we're interested are discussed quite frankly and rather informally by persons who often actually know what they're talking about! These programs are usually taped by C-SPAN during the day and then run on the network in the dead of night (C-SPAN spends most of the day on more "general interest" programming including House of Representatives proceedings.) I strongly recommend these programs, and C-SPAN in general. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 25-Jun-83 09:10:46-PDT,13185;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 25-Jun-83 09:10:09 Date: 25 Jun 1983 0910-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #29 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 24 June 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 May 83 13:11:39 EDT (Wed) From: cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA It seems that Columbia, Md. exchange area has 4 different local areas now (check of Nov. 1982 Balt. metro phone book and my V&H tape notes shows 301-629, explained further below). They are: "regular"--into but not beyond Baltimore city Ellicott City service--Balt. metro Laurel service--into but not beyond DC Bowie-Glenn Dale service (301-629)--DC metro ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1983 4:08-PDT From: John Gilmore <sun!gnu@Berkeley> Subject: Computers can now make credit card calls I just realized last night that, now that you can make credit card calls with touch-tones only, with no human interaction, it's possible for computers to charge calls to each other (or anyone else!). The application I was considering is a widespread set of people whose micros call in to a central system. Until the central system gets enough load to make it reasonable to hook up to eg Telenet, late-night long distance would work. It would be easier to administrate if one place got all the bills (tho it would also cost the $.50 surcharge per call). This might also encourage use, whereas the user's having to pay their phone bill and then collect later from the central site might discourage use of the system. There are obvious possibilities for abuse, but I suspect that the phonies have traps that will call human attention to lines that make too many charge calls too quickly. PS: I guess this has always been possible with Sprint and MCI anyway... still, there's something awesome about having your machine wired into the massive Bell toll-collection mechanism. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1983 1504-PDT From: Ted Shapin <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL> Subject: NY message lines The May 19 Los Angeles Times had a article about the owners of an adult-oriented magazine having one of 21 New York telephone numbers for giving recorded information. The article stated that some people were complaining because of the nature of the recorded information and also stated that some of the revenue from incoming calls went to the magazine and some to the NY telephone company. They also mentioned $12,000 a day which is ridiculous because one line couldn't handle that many calls. Can someone from NY explain what the regulation is under which this "one of 21" users is operating and what are the revenue implications? Ted. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 1983 21:48 EDT From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD @ MIT-MC> Subject: Passive remote bells Can anyone give me some pointers on this subject, particularly commercially available objects of this type? Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1983 0921-PDT From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL> To: telecom at KESTREL Does anyone know about a long distance service called "Metrophone"? I saw an ad for it in the San Jose paper this weekend. Dick ------------------------------ Date: Tue 24 May 83 16:55:09-PDT From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Pac Tel Proposes $838M Increase Here's a summary (from a May bill insert) of the rate increases Pacific Telephone has requested the Calif. Public Utilities Commission to approve. Estimated annual increases: total: $838 million; each residence: $76.68 Interim increase: 95.44% surcharge as follows ($old $new): Residential Flat rate, ZUM areas (e.g. S.F.) 7.47 14.60 (other areas: 7.15 13.97) Measured 4.00 7.82 Lifeline 2.67 5.22 FEX, ZUM 9.07 17.73 (non-ZUM: 8.75 17.10) Business Flat line 15.52 30.33 Measured 7.47 14.60 (line or trunk) Flat trunk 23.20 45.34 Centrex measured 0.75 1.47 (flat, 2.35 4.59) FEX 16.53 32.31 (line or trunk) Semipublic coin 13.87 27.11 If no surcharge, then proposed new rates: Residential Flat rate ("Residential Premium") 15.00 (where measured not offered, 11.50 till it is) Measured 6.00 Lifeline 2.50 / 1st 10 calls; extras at 0.05 + 0.05/min Business Flat 19.00, Measured 11.00 Installation/moves Residence up 5-9.25, business up 3-11, coin up 6.50-40, "complex" up 18 ZUM: Orange Cty, Sacramento, North San Diego Cty added. (charges in cents) Zone 1 [0-8 mi] (from 2+1/min to) 3+1/min (also applies to non-ZUM local) Zone 2 [9-12 mi] (3+3/min) 5+4/min Zone 3 [13-16 mi] (3+5/min) 5+7/min Long distance [net 3% reduction] "reduce certain ... rates within California" Apply new dial rates to prepaid coin calls (initial period => 1 min) Add quarter or half-dollar service charge to all prepaid coin calls. Coin Quarter/local call on dialtone-first sets. Semipublic monthly rate (from $13 to) $25 Foreign Exchange Increase "to equal the actual cost of the connection". Base business & residential FEX charges on mileage between COs/rate centers Optional residential plans (ORTS/OCMS) Increase usage charges 50% (from 50% MTS to 75%); adjust rates & allowances [This is the one that hurts me the most!] Other Custom calling: make business & residential rates same. Busy verify (from 0.25 to) 0.50, interrupt service (0.25) 1.00 "Increased surcharges ... for person ... and Calling Card calls" Increase flat business trunk rates New $3 charge for operator help contacting party w/ non-published # Reduce 6.66% bill surcharge to 5.19% ("recovers the cost of inside wiring") Reasons Demand for profitable services fell short of forecasts but costs fixed. Competition reduces profitable services' subsidy for the rest. Pac Tel must be financially sound without AT&T. Depreciation increased; need to fund equipment replacement. Hearings before the CPUC 13-24 June (SF, Fresno, Stockton, Red Bluff, Santa Rosa, San Diego, LA, San Jose, Monterey) Submit written comments to CPUC (350 McAllister St., SF CA 94102 or 107 S. Broadway, LA CA 90012). Reference "Application Nos. 83-01-22 and 82-11-07 of Pacific Telephone". Also write CPUC SF if you want "to participate in an ongoing way and need advice on how to do so". Text of Applications available at Pac Tel's local offices and CPUC offices. +j ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 83 7:35:51 EDT (Fri) From: Brint Cooper CTAB <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: More on Calling Cards From the Baltimore News-American, Thurs, 26 May 1983: The C & P Telephone Co. (Md) is searching the globe for phantom callers who used a woman's telephone credit card number to tally a nine-day bill of $26,210.18. "The calls are made from all over the nation," Donna Shor, the owner of a Washington direct mailing service said Wednesday. "Obviously I'm not in all these places." The 338-page bill arrived Tuesday and weighed more than one pound. It lists more than 2,300 domestic and international calls. During one five-minute period on May 4, the card number was used by long distance pirates in six American cities. ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 83 16:09:56 EDT (Fri) From: Carl Moore VLD/VMB <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: "local access" telephone areas The above turned up in a recent Washington (D.C.) Post article which I have not yet read. (I have only seen a correction.) It says that "Telephone customers in lower Calvert County (Md.) will be placed next January in the Baltimore-calling area...and want to remain in the Washington-calling area." This is certainly not local calling area; sounds more like that "operator routing" I discussed several issues back. ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 28 May 1983 19:05:31 EDT From: David.Anderson@CMU-CS-G Subject: phone subsidies From the Pittsburgh Press, Thursday, 26 May 1983 Washington (UPI) -- Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., promised to introduce a bill aimed a curbing local telephone rates he said may soar so high that many people, especially in rural areas, would have to give up their phones. The chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee said his bill has yet to be drafted but will seek subsidies for rural and residential service. ... A bill calling for subsidies was introduced by Packwood in the last Congress before the Justice Department and the American Telephone & Telegraph Company agreed to break up the company. That bill passed the Senate in 1981 but died in the House. ... If nothing is done soon, Packwood said, many residential and rural people "will no longer be able to afford telephone service." ... Packwood said more than $4 billion in local telephone rate increases are now pending before state regulatory commissions. His bill, he said, will seek to ensure that any increases will be "reasonable." ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1983 2129-EDT From: HEDRICK@RUTGERS (Mgr DEC-20s/Dir LCSR Comp Facility) Subject: query about phones I have a problem which I would think would be fairly common. I have a staff of about a dozen people, all of whom tend to wander around our building (and sometimes other places, like their homes). Nonetheless, we would like other people to be able to reach them. We end up playing "telephone tag" with vendors, and have a general reputation for being inaccessible (except to people who can send computer mail). I would like some way for phone calls to follow us around. There are some limitations: - Our building has lots of electronic noise. We can only get one radio station. There is reason to think that cordless phones will have trouble working. And we have more staff than there are channels for cordless phones. - We have Centrex, without any of the ESS features (although the ESS machine on which it is implemented does have them), and a University office in charge of interfacing with the phone company. We have strange agreements with the phone company, e.g. one that does not allow us to order touch-tone phones, even though they have been determined to work. It may prove difficult for us to install a PBX for our group, though I will try it if that is really the best approach. Let me start with my somewhat idealistic specification. I think I could build this myself with components currently available, but I don't have time: A user dials a number for our group. It is really a hunt group, but of course he doesn't know that. He is then asked to dial an extra digit to say who he wants to talk to. (Or H for help?) There will be a few extra options other than people's names, such as the consultant on duty. Each desk will then have a single telephone. When we go into a room, we will dial a code specifying which calls are to be routed to this telephone. There will also be a way of specifying that calls cannot currently be accepted for a given person. When a person calls, he will enter the digit saying who he wants to be connected to. One of the following will then happen: - ring the phone that last said it was willing to accept calls for that person - tell the caller that the phone is busy but he may stay on the line if he wants to wait - tell the caller that that person is not available, but you will have him call back. He would then enter a telephone number where we could call him back, and the system would send computer mail to the person. I would be willing to accept a reasonable subset. I guess the questions I am asking are: - does anyone know of a cordless phone that can survive in environments with lots of electrical noise (and preferably that allow lots of different people to carry cordless phones without interfering with each other)? - does anyone know of call forwarding mechanisms that can be installed "externally", i.e. like a phone answering machine rather than as a PBX that would have to get the cooperation of our telephone people. - does anyone know of systems that provide "call snarfing" instead of call forwarding? That is, the ability to walk into a room and tell its telephone to pick up all calls for my phone -- either in a real PBX or an external device. To be maximally useful, such a system should allow us to exchange phones, that is for each phone to pick up calls intended for the other. That might be a challenge for conventional call forwarding systems. I am looking for vendor names (with phone numbers if you happen to have them) for systems that look like they might provide some reasonable fraction of what we want. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Jun-83 08:22:48-PDT,10342;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 26-Jun-83 08:19:06 Date: 26 Jun 1983 0819-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #30 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 26 June 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Calvert County, Md. New Very Cheap Modem Technique Phone Line Quality Shuttle Legal Recording Requirements Watts Lines? Charges For "Touch Tone Lines" (2 Msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jun 83 7:36:53 EDT (Mon) From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-bmd> To: telecom@brl-bmd Subject: Calvert County, Md. Recent item I sent about Calvert County has to do, it turns out, with the regions being formed at time of breakup of operating companies of ATT. It is the intent that such breakup not disrupt present service, but, prior to any changes, lower Calvert County would lose the 855 exchange (area 301) providing DC metro service (and it's this that's being protested). ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 1983 1132-PDT Subject: New very cheap modem technique From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) (Note: Since Telecom seems to have been inactive for some time, I thought that I'd send this out to Human-Nets too, in order to get immediate dissemination of the information.) The following item is comprised of excerpts and paraphrases from the June 1, 1983, issue of EMMS - Electronic Mail and Message Systems Newsletter (V 7, # 11). The general context of this item is an article regarding a new consumer electronic product designed to download game software into an Atari VCS from the phone line. It is called GameLine, and will charge users $1 for a multiple-play session lasting 40 minutes to an hour. There are grand plans for nationwide tournament play, prizes for the winners, regional and national live tournaments, and such silliness. The company is called Control Video Corp., run by Bill von Meister, who (it says here) founded The Source, TDX Systems, the predecessor to Western Union Electronic Mail, and other companies. Anyway, the idea is that the backers of this venture decided that people were not yet ready to pay for the terminals necessary to use services like The Source, but that they were willing to buy games and game hardware. "To make this market a reality, a low cost modem was required that would keep online time to a minimum. The Bell 103 was too slow and the Bell 212A too expensive. In addition, since the service is not designed to be interactive, but rather to downline load for offline operation, a full-duplex modem wasn't required. The result is that GameLine uses a non-standard, custom-designed modem that operates in half-duplex from 900-1800 bps, depending upon line quality. In addition, the modem has a built-in error-checking procedure to make certain the files loaded have no errors. Indeed, Mark Serif, Control Video's head of operations and one of the main architects of GTE Telemail, told EMMS that the modem's error rate operated two orders of magnitude better than specified. Beyond that, Control Video is saying very little about it because it's the key to the service. The modem, 4K of ROM, 10K of RAM and interfaces to the Atari game loader and a telephone are all combined in the 'Master Module', which will sell for $59.95 in retail stores. Assuming the retailer adds a 20% markup and the distributor makes 10%, this means Control Video is receiving about $40 for the modem [and the rest of the assembly]. The fewer people able to develop a modem for this low cost, the better they'll [Control Video] feel. While the low cost modem is a plus, it also has one weakness; it is not supported by packet networks. GameLine had to develop its own nationwide network to be successful. To do this, Control Video has leased a bank of In-WATS numbers, and is also setting up a regional node system as the network expands. In all, the company expects to have 250,000 to 400,000 users by the end of the first quarter of 1984, which would make it one of the largest online services in the US in terms of individual users." The article goes on to discuss how these people have $5 million in start-up funds and that von Meister is tied to the company with a long-term contract. This could form the nucleus for expansion from games into information transfer, plus online gambling as a possible source of future income and problems. Anyway, the modem is what I think may be of interest to the net. I've long thought the prices for modems far too high to be justified by the components and design costs; maybe this is what is needed to get 1200 bps modems down to the under-$100 range, where it can be coupled with a $295 video terminal for a decent under-$500 home terminal setup. I don't recall seeing anything about this technology in the electronic or computer design magazines. If anyone out there knows anything about this, and especially how it can be applied to produce reasonably-priced 1200 bps modems compatable with the Vadics and Bell 212As now in use, please send info to the list. Regards, Will Martin USArmy DARCOM ALMSA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 83 09:47:46 PDT From: Richard Andrews <andrews@UCLA-LOCUS> Subject: phone line quality I am working on a Masters Thesis at UCLA concerning data transmission over telephone lines, and I need some help. I am looking for any publications or reports concerning the quality of telephone lines (either Bell or non-Bell) for the transmission of data (maximum data rates, error analysis, error control techniques, transmission strategies, etc.) If anyone out there can point me towards any references, it would be much appreciated. Since I am not on this mailing list, please send any replies to andrews@ucla-locus. Thank you! Rich Andrews ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 83 14:11:07 EDT From: cmoore@brl-bmd Subject: shuttle In a news article about the 900-410-6272 space shuttle tel. no., it said that overseas callers have to dial their access code and 1-307-410-6272. Is this a misprint? If not, why the Wyoming area code? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 83 17:25:16 PDT (Wed) From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Legal recording requirements I shall simply quote from my Pac Tel Telephone book: "It is a crime under Federal Law for any person, including a tele- phone 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 the call may eavesdrop on or wiretap the call... Under Federal law, the penalty for illegal wiretapping can be imprisonment for up to five years, fines up to $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Under California State law, the penalty can be imprisonment for up to one year, fines up to $2,500 (or $10K in some cases), or by both such fine and imprisonment." As far as required "beep" tones at 15 second intervals: from what I can see, it seems that is only a Pac Tel policy, and is not required by Federal or State law. It is interesting to note that employees or agents of the telephone company can intercept and disclose telephone conversations if they are working on behalf of their company, whatever that means. See section 18, U.S.C., in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jun 83 20:57:42 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> Subject: WATTS LINES? Come on, guys! The Wide Area Telecommunications Service is WATS. WATTS lines connect you to the low rent district in California. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jun 83 23:19:11 EDT From: Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc@brl-bmd> To: John Gilmore <sun!gnu@ucb-vax> Subject: Re: Charges for "touch tone lines" There is NO basis for charges for "touch-tone"<R> under AT&T divetiture for these reasons (some of which always have been valid): 1. Early ESS equipment actually required a dial-pulse converter in order to service rotary dial phones; hence, count one expense for rotary service. 2. Since tone signalling takes less time than rotary dialing, central office equipment is actually used a bit less per call for touch-tone users--another cost savings in favor of touch-tone. 3. The basis for charging a fee for tone service lay in the unamortized cost of rotary dial telephones which the local phone company owned (but soon will no longer own) and some old central office equipment. Since much of this cost basis dis- appears as we all purchase our own phones, and since there are other economies driving out old central office equipment, any monthly service charge for tone signalling is at best archaic and at worst a rip-off. Brint Cooper (abc@brl.Arpa) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jun 83 15:28:55 EDT From: jhh%ihldt@BRL-BMD.ARPA Whether it costs more to provide Touch-Tone(TM) service on a 1ESS(TM) switching system or not is irrelevant to the pricing question. Since this is determined by tarriffs, the question is whether it costs more to provide this service to anyone. Since it does cost money to provide Touch-Tone service to mechanical office subscribers, everybody must pay more for the service, since the tarriffs are written without regard to the type of switch they are provided on. John Haller Touch-Tone is a trademark of AT&T, and, in their infinite wisdom, 1ESS, 2ESS, 3ESS, 4ESS, and 5ESS are trademarks of Western Electric. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 26-Jun-83 15:09:05-PDT,7296;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 26-Jun-83 15:08:43 Date: 26 Jun 1983 1508-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #31 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 27 June 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Cost Of Providing DTMF Service Satellite Query NY Legislature Vs. The Phone Company (212/718 split) When It's Okay To Record A Phone Conversation [TELECOM is now caught up with the backlog caused by my absence from the net. Future digests will depend on the number of messages submitted and may vary from a couple of days to a week between issues. --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jun 83 9:47:06-EDT (Thu) From: Robert Jesse <rnj.jhu@UDel-Relay> In older offices, it *does* cost more to support DTMF dialing, in the sense that if all of the subscribers decided they wanted that service, the telco would have to upgrade their equipment. The argument for the extra charge, even for customers served by the most modern CO equipment, is based on "equity", "fairness", "uniformity", and possibly also recovery of long-term research investment. I for the longest time found it so annoying that I refused to pay the $1.20/month, but recently I gave in. Perhaps this policy will change as the local operating companies begin adopting more of the "pay-what-it-costs" attitude we've been promised. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 1983 1200-PDT Subject: Satellite Inquiry From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) (I had originally tried to send this to "Home-Sat", but that mailing list seems to have died as a result of the TCP changeover and MIT-AI's demise. I think it relates enough to telecommunications to be a valid item in this digest. -WM) The following item appeared in the June 1, 1983, issue of EMMS - Electronic Mail and Message Systems Newsletter, in the "Items of Interest" section (by the way, this is full of satellite-oriented announcements and news items, if you have an interest in such things): "Western Union has retired its first commercial satellite from operation after nine years of service. The satellite, Westar I, was launched in April 1974 and had an expected life cycle of seven years. In effect, WU depreciated the cost of the bird over seven years, so for the last two years was deriving no tax breaks from its satellite. On the other hand, it probably was incurring no costs either, with the two extra years translating into large profits." [End quote] -- OK, this raises questions in my mind. I figured this is the most likely forum to find people knowledgeable about the details of running a satellite, so here goes... What is involved in "retiring" a satellite? Sending it a signal to go into standby mode and then ignoring it thereafter? Sending it a signal to blow up? (I envision this as the Hollywood interpretation, where everything electronic can also explode.) Sending it some irreversable signal to turn off completely? (I can't imagine designing such an unrecoverable situation into the control program, myself.) I would guess that it is in some sort of standby mode now. Can't anyone else with a transmitting earth station send signals to this satellite to turn it back on and use it themselves? I would assume these control signals are coded or encrypted somehow so that anybody with a dish and an appropriate-frequency transmitter can't play around with the satellite control systems while it is in operation, but what about now that it is "retired"? The WU technicians aren't going to be paying it any more attention -- couldn't someone use standard code-breaking techniques and eventually find the right signals to send? Of course, being past its design life, it probably is unreliable. (I assume that is the reason it was "retired" instead of continuing in profitable use until it died -- the company didn't want to be stuck with supporting users whose service died out from under [actually over] them, and finding the customers replacement circuits on an emergency basis.) However, for some ham radio & computer freak, or some organization of evil genius bent on (dare I say it?) ruling the world, or maybe even Fly-By-Night Satellite Services, Inc., an unreliable satellite is better than none at all. So isn't it likely that someone would try to use it if they could? What about its orbital slot? Does this non-functioning satellite eat up n degrees of geosync orbit forever, or until Ace Satellite Repair gets up there and hauls it away for scrap? Or will another bird be put into the same slot right away? (I guess it is physically safe to stick another one up there; the same orbit slot still means thousands of cubic miles of space, and the likelihood of one running into the other on insertion seems remote. Or is it?) I also wonder about this retirement instead of donating the satellite, for the rest of its unknown life, to some group or organization who could use its footprint area for some public-service sort of thing. I would think that WU would get some big tax break and lots of great PR for essentially no effort at all. Comments and discussion encouraged on these queries. Will Martin ------------------------------ From: smb%mhb5b@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 24 Jun 83 15:20:51 EDT (Fri) Subject: NY legislature vs. the phone company Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin Yesterday, the N.Y. State Assembly passed a bill prohibiting the phone company from splitting up New York City into two area codes (212 and 718). The Senate is expected to pass the bill as well, though possibly not during this session. The sponsor of the bill said he didn't see why consumers in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island should have to pay for and be in- convenienced by this, when the shortage of numbers is due to businesses in Manhattan. Furthermore, he claims that the split will inevitably lead to making calls between the areas toll calls (though NYC has had metered local service for many years now). He suggests as an alternative that business phones be switched to 718, but consumers keep 212..... *sigh* ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 1983 1944-PDT From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: When it's okay to record a phone conversation I believe you're right. As long as one of the parties involved in the phone conversation is aware that it's being recorded, it's okay to do so. This of course means that you and someone can be talking on the phone and THEY can be taping YOU without your knowing it. No beep is required unless neither party is aware that it's being taped, although many places (most notably, insurance companies) still use them to be on the conservative side. A question I have is: Can someone use a conversation they recorded with- out your knowledge (but with theirs) that you had with them against you in a court of law? --Lynn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 28-Jun-83 14:12:26-PDT,10154;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 28-Jun-83 14:11:44 Date: 28 Jun 1983 1411-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #32 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 29 June 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: NY Legislature Vs. The Phone Company Telephone Tag Robert Weitbrecht - In Memoriam Old Satellites Gameline Modem - Cheap Because It's Half Duplex Modems / Satellites / Mailing Lists Satellite Inquiry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jun 83 18:36:50 PDT (Sunday) From: Newman.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: NY legislature vs. the phone company What a ridiculous bill. Southern California had an area code split last year and will have another one next year. The first one split Orange County and San Diego into two area codes; the second will split Los Angeles from the San Fernando Valley. The only problems this has caused are a few small municipalities which were to be split down the middle by the area code boundary. These were adjusted by moving the line slightly, at the cost of forcing some people to get new phone numbers. Nobody here would dream of proposing such a bill. Is the NY State Assembly made of technological illiterates?? /Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jun 83 10:51 PDT From: Deutsch.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Telephone tag To: HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA We have exactly the same problem you do with people moving around a lot from one office to another. My solution is even more idealistic than yours: have everyone (who wants to) carry a little beeper-like device, and have a sensor permanently installed in each phone. If you get within N feet of a phone, its sensor knows you are there, and the sensor sends that information to the forwarding mechanism. Of course, the beeper has a switch on it that lets you choose not to receive calls this way, or to forward them to a receptionist, or (ideally) switch the caller to a digital audio recorder, or whatever. We had a phone system of approximately the kind you want some years back, built by Danray Corp. (don't know if they're around any more). It was completely programmable -- every signal you could possibly want to get your hands on was routed into or out of a Data General Nova. If it had worked reliably, we would have loved it to death. Please let us know what you come up with. Peter Deutsch ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1983 1706-PDT From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode) Subject: In Memoriam To: Telecom at USC-ECLC Location: EJ296 Phone: (415) 859-2774 A recent item in the SRI employee newsletter states that "Robert Weitbrecht, a deaf physicist who had worked in SRI's Communications Laboratory from 1958 to 1969, died recently as a result of a car accident. He invented a telecommunications device for the hearing-impaired which was the forerunner of the acoustic-coupled data modems we know today. A scholarship fund is being established in his name by Weitbrecht Communications Company in San Carlos." ------------------------------ Date: 27 June 1983 22:29 EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: old satellites Satellites "wear out" when their stabilizing thrusters run out of fuel. They then drift away from their assigned orbital slot. Also, they may start tumbling so that their solar cells and antennae aren't oriented properly. They then run out of power, or have their antenna pointed so they can't be heard. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 27 June 1983 22:37 EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #30 The reason the Gameline modem is cheap is that it's not full duplex. The reason Vadic's and 212A's are expnesive is that they are. The British television industry has been selling a cheap (under $100) 1200/75 modem as part of a Prestel-equipped television set for several years. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 27-Jun-83 14:18:59 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: modems / satellites / mailing lists Greetings. There's no big trick to "medium" speed HALF-duplex modems, up to 2400 bps or so. Half-duplex, to put it very briefly, is much, much simpler to implement than full-duplex -- there's very little comparison, really. So, I would wager that the cheapo half-duplex modem mentioned in a previous digest will not have any bearing on the technical development of full-duplex modems. More technical details on request. As for "deactivated" satellites... The standard policy now is to simply switch off the transponders and let the bird "sit". Until the satellite is REALLY dead, the command receiver would probably still be workable, IF you knew the codes and had the appropriate equipment to work an uplink. These birds typically would not be of much use to anyone, since one of the primary reasons for declaring a bird "dead" is the exhaustion of the fuel for the steering rockets. Without this fuel, the satellite cannot be maintained in an exact geosync orbit, and will eventually drift, presumably to a lower orbit and eventual disintegration in the atmosphere. While this sounds like a "collision" risk, there is actually one hell of a lot of open space up there. Of course, as WMartin suggested, the orbital slot used by the satellite can be immediately used by a new satellite, since a given degree of geosync orbit does represent a lot of space. As long as the original satellite isn't transmitting, there won't be any interference problems. WMartin humorously suggested that such satellites might be blown up when their useful life is over. While this isn't done with commercial communications satellites, there is much work currently underway on the so-called "killer" satellites which would perform this task as their primary mission. --Lauren-- P.S. HOME-SAT and TELETEXT will soon be combined in one new Internet list to be called VIDEOTECH, which I will moderate. This new list will be activated as soon as some technical issues can be worked out, and I will announce it officially at that time. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1983 19:58:28-PDT From: Robert P. Cunningham <cunningh@Nosc> Subject: Re: Satellite Inquiry I asked some of the same questions when in Norm Abramson's class on satellite data communications. Here's some of the answers, though if anyone else wants to correct me, that's fine--this info is mostly second-or-third-hand, and I might have misunderstood a few things. The useful life of a satellite is set mainly by the insurance companies that insure it. If it fails, they're the ones who have to foot the bill for a replacement bird. For something like Westar, that could run in the neighborhood of $40 million. If you run the satellite longer than the insured period (seems to be almost uniformly 7 years), and it fails...tough; the insurance company does not replace. Although transponders tend to go bad over time, and there is decreasing efficiency from the solar cells that power the things, the first thing to go is (usually) station-keeping fuel. Without occasional, care- fully controlled bursts from the gas jets, a geosynchronous satellite starts to 'wobble' in orbit, tracing what looks like a figure-8 from the ground (and going beyond the location that fixed antennas are aimed at). Then it slowly starts to drift east or west (depending on where it is) out of its 'orbital slot'. The orbital perturbations are caused by small gravitational anomalies. If the earth was a perfect sphere (or even a perfect oblate spheroid), there wouldn't be any problem. There are two reasonably stable points in geosynchronous orbit: a kind of a metastable point over north america, and the global stable point over India. Completely dead geosynch satellites drift towards one of those, most towards India. In the very long term (how many thousands of years?), of course, complete orbital decay will eventually set in. Meanwhile, over the next few centuries, expect to see a collection of dead satellite over India. When 'turned off', usually the things go into standby mode, awaiting a coded control signal from earth. Incidently, the telemetry and control transceivers have much less gain than the regular broadcast transponders. To talk with a bired in standby mode, you need a very large, steerable antenna ('class A', at least). There's probably only a dozen or so of these in the world. If Western Union wants to keep their bird as an in-orbit spare, they'll just juke it slightly away from its orbital slot (to make room for another active satellite, not necessarily theirs), and expend some station keeping fuel once or twice a year to keep it from drifting too far east (I think it would be east, might be west). Then, in a real emergency (a new satellite goes out, and there's a delay until a ground spare can be launched, for instance), they can always reactivate it. I supose they could give it away, but whoever took over ownership had better have a ready collection of high-gain 4/6 GHz antennas and associated paraphenalia ready. Also, they'd have to pay someone (WU?) to control the bird, monitor telemetry to check what's happening, etc. And, perhaps most importantly, they must have authorizations to use whatever orbital/frequencies slot they want to use up there. It's getting pretty crowded up there (one reason why SBS whent to higher, suboptimal frequency bands), and the slots are negotiated years in advance, and involve international as well as national-level bargaining. Bob Cunningham <cunningh@nosc-cc> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 30-Jun-83 20:37:09-PDT,4725;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 30-Jun-83 20:36:05 Date: 30 Jun 1983 2036-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #33 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Friday, 1 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Splitting Of Area Codes 900 410-NASA Splitting 212 In NYC - NPAs New Countries Dialable Effective 3 September ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 28-Jun-83 15:18:38 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: splitting of area codes One interesting aspect of the L.A. split (213 -> 213/818) is that we'll be actually splitting up the CITY of L.A., not just splitting off unincorporated areas or other cities. I've heard of no serious complaints from anybody locally about this move. The Valley will get 818, we "good" guys on the south side of the Hollywood Hills get to keep 213. Of course, there will be no changes in ZUM/toll rates from the change, just some additional dialing. I fail to see how the people in N.Y. could suggest that it is LESS of an inconvenience for BUSINESSES to change their area code than for residences -- businesses have far more paperwork to change and get far more calls. The whole issue seems like pretty silly stuff. --Lauren-- P.S. By the way, if I had control over these things, I'd give The Valley its own COUNTRY CODE, then build checkpoints on the San Diego Freeway and the various canyons to keep the Valley People over on THEIR side. Ha ha... just kidding?! --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 1983 2026-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: 900 410-NASA Even though overseas customers dialed +1 307 410 6272 to reach the NASA reports, the calls were not being routed to Wyoming. The overseas gateways were the only places which considered the code valid and routed the calls to a 900 Service node. The reason 900 could not be used is that originating equipment in other countries has to translate the NPA when processing calls to World Numbering Zone 1 in order to send the call to the right country and, in some cases, to determine the rate of the metering pulses. It would be unreasonable to open 900 from other countries, since it is a special service code, not a real NPA. I'm not sure why 307 was chosen, other than the availability of 410. It may have been to cause nearby countries to charge the highest rate for the call, if any of those countries have rates to the U.S. which depend on the point called. I think Mexico does; I'm sure Canada does (although I'm not sure they could call at all); and some other Caribbean points might, since we used to have differing rates to them. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 1983 2044-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: NPAs The action of the New York legislature didn't surprise me that much; there has been a lot of noise about this since it was first announced. I doubt that it will pass both houses and be signed by the governor, though. If it does, it could have some interesting effects: - They could have to stop installing new phones. - They might have to drastically restrict dial pager service (a big number gobbler). - The phone company would be justified in its normal policy of being secretive about its plans. The situation with the San Diego split was quite different. These kind of splits have happened several times in the past, and generally have little effect, because they have never split communities before. The Los Angeles split will be somewhat different, though. Some Los Angeles addresses will be in one NPA, and some in another, with no reasonable way for the average person (or operator, even) to tell which one to use. In New York, it was much simpler, with the split along Borough lines. In that case, the Zip Code could probably always determine the NPA. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 1983 2052-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: New Countries dialable effective 3 September Hungary 36 Saipan 670 Czechoslovakia 42 Yemen Arab Rep. 967 Poland 48 Jordan 962 India 91 Namibia 264 Not becoming dialable yet, but assigned a country code: Greenland 299 (Greenland is in World Numbering Zone 3-4, which is out of codes, so 299 is as close to 3 as one can get.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 7-Jul-83 20:32:57-PDT,7975;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 7-Jul-83 20:28:23 Date: 7 Jul 1983 2028-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #34 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 7 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: ACS Weirdy! Modem Charges Computio N.Y. Area Codes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jun 1983 21:11-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: ACS weirdy! From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow A friend of mine who owns a microcomputer software store in Brea, Ca, has three business lines on a rotary (714-671-1091,2,3). On a recent visit to the area, i had the need to place some long distance calls from his store and found out something really weird. When I placed a calling card call on his main number, 714-671-1091, the operator came on and collected my calling card number. BUT, when I placed calls on 671-1092 or 671-1093 lines, I got the magic gong and was able to touch tone in my card number. Any ideas why one line would not have ACS, but the other two would? Bug or Feature? [ACS only works from Touch Tone lines. Are all the lines Touch Tone? I suspect that the line which ACS doesn't work on is not configured for Touch Tone. If this is a bug (i.e. you should have Touch Tone (tm) on all lines), then your repair service should be able to fix it. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 83 07:04:04 PDT (Tue) From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: modem charges S.W. Bell is enforcing a tariff rule in Oklahoma which requires users of modems, residential or business, to pay a special "information terminal rate" which, needless to say, is about 5 times the normal residential rate and does not include the right to an IEEE data quality line. (They just want information terminal money, not to provide information terminal service.) In Texas, there is a similar rate, but the Texas PUC exempted residential users from it, after hearing testimony from hobbyist BBS operators. For more information, if you have access to Compuserve, look in the Computers and Electronics data base. (page cem-450, data base 0) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 1983 11:15-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: Computio. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow n525 0103 04 Jul 83 BC-COMPUTIO-07-04 By Daniel Rosenheim (c) 1983 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service) CHICAGO - What do you get when you marry a portable radio with a computer? A facile answer would be an electronic office that fits in your pocket. But glibness aside, that is a not-unreasonable description of the hand-held, radio-equipped computer terminals being introduced by suburban Schaumburg-based Motorola. The idea is not to listen to punk rock while calculating your expense account. Rather, Motorola believes the system will extend corporate computer networks to employees in the field - no telephones, no modems, no wall plugs needed. The product is the next logical step in the spreading field of distributed data processing. Its market potential is estimated in the billions of dollars. ''To our knowledge, this is a first,'' said Edward F. Staiano, vice president and general manager of Motorola's communications systems division. ''It is the intersection of two technologies: radio frequency transmission and data processing.'' As computer technology has blossomed in the last few years, so has the portable computer terminal using telephone lines to communicate with a centrally located main computer. Such portable computers have been commanding both steadily growing market share and attention. But Motorola's product bypasses the telephone in favor of an ''over-the-air'' computer communications network. A key element in the system is a battery-operated computer terminal. So small that it can be held in the hand, the terminal weighs a mere 28 ounces - yet it contains a two-way radio, an internal antenna and intelligence in excess of many personal computers. With it, users can communicate with central computers without being tethered to a telephone line. IBM, which helped develop the system, plans to use it to establish a nationwide radio communications system for its field personnel in 250 cities. The system will allow IBM service personnel, armed with portable terminals, to communicate via computer while commuting, traveling between locations or working at a customer's office. Field testing of the IBM system will begin in October in Chicago, with completion of the testing phase expected by the next February. Meanwhile, Motorola has begun selling the system on the open market. With just one base station, the portable unit has a range of five to 10 miles, depending upon conditions. But Motorola envisages the establishment of multiple, adjacent base stations, which would greatly extend the range. Unlike proposed ''cellular'' radio systems, which are being established to allow lengthy voice transmission, the portable computer system is constructed for frequent but brief data communications. While the average cellular radiotelephone call is expected to last more than 100 seconds, the maximum transmission time for the computer terminal is one second, and the longest message is 256 characters. Because messages will be brief, Motorola believes it will be able to support at least 1,000 terminals on a single channel without interference. To some degree, Motorola may end up selling portable terminals at the expense of another market it dominates: telephone pagers. But, notes Staiano, paging permits only a one-way voice communication, while the terminals permit two-way computer links. ''We don't see the terminal as a replacement business, but as a significantly new product,'' he said. Motorola won't comment on the value of its contract with IBM, but Staiano said the total market for such systems is expected to hit several million units over the next 10 years. With each unit expected to sell at between $2,000 and $4,000, the market easily translates to several billion dollars. And although competitive products are sure to be developed, Motorola's 67 percent current share of the market for mobile communications equipment on land gives the company an inside track from the start. Finally, while the initial systems are expected to be developed for use by business, Staiano said a market could develop by the end of the decade for sale to individuals, who might want to use the portable units to get access to computerized news services and other data bases. END ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 83 12:45:09 PDT (Thu) From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: N.Y. Area Codes As I recall, the one area which might really have trouble with an area code split between Manhattan and the outer Boroughs is Marble Hill, especially the large city housing project there. Marble Hill is north of the Harlem River canal, but it straddles the old City line, between Manhattan and what was Westchester County (and is now the Bronx). As far as the post office is concerned, it all has the same (Bronx) zip code, but the county line runs right through the grass in the housing project. I think there are some zip codes which are split between 516 and 212, along the Queens-Nassau city line, now, in the postal cities of Jamaica (Belrose), Floral Park (Glen Oaks) and New Hyde Park. (Of course, people who live in Iowa with an Iowa area code and an Omaha zip code will find this trivial.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 9-Jul-83 19:18:51-PDT,10455;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 9-Jul-83 19:18:42 Date: 9 Jul 1983 1918-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #35 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Sunday, 10 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: N.Y. Area Codes DTMF Charges NYC Area Code Split Tracing Phone Calls General Telephone Rate Increase ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 83 8:05:50 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> To: jmrubin%Coral.CC@ucb-vax Subject: Re: N.Y. Area Codes Hmm...I have VERY VAGUE recollection of Manhattan-Bronx boundary anywhere off Harlem River. But weren't BOTH Manhattan & Bronx supposed to remain in area 212, with Brooklyn, Queens, & Staten Island becoming new area 718? I recall that Inwood, Nassau County, is served by a branch of the Far Rockaway post office in NYC. (zipcode 116xx) ------------------------------ Date: 8 July 1983 1453-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL> Subject: DTMF charges Bell's charges have NEVER reflected shop costs. They used to charge more for a phone in any color but black. The change from black to other colors was prompted by a change from Bakelite to more modern phenolics which don't take the black color very well (I don't know all the technical details). Anyway, a Western Electric friend says that the cost to manufacture a black housing, post-conversion, was about double that to make a colored one. /k**2 ------------------------------ Date: 8 July 1983 1459-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL> Subject: NYC Area Code Split To: TELECOM @ USC-ECLB ZIP code lines and borough lines definitely don't match between Far Rockaway (Queens: 11691) and Inwood (Nassau: 11696). Anyway, the initial impact is expected to be minimal. After the split, most new exchanges will initially be created with the second digit a 0 or 1 (which will not be a conflict since NYC was one of the last areas to need a "1" in front of an area code). All other exchanges will be put on intercept, initially rerouted automagically to the correct place, and later to a recorded message. BTW, when I was back in NYC a week ago, I tried dialing the Far Rockaway exchange (212-327) from a phone in the Cedarhurst exchange (516-239), without using an area code. That's handled from the same central office, but has needed an area code for as long as area codes have existed. Anyway, they still (after 20+ years) have the intercept set up to tell you that "an area code is now required to dial FA 7 numbers; please dial 212-FA 7 and the local number". I hadn't heard any Bell messages give me an exchange with LETTERS in a long time, either. ------------------------------ From: davy%pur-ee@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 7 Jul 83 00:40:33 EDT (Thu) Subject: tracing phone calls Some friends and I got into a discussion the other night about tracing phone calls. One guy stated that with all this new electronic equipment (ESS, etc.), it is possible to trace a call "instantaneously". The other guy and I maintained that it still takes at least a few minutes to do the trace. Could someone please tell me how long it takes to trace a call? Also, while we're at it, just what is involved in doing a trace? Thanks, --Dave Curry decvax!pur-ee!davy pur-ee!davy@berkeley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jul 83 10:33:38 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-ATS> Subject: General Telephone rate increase General Telephone Company of California has just requested a major rate increase. An exact and complete copy of the legal advertisement announcing this request is appended. Besides the obvious problems of a substantial over-all rate increase, telecom readers might wish to consider the concept of USS (Usage Sensitive Service) which is described in the proposal. Note that under USS the amount users are charged is based on "how much they use the telephone for making calls", not on what the costs are (or should be) to General Telephone Company. This type of charge will severely impact individual modem users who, while tying up a telephone line for several hours, actually do very little communicating. If the Telephone Company provided a reasonable data service, taking into account the bursty and intermittent nature of individual data users, the costs could be quite low. NOTICE OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA RATE INCREASE APPLICATION (Application No. 83-07-02 Filed July 1, 1983) On July 1, 1983, General Telephone Company of California (General) filed an application to increase its rates by $346.5 million during 1984, a 16.7 percent increase in total revenues for the company, and by an additional $35 million during 1985 to offset the anticipated impact of attrition on General's earnings in that year. If the request is approved by the Commission as proposed, the impact on General's customers is shown below. Since General's last general rate increase in April of 1982, the cost of its day-to-day operations and its construction program have continued to increase. General is in the midst of a multiyear, multi- billion-dollar construction and service improvement program which has already significantly enhanced the quality and range of services available to its customers. This program cannot be sustained without adequate earnings. The information below summarizes the effects of General's proposed changes; however a variety of rate proposals may be presented by the Commission Staff and other parties, some of which may be higher or lower than the rates proposed by General, but the Commission will make the final determination after hearings have been held. 1984 Rate Proposals Present Proposed rate rate ------- -------- Telephone Set Charge Rotary $ 1.15 1.50 Touch calling 1.70 2.15 Residential Measured Service 2.80 (30) 3.75 (15) Basic Line Service Residential One-party 7.75 15.30 Suburban 6.90 12.45 Business -- Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Measured 7.20 14.60 Suburban 14.60 26.65 Coin 17.50 44.60 PBX 7.20 14.60 Business -- Outside Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Flat Rate 17.20 30.95 Suburban 14.60 26.65 Coin 17.50 44.60 PBX 25.95 47.00 Operator Busy Line Verification .25 .75 Coin Telephone Call .10 .25 Other changes proposed by General include increases for residential service connections that will range from $3 to $15, depending on what service is involved, and for business service connections ranging from $3 to $25. Residential customers who visit a GTE Phone Mart may be able to avoid some of these charges. Business terminal equipment services, such as Key Telephones, Supplemental Datatel, Special Assembly and most Telephone Answering would be increased by 9 percent. As part of the expansion of the Statewide Zone Usage Measurement plan (a method of charge based on usage), General proposes to divide some larger exchanges into smaller units. This will result in local calling areas of which are more equal in size and in number of customers in General's service area. General is also proposing in its current request a more equitable and cost effective way of pricing local service called Usage Sensitive Service (USS). USS is a method of pricing local telephone service by which customers pay in direct proportion to how much they use the telephone for making calls. Those who use more pay more. Those who use less pay less. General is seeking to begin USS in late 1985 but only in a few communities. It would be gradually introduced in other areas over a period of several years. A series of public hearings will be held throughout California in late November and early December to give customers an opportunity to express their views to the PUC either in a brief oral statement or in written comments. Notice of these public hearings will be given to all of General's subscribers by means of a bill insert. This notice will also include the PUC Staff's recommendations for appropriate revenues to be granted to General. The evidentiary or legal hearings in this proceedings will begin on October 3, 1983. Customers wishing to formally intervene in this proceeding must appear at the Prehearing Conference to be held on August 12, 1983, at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom located at 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles. The PUC welcomes your comments. If you cannot attend these hearings, you may submit written comments to the PUC at the address below. simply state that you are writing about General Telephone Company of California's 1984 Rate Case. A copy of General's application may be inspected at your local GTE Phone Mart. Further information may be obtained from the California Public Utilities Commission offices: 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 107 South Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90012 ------- Published July 8, 1983 in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 10-Jul-83 15:20:26-PDT,14500;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 10-Jul-83 15:19:53 Date: 10 Jul 1983 1519-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #36 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 11 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: 1+ Long Distance Dialing Southwestern Bell Wants Triple!!! General Telephone Rate Increase Proposal And Call Tracing Phone Service Pricing Tracing Calls Under ESS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1983 23:42 EDT From: SJOBRG.ANDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC Subject: 1+ long distance dialing Re: /k**2's comment Down in the Washington DC area (and suburbs), which is served by C&P Tel, you still don't need to go thru the 1+ cruft. ------------------------------ Date: 10 July 1983 00:40 EDT From: Frank J. Wancho <FJW @ MIT-MC> Subject: Southwestern Bell Wants Triple!!! I thought that surely by now someone from UT-Austin would have called attention to the following activity down here. I guess they're either on vacation or out to lunch... (Bear in mind as you read this, the old maxim about asking for twice what you really want so the regulators can cut the request in half and claim a victory on behalf of the consumers - only in this case, it appears that inflation has stepped in...) From: The El Paso Times, Sunday July 3, 1983, page 1-G Bell's breakup scrambles services By Paul Beebe Times staff writer For its millions of telephone customers, the eight-part breakup of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. next Jan. 1 will mean uncertainty, confusion and more than a little panic. And in El Paso, life outside Ma Bell's familiar umbrella of service will never be the same. AT&T officials have six months to transform the world's largest company into eight independent companies and abide by an out-of-court agreements reached in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department. The settlement requires AT&T to divest its 22 wholly-owned local operating companies -- about two-thirds of its assets. In turn, the government agreed to remove restrictions limiting AT&T to the regulated communications business and to drop its suit. However, nothing is final until a federal judge gives his approval. While the change is confusing enough for AT&T, officials at Southwestern Bell's El PAso office predict even more chaos when cunsumers wake up to the changes that become effective at the close of 1983. "From now on, the telephone business will be like any other business," said Stephen Seewoester, a spokesman for Southwestern. "Let the buyer beware." The first change that drew the attention of consumers happened June 24, when Southwestern filed a record $1.7 billion rate increase with the Texas Public Utility Commission. The increase is requested to pay for Southwestern's separation from AT&T. If approved, it will about triple the $10 average monthly residential telephone bill. However, on Thursday PUC General Counsel Allen King said the commission's staff might recommend that $1.2 billion of the request be thrown out because the federal judge hasn't given final approval to the divestiture plan. Under the proposal, El Paso basic service rates would soar to $32.40 a month from the current $8.80 charge. Business rates would jump to $39.25 from $20.55. Additionally, residential and business customers would have to pay another $4 in access charges ordered by the Federal Communications Commission. All of this is before any charges for long-distance calls. An access charge is the cost to each customer of hooking the telephone to Bell's nationwide network. Ultimately, ratepayers would have to pay the complete cost of access, now about $18 a month in Texas. People to be hurt most by the increase are those who use Bell's long-distance service the least. One group of consumers -- large business customers -- could see their total monthly bill come down, since long-distance rates are expected to decline under divestiture. PUC Chairman Al Erwin said Southwestern's request is the largest any Bell subsidiary ever has filed in any state, "but there is no assumption (at the PUC) that one penny is necessary ... We're not going to be sandbagged by anybody." Some increase is likely, however. Because of the breakup, Southwestern no longer will be in most of the long-distance business, which will be offered by AT&T, Sprint, MCI and other companies. Southwestern no longer will get its share of AT&T's long-distance revenues that in the past were use to hold down local rates. Seewoester said AT&T is considering optional types of long-distance service. For instance, a customer could choose to use long-distance during a part of the day when telephone traffic is slow. Calls made at that time would be cheaper. Southwestern is also considering ways to cut the cost of telephone service for its customers under divestiture. Final details aren't ready yet, but the plans would be alternatives to the flat-rate, unlimited service that is offered now. Customers would probably pay for each local call and get a substantially cheaper monthly base rate. Southwestern, on the other hand, won't pull completely out of the long-distance market. Its customers in the Dallas-Fort Worth geographical area, covering two area codes, will have to make long-distance calls that travel only a short way. Those calls will be billed by Southwestern, not AT&T. Callers needing directory service will contact operators working for Southwestern. However, long-distance information requests will be routed across AT&T lines to operators working for other regional companies. AT&T operators will provide assistance for WATS numbers. Under the present structure, callers aren't charged for long-distance information requests. Seewoester said customers usually make a long-distance call that produces revenue that covers the cost of the directory assistant's time. But next year, if the PUC agrees, each request for local directory assistance would cost 35 cents after the first three free requests allowed each month. If the information request is within the region served by Southwestern, the customer pays the local company. However, if the request is made to an operator working for another company, she or he will bill the long-distance carrier, which may or may not elect to recover the cost from the caller. ... -------------------- The article goes on and on. The point I'd like to make is that Southwestern has put an interesting game-plan into effect here. By asking for an outrageouly large rate increase, it will probably and reluctantly settle for something far less, in exchange for concessions to set up the alternate billing structure it wanted to impose all along. The customer/consumer breathes a sigh of relief for not having to pay triple rates (but probably more like double), and would now be more willing to go along with trying out what would have been previously unpallitable - paying per call for local service, in a vain attempt to reduce the bill... The other thing I want to know is why would we have to pay the $4 - to be $18 - long-distance access charge back to the old "unrelated" long-distance carrier, AT&T? Why not to MCI or Sprint, or *MY* choice of service, or NONE AT ALL, and get those others on my own as I can now if I so desire? (Sounds an awful lot like those non-competitive fuel pass-thru adjustments on my gas and electric bills - no incentive to buy at the best price...) So what can anybody do about this outside of Texas -- probably nothing but wait and see. Remember, we got suckered into 25 cent pay-phones and directory information charges long before anyone else did... The handwriting is on the wall... --Frank ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 9-Jul-83 20:18:33 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: General Telephone rate increase proposal and Call Tracing The rate increase proposed by General Telephone of California is approximately in line with the increase recently proposed by PacTel. In the latter case, for what it's worth, I've heard that the PUC staff has recommended a 2/3 reduction in Pacific's request. This is, of course, not binding on the Commission, which often ignores staff comments. In any case, with the federal courts now expressing intense dislike for the FCC's access charge proposals, it appears that the rate situation is getting increasingly cloudly, not less. There have been more vocal public demonstrations against the recent PacTel proposal than for any rate case I can remember in the recent past, and we can expect similar actions directed against GenTel. We can of course assume that the concept of forced local measured service (once people realize that's what GenTel is really talking about) will cause some *very* loud complaints. Feel free to add your voice to the crowd, but don't complain about modems -- complain about the impact on your VOICE calls. Telco is not very sympathetic about long-usage modem callers. (In fact, in one midwest state, telco is now charging all persons with a modem on their phone line a new higher rate [apparently at *least* several times higher than basic service] on the assumption that these people will use the line more. They also apparently tried this in Texas, but decided to only apply it to business users after there were some loud complaints. This is all in *addition* to paying for local calls when *that* is implemented.) GenTel has no choice but to ask for a "gradual" phase-in of a usage-sensitive plan, since they can only properly manage the situation in their EAX/ESS offices. Such phase-ins have some interesting side-effects, like massive numbers of people having their friends with flat rate phones call them back, instead of continuing to talk with the "meter" running. If you want to "protect" yourself somewhat, make sure that you get your phone lines in nice, old, residential, step by step offices. There are some GenTel step offices down here that aren't slated for EAX conversion until close to 1990, for example. However, don't just sit around quietly twiddling your thumbs and toes! Whatever your feelings on this issue, let your elected representatives know about them -- they are becoming extremely sensitive on this issue as public complaints about the rapid increase in telephone rates continue to mount. ----- Trace that call! To the extent that a call is routed over the CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signalling) network, the calling party's number can be located without much difficulty in most cases. However, there are various other factors involved, including the type of originating and terminating offices (Step by Step? Crossbar? ESS/EAX?), and interfacing to the toll network (TSPS?). Actually, while it's getting much easier to "trace" toll calls, local calls can still be a problem, since many offices don't do ANI (Automatic Number Identification) on local calls (at least, not until local measured service!) and the interoffice links are either simple trunks, or tandem trunks. The CCIS network hasn't penetrated all the way through to the local level in many areas -- calls are still connected via simple trunk outpulsing or MF in many cases. This will change over time. Any time your number is identified and sitting on the AMA (Automatic Message Accounting) "tapes", it is theoretically possible for telco to come along later and check to see who was calling a particular number at a particular time. Of course, this can be time consuming unless you have some idea where the call was coming from, so that the search space can be narrowed down. However, when the number that called is finally determined, it will probably end up being a payphone! In the old days (and still today, to a certain extent) tracing involved manually tracking down the trunks used by a call. The procedure was (is) very time consuming, as you can well imagine. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven M. Bellovin) Date: 10 Jul 83 13:38:11 EDT (Sun) Subject: phone service pricing Although cost recovery is certainly part of the phone rate structure, it's far from the only component. Much of the rate structure is quite explicitly political, a fact which has drawn little attention until recently. The primary political goal is "universal telephone service" -- all other services are used to subsidize local residential service. To this end, prices for any sort of "enhanced value" are set according to the *value*, not the cost. That is, many consumers (aided, of course, by advertising) find Touch-Tone(TM) telephones "better" -- so Ma Bell charges more. Similarly, colored telephones and decorator phones are claimed enhance one's decor -- and the charge for them was set accordingly. "Equal access" is another important political goal. The cost to AT&T of a call from Washington to New York is probably considerably lower than the cost of a call from Washington to Chapel Hill, N.C, even though the distances are about the same. But fairness (and simplicity of billing) dictate that the costs must be about the same. --Steve Bellovin Bell Labs, Murray Hill (Obviously, these opinions are mine, not necessarily the management's.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1983 13:48 EDT From: DVW.STRAT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC Subject: Tracing Calls Under ESS Insofar as I know, the ESS provides the capability to examine connections within itself, through a Dataspeed terminal in the CO. This terminal, when polled about the status of some number in that ESS, will either display the number on the other end of the line *if that phone is also controlled by the same ESS*, or a Cable-pair number leaving the ESS frame, which isn't much of an improvement in the long run. --Bob-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 11-Jul-83 18:19:09-PDT,5468;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 11-Jul-83 18:18:49 Date: 11 Jul 1983 1818-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #37 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 12 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Dialing 1+ Phone Rates - Southwestern Bell Access Charges Inter NPA Dialing - With Or Without The NPA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 83 21:20:51 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> Subject: 1+ CRUFT I lived in the D.C. Metro Area for most of my life. You can dial locally into parts of two area codes (301-MD, 703-No. Va) and all of D.C. (202). To make things easier...there are no conflicting exchanges in what you call locally, and you do not need to dial the area code on local calls (it knows). If you want to call outside the "Metropolitan Calling Area" you must dial the area code (even if it is the same as yours). If you have to dial the area code, you know it's a toll call. From living in the Baltimore Area and in Colorado, a majority of the state is unreachable without a toll call, so dial 1, skip the area code, then the dial the number. I think that in either case: 1. Numbers dialed for the situation is minimized. 2. You have positive knowledge whether it is a local call (either you dialed the area code in DC,o or 1+ anywhere else). -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 1983 2258-CDT From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20> Subject: Southwestern Bell's Rate Increase Request No, we haven't been on vacation or out to lunch here in Austin. It's only in the last couple of days that some of the public hearings and reactions to SW Bell's record request have started. Here's a recent AP article from the Austin American Statesman (Thurs., 7/7/83): ---------- The Texas Public Utility Commission may reject any boost in the rates of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., which wants to collect $1.7 billion more beginning next year, the commission's general counsel said Wednesday. "I can tell you this -- 'zero' is one of the numbers we're considering," Allen King, the commission's general counsel, said in Houston at the first public hearing on Bell's record request. About 70 people showed up to protest the increase, the largest ever sought by a a public utility in the United States. ... Wednesday's hearing was the first of seven scheduled in the state. Other sessions are planned today in Corpus Christi, Friday in Austin, Brownsville and Dallas, July 15 in Lubbock and July 16 in El Paso. The proposed increase would triple the basic residential rate from $10.80 per month to $30.35. Business rates would rise from $27.50 to $37.75. Another $4 per month would be tacked on bills to recover the subsidizing of local telephone service from interstate long-distance charges. Bell contends the new revenue is needed because of federal regulatory changes and because of the anti-trust settlement resulting in the breakup of the nationwide Bell System. --------- As I write this on Sunday night, the Austin public hearing has already been held, though attendance wasn't very good. I've gotten the impression, however, that PUC officials are reacting to this request much more negatively than usual. The "zero is one of the numbers we're considering" quote was a pleasant surprise coming from the PUC. Bell is really trying to push the AT&T settlement as one of the main reasons for the request. As I see it, the actual cost of providing phone service hasn't really changed that much (apart from normal inflation). If the long distance revenues really subsidized local service to the extent that Bell claims it did, then why doesn't the local company simply continue to collect that money from AT&T by charging it higher rates for access to the local equipment which it depends on to provide long distance service? Does AT&T agree that such a large subsidy existed? If so, has it said what it plans to do with all that money?! The only thing I've heard is that long distance rates will drop in order to compete with MCI, Sprint, etc. I'll believe it when I see it. More likely, MCI et al will raise their rates because of increased local access charges by SW Bell. Sigh. ------------------------------ Date: 11 July 1983 08:12 EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #36 The access charge that Southwestern Bell is talking about gets paid to SW Bell for SW Bell's costs in connecting you to the long distance carrier of your choice. None of that $4 (or $18) goes to any of the long distance carriers. The long distance carrier's monthly charges will be on top of that. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jul 83 13:55:02 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: NYC Area Code Split You say the call from 516-239 to 212-327 has required area code as long as area codes have existed, but then refer to message with the word "now" ("area code is NOW required") for such a call. What time period are you dealing with? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 17-Jul-83 22:41:02-PDT,7827;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-Jul-83 22:38:10 Date: 17 Jul 1983 2238-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #38 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Monday, 18 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Modem/Telephone Problems 212A, EAX, Self-Wiring Dialing 1+ Central Office Names (CEdar, Etc.) Cost Of Providing Service NYC Area Code Split NYC Prefixes How Long In An Emergency? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 July 1983 01:10 EDT From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH @ MIT-MC> Subject: [teklabs!done: modem/telephone problems] cc: teklabs!done @ UCB-VAX I can't help this fella(teklabs!done at ucb-vax), but TELECOM might. I don't own an Atari, but would still be interested to in the answer. -- Forwarded mail follows -- This might be more appropriate for net.micro.atari, but I thought it is of general enough interest to put here. I recently bought a modem for my Atari 800 computer made by Microbits in Albany, Oregon. The modem is designed to be inserted into the loop which connects the telephone base with the receiver (obviously, this requires modular plugs on both ends of the coil cord, although modifications are possible for non-modular phones). Unfortunately, I discovered that GTE phones do not work with this modem (perhaps the signals lines inside the coil cord are rearranged), and I couldn't get a dial tone in voice mode. Next I borrowed an old Bell rotary phone, and this worked like a charm. But, when I shelled out the money for a new touchtone Bell phone, the modem wouldn't work properly, even though it worked ok in voice mode. Finally, I made an exasperated call to Microbits, and they didn't have the foggiest idea what could be wrong, either with the GTE phone or the newer Bell phone. I am hoping that one of you phone gurus out in netland will have a good idea of what the problem is here. It's very discouraging when the folks who designed the modem don't even have a minimal suggestion. By the way, I have since gotten rid of both the modem and the new Bell phone, and I am awaiting Atari's new direct-connect modem to be available in August. Don Ellis Tektronix ------------------------------ Date: 12 July 1983 02:20 EDT From: Richard P. Wilkes <RICK @ MIT-MC> Subject: 212A, EAX, self-wiring cc: RICK @ MIT-MC I have several questions: 1) Most people refer to 1200 (212A) modems as "1200 baud." However, the modem itself, if I am not mistaken, transmits at 600 baud, using PSK for two bits per baud; equivalent speed 1200 bps. Now, the RS-232 interface communicates with the modem at 1200 baud (1 bit per baud). So, is the convention to use the modem signaling speed, in which case most writers seem to be in error, or the interface speed? 2) What does EAX stand for? How does it differ from an ESS? 3) Is there a pamphlet (text) somewhere to which I can point people who want to do their own wiring? I remember that there was a file that could be FTPed, but can't remember on what host/dir. I would appreciate any pointers to info that the average non-net happy homeowner could request. Thanks. -Rick at MC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 83 13:08:03 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> To: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> Subject: Re: 1+ CRUFT As I have written before, there are some places where 1+ is not required on a direct-dial call (e.g., most NJ points, & also Long Island and West- chester in NY, and in 408/415 areas in Calif.); this also happens, although it's not posted, on 475 & 478 & 674 prefixes in area 302 (Delaware). Watch out if you are in these areas, because a direct-dialed call ANYWHERE in your area is made with only the 7-digit local number! (At the other extreme: remember the note, very recently in Telecom, about dialing from 516-239 to 212-327 requiring area code 212? The other way around, you have to dial 1-516-239-xxxx even though it's just a 1-message- unit call; just calling 239-xxxx attempts to make a multi-message-unit call to Manhattan.) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 83 13:49:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: office names (CEdar, etc.) Many letter prefixes used in NYC area were derived from the place names they served. (E.g. FA7 in Far Rockaway, in NYC.) I wonder if I have indeed found 3 exchange names CE 9 where CE stands for "Cedar...". I know of 302-239 (CEdar 9) at Hockessin, Delaware. Was 516-239 once Cedarhurst 9? And was 201-239 (I be- lieve it's listed in V&H tape as Verona, NJ) once Cedar Grove 9 because it served the Cedar Grove area near Verona? ------------------------------ Date: 12 July 1983 21:04 EDT From: Charles L. Jackson <CLJ @ MIT-MC> Subject: switching costs cc: CLJ @ MIT-MC Does any have or know of a good reference to any information on the costs of operating modern telco switches? In particular, how do the costs of a call split between setup and holding eg 1 cent to set it up and 0.01 cents per second of holding timne? Answers directly to me and I'll summarize for the net. Thanks clj ------------------------------ Date: 13 July 1983 1037-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL> Subject: Re: NYC Area Code Split As near as I can tell, the phrasing of the message hasn't changed since it was put in place. The "now" is indeed in the message. Incidentally, the 1+ cruft isn't needed to dial 212-327 from 516-239, but the area code is. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, either. /k**2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jul 83 8:48:47 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> cc: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: NYC prefixes It seems to me that: The first NYC prefixes of the form N0X and N1X were those not in use as area codes. (Of N0X & N1X in NYC, the first such prefix was 409.) Otherwise, a call to, say, Alaska directory assistance at 907-555-1212 (a call now requiring 1+ at start) would suddenly become an attempt to reach local number 907-5551. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1983 01:21:46-PDT From: Robert P Cunningham <cunningh@Nosc> Reply-to: cunningh@Nosc Subject: How long in an emergency? Towards the end of a 1/2 day electrical blackout in my area, several different exchanges seemingly just dropped out. Symptoms were: I'd dial a number starting with XXX- and get nothing. No ring or busy signal. About the same time, one of the few radio stations still on the air requested that people not use their phones, in order to conserve the phone company's battery power. Since the electrical power grid came back up, I've been unable to reach anyone at our local phone company (a GTE subsidiary) who admits to knowing anything about this. Does anyone on this list know exactly how operating companies provide backup power for a local phone system, and how long they might figure keeping a local phone system operating during a complete power blackout of say, several days at least? Some years ago, during a short tour of some phone company facilities, I saw what appeared to be several very large banks of batteries. Is there some design/planning criterion as to how long those would keep critical sections of a citywide phone system in operation? Bob Cunningham ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 17-Jul-83 23:11:09-PDT,5214;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-Jul-83 22:49:14 Date: 17 Jul 1983 2249-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #39 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM PM Digest Monday, 18 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: A Song Of The Times [In my opinion, this song deserves its own digest. Enjoy! --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? <End> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 18-Jul-83 19:06:31-PDT,6721;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Jul-83 19:05:50 Date: 18 Jul 1983 1905-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #40 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 19 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Bell System Batteries The Day Bell System Died PABX Help Wanted Office Names (CEdar, Etc.) Atari Modem, A/C On Local Calls 212A Modems, EAX, Etc. Office Names (CEdar, Etc.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 83 00:28:52 PDT From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Bell System Batteries When the power goes out, the local Bell operating companies have two standby sources of power. One of the sources is battery power, and the other is standby diesel (and gas turbine) generator power. Bell batteries are similar to automotive batteries, but are designed for long discharge times, such as hours, while car batteries are made to deliever high currents for a few seconds. The cells are also designed to last longer than car batteries, for, say, about 15 years. They come in sizes ranging from 100 to 7000 ampere-hour ratings. What all this boils down to is that there is usually enough battery power to provide three to eight hours of operating time. The generators are normally idle, and are started after an outage of power, and assume the load of the C.O., while at the same time recharging the batteries. In small C.O.'s, the stand-by generator may not exist. Instead, the batteries are set up such that they can provide power for up to 24 hours, and a generator will be brought in if the power utility decides it wants to be out for longer than a day. -- Summarized from "Engineering And Operations In The Bell System". Phil ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 1983 0258-CDT From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20> Subject: The Day Bell System Died To: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM Bravo, Lauren!! What a great song! You should immediately switch careers and become a recording star--this is top-40 material for sure! Seriously, are you placing any restrictions on its distribution? I'd love to send a copy to the Texas PUC to aid their consideration of the latest rate increase request... Clive ------------------------------ Date: Mon 18 Jul 83 09:42:22-EDT From: Charles B. Weinstock <Weinstock%TARTAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: PABX Help Wanted Tartan Labs is about to replace it's phone system (currently a Mitel SX100). We have been talking to several vendors, but so far have not identified a state of the art system that is impressive enough to commit to. Basically we want the following features: - Capable of expanding to 1000+ lines over time without throwing away our investment. - Fairly econmical to configure at the 100 to 200 line level. - Capable of supporting non-switch hook feature control (we HATE the switch hook convention). Additionally, it would be nice if the phone system could act as a cost effective front end to our various computer systems. Such a front end would: - Allow true 9600 baud connections. - Allow the user to put one computer connection "on hold" while connecting to another. So far, all of the switches we have looked at are too expensive for data connections (a Micom, for example, would be more cost effective), and are missing one of the above features. Does anyone out there have a pointer to systems we should consider? We've talked to American Bell, Rolm, Northern, and NEC. Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Mon Jul 18 1983 10:02-EDT From: Dennis Rockwell <drockwel@BBN-Vax> Subject: Re: office names (CEdar, etc.) To: Carl Moore <cmoore@brl-vld> I remember having the phone number 617-CEdar 8-3386 20 years ago in North Easton, MA. I have no idea what the origin of the name was; I was much too young to care (which is why I remember the number; it was drilled into me). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jul 83 07:41:13 PDT From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: Atari modem, a/c on local calls I have a VICMODEM (on a Commodore '64) which also connects between headset and phone base. I think the problem may be with phones that have their dialing mechanism in their headset. These phones will instantly hang up if you disconnect the headset. By the way, you can connect the modem directly to the phone line (you have to make up a cord) at the loss of some fidelity. Commodore sells an adaptor for their modem, so it can be used with phones which are not full modular. I don't know if this is anything but a passive Y-cord. The cost is about $15. Subject: A/C on local calls You do have to dial an area code on local calls between 415 and 408, as from about September, last year. You don't have to dial 1+ yet, in most of the 415 area, and in the immediate San Jose area in 408. You also have to dial the area code on local calls from 415 to 707. (e.g. Martinez-415-228,229,372 to Bencia, 707-745 and 746) By the way, Pittsburgh, CA's Eastern section (415-458) and I think one or 2 other 415 exchanges have 1+ dialing. I think a local call from Crockett to Vallejo would be interpreted as a long distance call from Crockett to Berkeley without the area code 707. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 1983 1039-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #38 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Re: RICK@MC's comments: I think the 212A format is in fact 300 baud QPSK (4 bits per baud). EAX, if I recall correctly, stands for Electronic Automatic X[switch]ing, and is GTE's entry into the market of electronic telephone equipment. It is similar in concept, but not particularly so in implementation. About wiring documentation, I don't know. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jul 83 18:01 EDT From: Axelrod.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: office names (CEdar, etc.) To: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld.arpa> Yes, indeed, (516) 239 was originally CEdarhurst 9. That was my phone number when I moved to Cedarhurst in 1948, at age 11. It wasn't 516 in those days, either, because DDD and the NPA hadn't happened yet. When I dial my folks, I still think "CE 9", rather than "239". Art Axelrod Xerox Webster Research Center ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 19-Jul-83 21:32:36-PDT,10950;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Jul-83 21:31:14 Date: 19 Jul 1983 2131-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #41 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 20 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Bits And Bauds Vermont Fighting Interstate Toll-Call Rates Office Names (CEdar, Etc) Handset Connected Modems New England Telephone - Test Lines Now Available For Use ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jul 1983 0833-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Bits and bauds A baud is the number of channel symbols per second. 212A modems are DPSK, two bits per channel symbol. They are 1200bps modems, not 1200 baud. But "baud" is like "Scotch" tape. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1983 0837-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Vermont fighting interstate toll-call rates Vermont fighting interstate toll-call rates By Dan Gillmor Special to the Globe MONTPELIER -- The state of Vermont has asked the Federal Communications Commission to order a nationwide reduction in interstate toll-call rates next year when new charges are imposed on telephone users. Public Service Commissioner Richard Saudek and Public Service Board Chairman V. Louise McCarren, in papers filed yesterday in Washington, wrote that American Telephone & Telegraph Inc., by far the nation's largest provider of interstate telephone service, will collect an "unjustified windfall" if the FCC does not act. In Vermont, the Public Service Board is the quasi-judicial state agency that decides utility rate cases. The Public Service Department collects data on energy use and represents the public in rate hearings before the Board. The FCC has jurisdiction over all interstate telephone service. The Vermont petition represents the state's effort to mitigate what many observers fear will be far higher local costs for rural telephone users without commensurately lower interstate toll costs. It was the FCC that imposed the new charges, over and above local and toll charges, called "Access Charges." Beginning next Jan. 1, the day AT&T will spin off its regional telephone companies as part of an anti-trust settlement, telephone users must pay to their local telephone companies a monthly per-line charge of $4 in order to have access to the interstate system, whether they ever make a long distance call [or not]. Currently the money is paid to the local companies by AT&T and a number of smaller long-distance companies. The cash for those charges is collected in long-distance toll bills on a per-minute basis. Local companies will collect roughly $4.3 billion from their customers next year in flat (access) charges, and the long distance companies, primarily AT&T, will have lower costs in the same amount. AT&T has indicated it would lower some interstate rates, probably those in markets where there is competition, primarily urban-to-urban toll "highways," but company officials have flatly refused to say there would be lower interstate rates in markets lacking competition. Rural areas are a prime example of the latter kinds of markets. In their petition, McCarren and Saudek wrote, "As the FCC stated (in its Access Charge order): 'Implementation of access charges is not a rate increase, it is a rate restructure. Increases in access rates will be matched dollar for dollar by reductions in per message interstate charges.'" Thus, the Vermont action is an attempt to force the FCC to follow through on that statement. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 83 09:49 PDT From: Swenson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Office names (CEdar, etc) cc: Swenson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA When I was growing up in Berkekey, Calif, Berkeley was manual. Berkeley was served by BErkeley, THornwall & AShbury. Our house was BErkeley 1199W, across the street was BErkeley 1199J, and our frends in Albany, just north of Berkeley had BErkeley 1199. The Albany phone was converted to dial, and their exchange changed to LAndscape 5-1199. The -5 was used to avoid confusion with LAkehurst, in Oakland. This was the first time I encountered numeric exchange sufixes. During WWII the number of phones grew so that AShbury had some 5 digit numbers. When the Berkekey area was converted to dial, the BErkeley 7 (3d digit had by now arrived) exchange was converted to LAndscape 6 & Landscape 7. The coin phones which had been on BErkeley 7 were converted to CEdar 7-same pulse string. I remember this because we lived on the corner of Cedar & Holly in Berkeley. During most of this time CHina in San Francisco, which was manual, would find local residents by name. A phone number was not necessary unless you dialed in. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1983 1105-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #40 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Re: Handset connected modems: Trimline style telephones, containing the dialing in the handset also have the rest of the telephone in your hand. The base is quite literally just a switchhook and a bell. Don't attempt to connect a handset modem to the trimline handset interface; it has the line on it. Alternatively, you might probe around the handset wiring if it isn't a trimline and compare those which have worked with those which haven't. The voltage levels are pretty standard within handset wiring; but the placement may not be. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1983 1701-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Test Lines now available for use The following document reached me today: TEST LINE ACCESS CAPABILITIES WITHIN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY A. Effective 1 April 1983 the Bell Operating Companies made available to customers, vendors, and equipment suppliers, the use of certain Test Line Access capabilities. This effort is intended to be utilized for the testing of Bell Operating Company Public Switched Network Services emanating from central office exchanges and terminating in PBX, key, ACD or multifunction systems. Test Line Access capabilities will be extended into nine different categories. Each of the nine categories will be subject to what is currently operationally available within each Bell Operating Company exchange. B. Test Lines authorized at this time for access by the telecommunications industry. 1. 100-Type (Balance/Quiet) 2. 102-Type (Milliwatt) 3. Synchronous 4. Nonsynchronous 5. 105-Type (Automatic Transmission Measuring) 6. 107-Type (Data Transmission) Note: there are none in N.E.T. 7. Short Circuit 8. Open Circuit 9. Loop Around As previously noted, the availability of the above Test Lines will be subject to those operationally available within the existing telephone company central office exchanges. No plans are contemplated to make all of the above Test Lines available from each exchange where they are not presently in effect. The Station Ringer/Touch Tone (Ring Back) Test Line is not included at this time as it is currently involved in an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC Docket No. 81-216) [I called the FCC to find out what the status is; all I could find out is that this is one of about 50 issues involved with customer testing of customer provided premises wiring which will be resolved by the end of the year.] C. Elaboration of the above Test Lines (abridged) 1. 100 type Test Line (Balance/Quiet) -- There are two versions. The older can be used for balance and noise testing. The newer provides, in addition, a 1kHz or 1004Hz tone for one way loss measurements 2. 102-Type Test Line - Milliwatt - 1kHz or 1004 Hz for one-way loss measurements. 3. Synchronous Test Line - for testing supervisory and tripping functions. 4. Nonsynchronous - operational test, not as complete but more rapid than the synchronous test. 5. 105-Type ATMS - far-end access to responder for two-way transmission measurements. 6. 107-Type (Data Transmission) Test line -- provides a programmed sequence of test signals for one-way testing of parameters that affect voice and voiceband data transmission. (The only one I know of on the network is 516 423-9978.) 7&8. Short Circuit and Open Circuit Test lines -- provide a short or open circuit, respectively, to an incoming line or trunk. 9. Loop around Test Line -- provides for the interconnection of two lines or trunks to facilitate two-way loss measurements from the distant end. D. Bell System Technical Reference (abridged) The above are further elaborated within the Bell System's Technical Reference PUB 60101, published in December, 1982. A select code of 326-163 has been assigned to this. For urgent requests or questions, contact Mrs. Harriet Dumaf, Publisher's Data Center, Inc. 212 834-0170. Mrs. Dumaf will honor requests for (price lists) PUB 40000 or 40000A. She will also provide a price quote over the phone. However, no shipment of pubs other than the price lists will be made before payment has been received. E. Tariff Charges Initially, access to the Test Lines will be charged at the rate (message unit, etc.) for the call where such charges are applicable. F. Point of Contact (Test Line Coordinator) within each Bell Operating Company. A centralized point of contact has been established within each BOC to provide telephone numbers that are associated with each BOC exchange. The BOC point-of-contact within your area [here] is: Ms. Muriel McGinn Assistant Staff Manager New England Telephone Company 101 Huntington Ave., Suite 1965 Boston, MA 02199 617-743-7937 G. Procurement of Test Line Numbers Enclosed in this section is a directory of Test Line Numbers by individual states served by New England Telephone. [It's too long to type -- 48 pages.] H. Test Line Trouble Reporting Procedures Trouble conditions noted with the Test Line Numbers may be reported to the normal trouble reporting number: 1-555-1515. I. Possible Misuse and/or Abuses of Test Lines The Test Lines being made available are to be mutually used by all parties (Telephone Company personnel, customers, vendors and equipment suppliers, et al). Any misuse and/or abuses (such as attempting to utilize the Test Lines for purposes other than those specified within Technical Reference 60101 or extended use for a long duration) may deprive others from ready access and use of the available Test Lines. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 20-Jul-83 20:57:47-PDT,5173;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Jul-83 20:56:54 Date: 20 Jul 1983 2056-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #42 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Thursday, 21 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Sprint - Owned by GTE 212/718 NYC Area Code Splitting Song, Battery Backup, Bell 212A Modems, GTE EAX Switching ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 83 23:17:51 PDT From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: Sprint I just saw a "Sprint" ad on TV, and noticed in the fine print that Sprint is now owned by GT&E. It was originally part of the Southern Pacific Railroad. ------------------------------ Date: 20 July 1983 12:51 edt From: TJMartin.ADL at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: Area Code Splitting From the N.Y.Times of 7-20-83: ''...a handful of officials held a hasty news conference yesterday to oppose plans to split New York City into two telephone area codes. ''New York Telephone...says it is running out of 212 numbers because of all the specialized services...using telephone lines. ''Let these 'esoteric' services use the new code, Attorney General Robert Abrams said. ''"Exotic-service customers, who cause the problem, should bear the burden of converting to 718," Assemblyman Joseph Ferris of Brooklyn agreed. [Other officials included Brooklyn Borough Pres. Howard Golden and Queens Borough Pres. Donald Manes.] I don't know what kind of expert help the four gentlemen received while preparing their proposal, but is it feasible to split area codes by type of service, instead of geographic location? --Tom Martin/Arthur D. Little, Inc./Cambridge MA/ ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 19-Jul-83 20:19:26-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Song and Misc. Greetings. First of all, I'd like to thank CC.CLIVE for his kind comments regarding my "Bell System" lyrics. I must state firmly, however, that I refuse to give up my exciting (???) career as a computer/telecommunications consultant in exchange for the glamour of the music/lyrics biz. That is, I refuse to do so *unless* I'm offered a firm contract including video rights and plenty of groupies... The lyrics are really only intended for the enjoyment of individuals who truly understand the telecommunications industry. Thusly, I have a hunch that the average Public Utilities Commission would have difficulty appreciating them. Typically, these Commissions have very underdeveloped senses of humor, so I recommend against sending them a copy of the lyrics. Just as an aside, I had a very nice conversation with a California PUC staff member earlier this week regarding PacTel's recent filings. We talked almost an hour (on his "dime", too!) He was surprisingly open in discussing his feelings about the whole telecommunications "fiasco" now being played out, and promised to try keep me informed as to the goings on with the PacTel filings. The problem, of course, is that the actual Public Utility Commission members usually ignore the comments made by their own (sometimes quite knowledgeable) staff. ---- A few random points to cover... ---- 1) As has already been mentioned, virtually all telco CO's use battery backup for short duration power failures, and, indeed, most CO's other than the small unattended facilities also have at least one backup generator for use if the failure becomes prolonged. One point that wasn't mentioned is that most of the telco batteries are ALWAYS live on the circuit -- the DC power derived from the outside mains is continually float-charging the batteries which are in turn continually providing power to keep the office running. That's why the phones keep working, generally without even the slightest glitch, through most short duration power failures -- even currently open connections are usually not disturbed. 2) Bell 212A modems operate at 600 BAUD, using scrambled "dibit" phase-shift modulation (2 bits of information per baud). Indeed, the terms bits and bauds are thrown around rather sloppily, but normally it is pretty clear what is really meant. 3) Right -- EAX is General Telephone's version of ESS. GenTel's primary supply unit has always been their own "Automatic Electric Company", and they've thusly liked to work the word "Automatic" into GenTel product offerings. While ESS stands for "Electronic Switching System", EAX stands for "Electronic Automatic Exchange". Another similar case: Bell System uses the term PBX for "Private Branch Exchange". GenTel uses PABX, for "Private Automatic Branch Exchange". It's all in the name! Bye for now. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 25-Jul-83 19:32:19-PDT,5199;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 25-Jul-83 19:31:33 Date: 25 Jul 1983 1931-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #43 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 26 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Hands Free Telephony PBX/PABX 3400 v 212a Protocols American Bandstand & (900) Numbers Western Union Metrophone Rates 212/718 Split Compared With 213/818 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 83 08:29:46 PDT From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Hands Free Telephony On page 51 of the Thursday, July 21, San Francisco Chronicle, there is the typical Emporium-Capwell ad, but this one is for, among other things, a cordless telephone with an optional headset. The headset looks like a set of Walkman-type headphones with a microphone extended down in front of the mouth, much like the Star Set. I believe the headset must be used with the phone in order to work. According to the ad, the headset costs $24.00, with a 2 week delivery time. Does anybody know anything about this? The phone is made by U.S. Tron, if that's any help. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1983 1824-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: PBX/PABX Strictly speaking (international terminology and all) a PBX is manual and a PABX is automatic. It wasn't all that long ago that PABXs were VERY rare (unless you were really huge), so the term PBX got well known, and noone changed to PABX. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1983 20:06:49-PDT From: sdcsvax!sdchema!bam@Nosc Subject: 3400 v 212a protocols I think this might have been covered in a previous digest, but I was wondering if anyone knew the actual difference between the using the Vadic 3400 or Bell 212a protocols. I understand that Vadic claims 1 in 10^12 errors on a worst case basis. This on a direct connect line. What are the Bell stats? Also using a public packet network (such as Telenet) is there any way of reducing errors caused by your local connection other than using host character echo? The local node was not designed to echo all your characters if you batch at 1200 baud. IF you can't use any type of protocol transfer (my host has no such feature) I'm resigned to having everything echoed from the the host, comparing it locally with what was sent and retransmitting the line if incorrect. The actual throughput ends up being about 300 baud. In short, I can afford NO errors, have no facility for protocol type transfers and am required to use the network. (A connection directly to the host is much worse.) I should also say that my application is much to portable to allow for a fixed location teleprocessing unit. Although the traffic alone would justify the tp and the leased lines if we were fixed. Cost is almost no object. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Bret Marquis bam@berkeley bam@NOSC sdcsvax!sdchema!bang!bam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jul 83 13:12:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> A few weeks ago, American Bandstand TV show (Dick Clark, host) advertised a series of 900-area phone #'s: 900-720-7nnn (where nnn was 111 or 222 or 333 or ... or 999), in voting for couple #1 thru #9. (I THINK I got the 1st 4 digits after "900" OK.) Was this done so that the American-Bandstand callers did not swamp the network handling other, normal calls? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jul 83 21:13:36 PDT From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: Western Union Metrophone rates Metrophone rates will increase approximately 1 penny per minute as of 11 August 1983. Evening rates will run from 5 P.M. (instead of 6 P.M.) on Weekdays. (most subscribers only have evening/night service) In addition, there will be 4 bands from 0-100 miles (25,50,75,100) instead of 2. (rate notice) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jul 83 9:16:24 EDT From: cmoore@brl-bmd The following is prompted by controversy over 212/718 split in NYC: Actually, the upcoming 213/818 split in LA area will, according to earlier messages in this digest, create a few areas where prefixes from 2 area codes can be found. I am referring to cases of (given that A and B are place names) A and A(B rates). In other words, A would go into 818 while A(B rates) remained in 213, or vice versa. [I believe you are talking about specific exchanges (as opposed to prefixes) which have dedicated foreign exchange prefix service. For example, Van Nuys, CA. will go in 818, but prefixes 872 and 873 will remain in 213 because they are foreign exchange (Western Hollywood (213) 46x) prefixes for those people who want to call the main Los Angeles exchanges (called the Los Angeles Extended Area). --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 29-Jul-83 20:13:36-PDT,7131;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 29-Jul-83 20:12:37 Date: 29 Jul 1983 2012-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #44 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 30 July 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: House & Senate Introduce Legislation To Block Local Increases Directory Assistance Robot NPA 409 Separated From 713 In Texas Last Night Restricted Calling Card More On 409 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 1983 21:56-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: House & Senate introduce legislation to block locl increases. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow n008 0631 22 Jul 83 PM-PHONES (BizDay) By KENNETH B. NOBLE c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service WASHINGTON - The chairmen of the House and Senate commerce committees Thursday introduced legislation intended to block increases in local telephone rates that would occur as a result of the breakup of the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. Their proposal would reverse a decision last December by the Federal Communications Commission intended to raise local phone rates by about $2 a month per household, starting Jan. 1, 1984. The charge would cover some of the costs for access to the long-distance networks that the local phone companies will need. Most of the nation's local service is provided by AT&T's 22 operating subsidiaries, which will become independent companies after they are divested next year as part of the settlement of the antitrust suit brought against the phone company by the Justice Department. The committee chairmen, Sen. Bob Packwood and Rep. John D. Dingell, said at a joint news conference they were proposing the creation of a ''universal service fund'' that would be a mechanism by which long-distance phone carriers, such as AT&T after the breakup and MCI Communications, its largest competitor, would subsidize local service in rural and remote communities. The bill was attacked by AT&T and MCI, and by eight members - four Democrats and four Republicans - of Dingell's House Committee on Energy and Commerce. They contended that the bill would protect residential customers at the expense of long-distance customers. Packwood, R-Ore., and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Dingell, D-Mich., said that under the FCC's December order, the additional charge to most local telephone subscribers was likely to rise to $10 or more by 1990. They said that would double today's average basic-service phone rate and make telephone service, as Dingell put it, ''a luxury beyond the reach of many Americans.'' Also present at the news conference on Capitol Hill was an important Dingell ally, Rep. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications. The two Democratic representatives and the Republican senator held the joint news conference to demonstrate their resolve in the face of opposition from the long-distance carriers and to show that the bill had bipartisan support. A joint hearing was scheduled for Tuesday. The bill, which supersedes similar bills introduced earlier, would create a new subsidy mechanism requiring that all long-distance companies pay a fee to local phone companies for access to local customers. This would reverse the FCC's December decision that sought to shift the entire cost of the so-called interconnections to individual customers by adding a seperate charge to their monthly bills. In addition to the ''universal service fund'' to provide subsidies to local telephone companies in rural and remote areas, the bill would require state public utility commissions to establish ''lifeline'' minimum basic telephone rates for low-income residential customers. Reacting to the two bills, Kenneth J. Whalen, an AT&T executive vice president, said in a statement, ''Some of these proposals would destroy AT&T's plan to reduce long-distance rates in 1984.'' He did not explain which proposals would have that effect. Gene Eidenberg, a senior vice president for MCI Communications, said in a statement that the legislation ''would guarantee higher local telephone rates by stifling innovation by telephone companies.'' Also attacking the proposals were eight members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who wrote: ''At the present time, statistical evidence is limited which suggests that the path of the industry will lead to a loss of universal service.'' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 83 13:14:34 PDT From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: Directory assistance robot When I just called 316 (Wichita) information, after I gave the operator the name and adress, the number was given by stepped recording, and I was told to hold on if I wanted another operator. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 83 8:37:53 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld I heard last night that new (as of March) area 409 was broken off from 713 in Texas. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 83 8:39:10 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld I was wondering why 409 & 909 were not used as area codes. Maybe due to things like the Beach Boys' song "409"? (Not so well known, due to its being only an album cut, is the Beatles' "One After 909".) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 1983 0933-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Restricted Calling Card With the new, nationwide Calling Card database, it is possible to get Calling Cards which are restricted in a fashion which permits calls only TO the telephone for which it is issued. This restricted calling card is useful, for example, for children to call home at the calling card rate instead of the collect rate. The calling card can be entered with either the full number, or with just the four-digit-PIN. The "#" feature for "you may dial another number now" is disabled. I was amazed when I called the Business Office and had NO difficulty ordering one. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 83 9:54:38 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: looking up 409 area I couldn't find reference to new 409 area in latest Houston & Beauomnt phone books (Texas). However, I did see 409 in area code map in 1983-84 Queens (NYC) directory (which, by the way, doesn't refer to 212/718 split). On such map, 409 takes in what was 713 EXCEPT for Houston & some surrounding area. (I've never before seen an area code completely surrounded by another one.) Beaumont & Galveston are in 409 now. My guess: Houston & suburbs stayed in 713 for convenience of business there and of callers from other areas. (I figure Houston & suburbs would get most of traffic into old 713 area.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Aug-83 19:24:12-PDT,503;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Aug-83 19:20:48 Date: 1 Aug 1983 1920-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #45 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 2 August 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************** ------- 1-Aug-83 19:27:52-PDT,8883;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Aug-83 19:26:36 Date: 1 Aug 1983 1926-PDT From: Jon Solomon <TELECOM at USC-ECLB> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #45 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 2 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Vadics and 212As AT&T, MCI Cut Their Own Throats Computer Use By Phone Topic Header In Digest 44 Documentation Of 818 Area 409 Area Code ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 July 1983 12:03 EDT From: Peter J. Castagna <PC @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #30 I know this is very late, but I couldn't help being disconcerted by your calling Vadics and 212A's expensive. In the use for which they were originally developed (which wasn't for the terminal market) the 212 was developed mainly to SAVE money for users (mainly in the 25% phone costs they maintain, which over a period of 5 years @$20/mo/line is more than the purchase price of the modem as it was then. Now, with VADIC's going for $325 in large quantities, payback is on the order of 2 years. The original market was for businesses doing data transfer, with 24-hour connections and constant use, and a fixed amount of data that must be trans- ferred. Does anybody agree that filters are the high-cost part of modems? For your vadic price you should be able to get a truly remarkable hdx modem which depends on the Phone Company for its filtering. Besides, with 45 Megabit customer service right around the corner, why trifle about what kind of war club is more economical? I hear that single-mode fiber optic cable has just about hit price equivalence with multi-mode fiber. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1983 13:39 EDT From: Jon Solomon <JSOL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC> Subject: AT&T, MCI cut their own throats I'm glad to hear that the House and Senate are considering the "universal access fund" as an alternative to billing residence customers for the cost of providing long distance service. There are several reasons why it is more reasonable to bill the carrier for providing the service than to bill all residence customers. First of all, not all Residence Customers use long distance, especially in rural areas. Second, local phone service is going to increase fast enough just to pay for the new innovations in local telephone equipment that will become available in the next few years. The cost of my local service more than doubled about 5 years ago in Connecticut, going from about $6.00 to about $15.00/month, In California, the PUC is currently debating whether or not to give Pacific Telephone their increases, doubling their phone rates as well. Long Distance carriers can recover the cost of providing long distance service by instituting "initial minute" charges, like AT&T currently has. As an additional suggestion, I would like to see the telephone company provide a service which does not permit long distance calls, and said service should be free of "access fees". If we must be assessed this "tax" (there is no other word for it), I propose that access to long distance carriers be a choice the customer makes, just like the color of his phone and whether or not to order Touch Tone (tm). Well, that's my opinion. For the most part, I feel angry and helpless at not being able to shape my own telephone service needs. With this new legislation being discussed by the House and Senate, I feel a bit more in contact with the law. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 83 1612 PDT From: David Fuchs <DRF@SU-AI> Subject: Computer Use by Phone "Computer User by Phone May Be Costly" --Wall Street Journal, July 29 Much higher telephone bills may face residents of some states who connect their personal computers by telephone to larger computers that provide mail and other services electronically--if the telephone company finds out about their computers The increases result from ``information terminal tariffs,'' special telephone rates begun during the 1960s by some of American Telephone & Telegraph Co.'s operating companies for the use of their phone lines to send and receive data. The companies say the rates are higher than ordinary residential rates because sending and receiving data makes heavier use of the lines. [???] [We have discussed in previous digests the issues of using phone lines for data. In short the connection is held for the duration of the call which means that for several hours the particular interoffice trunk is unusable by others. In periods of high load this can really affect performance. --JSol] But the tariffs took effect before the personal-computer revolution, when only businesses were transmitting data by phone, says Robert Braver, a personal-computer owner in Okalahoma [sic] City. Personal-computer owners use their phones much less than businesses for data transmission, he asserts. ``So why is the phone company charging me a superhigh rate?'' he asks. Mr. Braver says his basic monthly telephone bill recently rose to $45.90 from $9 after the phone company found out that he was using his home telephone for computer messages. Southwestern Bell, which serves Oklahoma, defends the propriety of Mr. Braver's bills but acknowledges that ``technology has sort of surpassed some of the tariffs we have on file.'' Though the tariffs apply in several states, mostly those served by Southwestern Bell, Mountain Bell and Southern Bell, few personal-computer owners have been billed under them. The telephone company doesn't try to discover who is transmitting data over its lines, says a Southwestern Bell spokesman. One reason may involve the legal issue. ``It's not hard technologically for the phone company to monitor the lines, but whether that's an illegal invasion of privacy is difficult to tell,'' says Lee Selwyn, a telecommunications expert with Ecoomics & Technology Inc., a consulting company. Meanwhile, Mr. Braver isn't planning to pay his increased bills without a fight. He's organizing a fund-raising campaign to mount a legal challenge to the tariff. And he's making contacts fast with potential contributors-- through his electronic mail network. -David Stipp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 83 7:47:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: topic header in digest 44 The header "NPA 409 separated from 713 in Texas last night" might be misleading; it might be interpreted as "409 was created last night" when the text suggested "as of March". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 83 12:01:24 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: documentation of 818 area I looked up LA--Northeastern phone book of Jan. 1983 and found announcement of new 818 area code (already mentioned many times in this digest) to take effect Jan. 7, 1984. I have heard about this making LA a 2-area-code city, but the list I saw for 818 has no prefixes with the "Los Angeles" place name. What other exchanges would pick up part of city of LA? Does Los Angeles & vicinity have the 911 emergency number, and is it distinct for the city of LA? (In the 215 area, dialing 911 from 835 & 839 does NOT get Phila. police, because these are Bala Cynwyd prefixes, even though message-unit calls from there are at the rates for the neighboring part of Philadelphia.) [The "Los Angeles" exchange is still in 213, all the other parts of the city have their own exchange designators, such as Van Nuys, Canoga Park, North Hollywood. These examples are still part of the city of Los Angeles, but are different rate areas. If you look at a map of the city broken down by exchanges, you will find that West LA is a segment of Los Angeles which does not border on the "Los Angeles" exchange (it is bordered by Beverly Hills, Van Nuys, Reseda, Santa Monica, and Culver City (did I forget Mar Vista?). In any event, the city WILL be split, even though all of the Los Angeles exchange is still in 213. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Mon 1 Aug 83 16:16:53-CDT From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: 409 Area Code Alas, I'm all too familiar with the consequences of the fact that 409 is not shown in most Texas phone books yet. My phone number in area-code 512 happens to be the same as that of the Holiday Inn in Beaumont, TX. People calling the Holiday Inn reach me on the average of 10-15 times a week. Sigh. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* ------- 2-Aug-83 17:55:04-PDT,6963;000000000000 Return-path: <JSOL@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 2-Aug-83 17:54:38 Date: Tuesday, August 2, 1983 5:53PM From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #46 To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 3 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: Access Charges Another Bad Telephone Number To have. On Modems Which Replace Handsets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 August 1983 09:27 EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: access charges If there was a special rate for people who didn't make long distance calls, it would be just as much as local rates with access charges. While the bill may say that "access" charges are for access to the long distance network, what they really pay for is the wire between your house and the nearest central office, plus the fixed cost parts of the office switch. You need all that equipment just to make local calls, so saying you aren't going to make any long distance calls doesn't reduce the COSTS of "access" one dime. There is local equipment which is used only by people making long distance calls -- for example, the trunk from the local office to the "point of presence" of the interexchange carrier. The cost of this equipment WILL be billed directly to the interexchange carriers. As to billing "access" charges to long distance carriers, why should someone who makes more minutes of long distance calls pay more for some fixed plant whose cost doesn't vary with usage? And if you do try and tack the cost of local access onto the long distance bill, how do you keep the big users of long distance from putting up their own satellite or microwave system to escape the charges? The only way to keep the subsidy from long distance to local service is to go back to the 1950s and get rid of all the competition in the telephone business. Countries like Japan or France succeed in maintaining the cross subsidy by simply forbidding competitive carrier, satellites and private microwave systems. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Tue 2 Aug 83 10:17:12-CDT From: Rick Watson <CC.RICK@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Another bad telephone number to have. I had 512/454-1212 for about a year (note similarity to 555-1212). We sometimes got so tired of explaining to the person that he didn't really have directory assistance that we would often just look up the number in the phone book. It was also fun to chat with the callers about the weather in Seattle, etc... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 83 17:16:06 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-ATS> Subject: On Modems Which Replace Handsets On Modems Which Replace Handsets Modems, such as the Atari and the Hayes, which are made to connect in place of the handset on a telephone, are intended for use with the full-modular version of the Western Electric (or equivalent) model 500 and 2500 telephones. The 500 is the standard dial telephone introduced in the 1950's; the 2500 is the corresponding touch-tone telephone. These phones use what is usually called a "network"; this contains most of the electronic components of the phone (excluding a couple of diodes which sit on the receiver, limiting the voltage going to the receiver, and a capacitor in series with the ringer). Used networks are available for around $1.00. They are taken from phones removed from service and are available from telephone surplus houses such as Telectric Company, 1218 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles. They are extremely reliable: I have never seen a used network which did not work. Essentially identical networks can be found in the corresponding telephones made by Stromberg-Carlson, Northern Electric, ITT, and others, but excluding General Tinkle (G. T and E.) which seems to like to be different from the others. More recent telephones, with electronic touch-tone circuits do not use these networks. The networks are potted in rectangular cans, about 2.5 by 2.5 by 1.5 inches, with one face covered with screw terminals. They serve, among other things, the following purposes: 1. They compensate for the distance of the telephone to its central office (the resistance of the subscriber line loop) or for the fact that more than one telephone may be in use on the circuit. 2. They have a multi-winding transformer which (a) increases the output from the transmitter (carbon microphone), (b) increases the voltage to the receiver, while at the same time not allowing dc voltage to go to the receiver, and (c) controls the amount of signal which goes from the transmitter to the receiver (sidetone). 3. Provide an impedance match at audio frequencies to the subscriber line loop. 4. In the case of dial phones, they contain a filter which decrease the sparking from the opening and closing of the dial contacts. 5. In the case of touch-tone phones, they (together with a switch) decrease the volume of the tones heard by the user when the touch-tone buttons are pressed. The screw-terminals on these networks are labeled with one or two letters or numerals. The lettering is either adjacent to the screw-terminals or on the side of the modem. To use these networks, independent of a telephone set, the telephone line should be connected to the terminals marked C and RR (not L1 and L2!). The receiver (or its modem equivalent) should be connected to R and GN and the transmitter (or its modem equivalent) should be connected to R and B. Note that the polarity of the line is irrelevant. Indeed on older exchanges the polarity sometimes reverses when dialing nearby old exchanges; the reason for this is another story. However, this is the reason that touch-tone phones sometimes don't work when calling Sprint or MCI. The Telephone Company provides a "polarity guard" (in reality, a full-wave bridge) to solve the problem. If there are three wires going to your telephone, it is normally the red and green which are used; the third, if connected, is a ground. To disconnect the network from the circuit, it suffices to have a single- pole, single-throw switch disconnecting the wire going to C or the wire going to RR. To use the device, connect it in parallel with your telephone and connect your modem as indicated above (you will have to obtain the appropriate female modular jacks -- note these are not the RJ11 jacks which telephones plug into). Turn it off with its switch and dial your favorite computer on your phone. When you get the answer tone, switch the device on, hang up your telephone, and communicate. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 10-Aug-83 15:26:57-PDT,6537;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 10-Aug-83 15:25:15 Date: Wednesday, August 10, 1983 3:23PM From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #48 To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Thursday, 11 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: "Illegal" Connections To Telephone Line Finding "Illegal" Modem Users New Long Distance Service Strike Info? Local Telephone Service Bypass / C-SPAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 83 20:55:43 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-ATS> Subject: "illegal" connections to telephone line In Volume 3, Issue 47 of Telecom, Lauren Weinstein refers to the connection of a device, not certified by the FCC, to the telephone line as "illegal". Is this literally correct or is it more of a civil matter such as failure to pay rent, not abiding by all of the terms of a contract, etc.? I have always thought that "illegal" referred to criminal matters. Can you go to jail or receive a criminal penalty for connecting a non-certified device to the telephone line? I am assuming, of course, that the person making the connection is not performing malicious damage. By the way, all of the used "networks" one can buy either come from FCC certified telephones with a certification number or from telephones that were certified by the "Grandfather" clause which said that all standard telephones in use on a certain date (I can't recall the date) were automatically certified. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Aug 83 22:22:01 PDT From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Finding "illegal" modem users As I recall, Ma Bell has a program which can run on their #x ESS offices (I believe called ANALIT, but I'm not sure...) which can pick out and flag Touch-Tone (TM) digits being send on non-registered Touch-Tone lines. I would assume that they would/could modify ANALIT to check for the continued presence of carriers, as well. Does anybody know if they are doing this, or if they plan to? I seem to recall that somebody in one of the information terminal rate areas who worked for the operating company there said that doing such things (i.e., looking for modems) was "against company policy." Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Aug 83 07:14:21 PDT From: jmrubin%Coral.CC@Berkeley Subject: New long distance service I saw an ad for "Thriftiphone", or something like that, another MCI-clone gearing up for 1 January. This one is owned by NCR, ne National Cash Register, so you may get unusual ringing, he-he. One question with all these clones--Bell lines are often better in quality. Come 1 January, are you going to be able to use Bell and one other service or do you have to chose? Will Bell cost the same as the others, and if so, will they degrade their lines to compete? (Right now, there are numerous instances where you can use Bell long distance with computers, but not the other guys. It depends on where you call, of course.) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 83 17:39-EST (Tue) From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay> Subject: Strike Info? How is the stike affecting people so far? How many people do we have who are planning to move at the end of the month (my situation) and thus probably don't expect phone service for weeks? What was the longest Bell strike in recent history, and how long can this one go? Are people from BTL manning the phones? I know my sister is a marketeer with Long Lines and they got her on the lines, (they ran special courses in the offices two weeks ago to get people ready for this). ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 9-Aug-83 03:19:52-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Local telephone service bypass / C-SPAN The issues of people or organizations attempting to "bypass" local telephone service is one of the "hot" issues right now in the current Congressional hearings regarding telecommunications. From a technical standpoint, cellular radio could provide some useful services, but I don't believe it could hold up if substantial numbers of persons began using it *instead* of conventional services; the traffic volumes in small areas would simply be too high. Even if it *were* technically feasible, such a shift in the user base would throw a massive monkeywrench into the already confused equations involving the support of local telephone services. I don't even want to think about it. Don't sit around waiting for the cable-TV companies to help. As I've said in the past, physical plant for CATV systems varies widely, as do forward and reverse channel capacities, technology "level", and most other factors. Many (most?) cable-TV operators have gross problems with system quality control, and are lucky to be able to get marginally viewable pictures to their subscribers, much less any other sorts of services. I am frequently asked by audiences about the possibility of CATV systems taking over substantial volumes of services from Telco. My usual response (sure to get a laugh) is that "most cable-TV companies make General Telephone look good!" It's true. --Lauren-- P.S. For those of you with C-SPAN on your local cable systems (or who have a personal dish pointed in the correct direction), C-SPAN is currently running the House/Senate joint hearings on Telephone legislation. These hearings involve technical discussions of bypass issues, long distance access charges, disconnect rates, lifeline services, and many other topics of interest to TELECOM readers. Testimony is from many sources, including high level AT&T officials, MCI, state regulatory commissions, etc. These hearing generally air via tape-delay late at night (I was just watching one that had been running for some time at around 3:30 AM PDT). They are extremely interesting viewing. C-SPAN also has numerous call-in programs, some with guests who are directly involved in telecom issues. It is usually possible to get "through" to many of these programs with only a modest dialing effort. --LW-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 6-Aug-83 20:11:59-PDT,11273;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom@USC-ECLB> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 6-Aug-83 2010-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLB rcvd at 6-Aug-83 2009-PDT Date: Saturday, August 6, 1983 7:00PM From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #47 To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Sunday, 7 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: Deregulation/Networks & Modems Rising Phone Costs Information Terminal Rate Recent Discussions Revisited ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 3-Aug-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Deregulation/Networks & Modems I have to admit that I, for one, was not completely convinced by the FCC's arguments concerning bypass of telco facilities by private communications networks. Though I normally shudder at the thought of government intervention in such matters, I feel that the current Congressional actions, if implemented, will at least partially restore an element of fairness for residential customers. As many of you know, I am not convinced that the breakup of the Bell System is in the best interests of the average telephone customer. Private concerns applauding the "new era" of deregulation may have reason to alter their opinions when public pressure forces the reimplementation of many regulatory rules. These rules will almost certainly end up being less strict than they were in the first place, but I don't believe that the current "anything goes" philosophy, both in telecommunications and other commercial arenas, will indefinitely persevere. --- The mention of the firm "Telectric" here in Los Angeles brought back many fond memories. Back in the old days before the rise of the "phone stores", Telectric was one of the few reliable local sources for legit, decommissioned telephone equipment suitable for use in private switching systems and the like. Telectric was mentioned in a previous Telecom digest as a source for telephone "networks" for use with modems. I should point out that connecting such a network to the telephone system in the manner described is illegal. You may only legally connect FCC approved devices in their original form (that is, most user modifications de-certify the FCC registration). The sort of networks that were discussed, as far as I know, would not be FCC certified after being removed from a phone, even if the phone itself was originally under FCC certification. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: David.Anderson@CMU-CS-G.ARPA Subject: rising phone costs The NBC Evening News had a special segment tonight on where the Bell System split is taking us. Here's a summary of interesting tidbits for TELECOM readers: o Those whose phone bills are now under $40/mo (80% of us) are going to wind up with higher bills, and soon. The typical $10 bill will be $20-$25 next year, unless someone (Congress?) does something. o Experts are predicting that 10-15% of current subscribers will terminate their service -- the poor, elderly, small businesses that don't really need a phone, ... o MCI alone has now captured 3% of the long distance market, which was worth $1 billion last year. A question for TELECOM readers: is there any hope at all for alternative LOCAL phone service? Cellular? or how about cable? --david ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 83 00:14:38 PDT From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Information Terminal Rate Below is a file I picked up off of the Moraga, CA, RIBBS (Remote CP/M bulletin board system). --- Start of forwarded message --- Downloaded from CompuServe CEM-SIG (Use GO CEM-450) by Edward Huang (with much grief to my CIS/Visa bill!) Take this seriously although Pacific Telephone has been nicer to us than the Central or Eastern Bell companies but with the planned divesture,..... we hope for the best. -Ed #: 11618 Sec. 0 - GENERAL Sb: **WARNING** 16-Jun-83 18:17:22 Fm: Rich 74055,1540 To: *ALL* --> Bell/MODEM cont. <-THIS FILE CONTAINS THE ENTIRE STORY ON THE BELL/MODEMMER BATTLE. IT IS QUITE LONG. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAVE IT IN YOUR BUFFER AND PLACE IT ON OTHER SYSTEMS THAT IS FINE. - SOMETIME IN EARLY MAY, 1983 I REQUESTED THAT A TRACER BE PLACED ON THE BBS LINE. I HAD TO EXPLAIN THE KINDS OF CALLS I WAS RECEIVING, WHICH MEANT THAT I HAD TO EXPLAIN THAT I HAD A MODEM. BELL ALREADY KNEW I HAD A MODEM, AS I REGISTERED IT WITH THEM WHEN I FIRST SET UP THE BBS. THEY DIDN'T DO THE TRACER (AT FIRST) BUT THEY SAID THAT SINCE I USED A MODEM, I WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE INFORMATION TERMINAL RATE, WHICH IS ABOUT 500% HIGHER THAN THE NORMAL PHONE RATE. FOR SEVERAL WEEKS I ARGUED WITH THE BUSINES OFFICE REPS, TELLING THEM THAT THE RATE IS ONLY FOR HIGH-SPEED LINES. I COULDN'T BELEIVE THAT ANYONE COULD PASS A TARIFF THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY OUTLAW NON-COMMERCIAL MODEM USE IN OKLAHOMA. (WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY A 500% HIGHER PHONE BILL??) --> Bell/MODEM cont. <-WELL, IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY CAN AND WILL CHARGE FOR MODEM USE. THEY DON'T CARE IF YOU USE THE MODEM 24-HOURS-A-DAY, ONCE A WEEK OR ONCE A MONTH. THE RATE IS $45.90. TOUCH-TONE ALSO GOES UP, FROM $1.25/MONTH TO $3.50/MONTH. - THANKS TO JOE PUGARELLI, KOCO-TV CHANNEL 5 WAS INTERESTED IN THE STORY, AND BROUGHT A CAMERA CREW HERE TO MY APARTMENT. I WAS ON THE NEWS THAT NIGHT AS THE REPORTERS GRIMLY TOLD THE AUDIENCE THAT THEIR PHONE RATE WAS GOING UP IF THEY USED A MODEM. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE FROM BELL IN THE STORY. HOWEVER, FIVE DAYS LATER THEY RE-RAN THE STORY, THIS TIME WITH BELL REPRESENTATIVES CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR MODEMS. --> Bell/MODEM cont. <-IN THE MEANTIME, ABOUT 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO ANY NEWS COVERAGE, AN INFORMAL FIRST MEETING OF THE OKLAHOMA MODEM USERS GROUP (OMUG) MET IN A MCDONALDS RESTAURANT WHERE AMONG OTHER THINGS, A PETITION WAS RELEASED FOR DUPLICATION AND CIRCULATION. HOWEVER, THE PETITION TURNED OUT TO BE VAGUE, AND FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. THEREFORE, A NEW PETITION IS BEING DRAWN UP, WHICH WILL BE VERY SPECIFIC IN STATING THAT TELEPHONE SERVICE BE CLASSIFIED AS EITHER "BUSINESS" OR "RESIDENTIAL," WITH NO REFERENCES TO MODEM USE, AS MODEM USE DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE A BUSINESS, AND MODEM USE USES THE PHONE LINES IN THE SAME MANNER AS VOICE CONVERSATION. - NOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN NEWS COVERAGE BY LOCAL TELEVISION, AND REPORTERS FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL HAVE CALLED THE PHONE COMPANY (AND ME), JUDY MCREYNOLDS, MANAGER OF THE NORMAN BUSINESS OFFICE IS SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD BE A "COMPROMISE" BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL RATES AND THE "INFORMATION TERMINAL RATE." THIS PLAN IS BETTER THAN PAYING A 500% INCREASE, BUT STILL INVOLVES A 150-200% INCREASE FOR THE SAME SERVICE, WITH NO LOGICAL REASON FOR ANY INCREASE. THEREFORE, I INFORMED MS. MCREYNOLDS THAT HER EFFORTS WERE APPRECIATED, BUT HER PROPOSAL (IF ACCEPTED) WOULD STILL BE "UNACCEPTABLE." --> Bell/MODEM cont. <-THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO OVERCOME THIS CRIPPLING TARIFF IS FOR US TO UNITE IN AN INTELLIGENT AND ORGANIZED MANNER. I URGE ALL MODEM OWNERS IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TO JOIN THE OKLAHOMA MODEM USERS GROUP (OMUG). ONCE WE ARE UNITED INTO ONE LARGE GROUP, WE CAN ALL MAKE INTELLIGENT DECISIONS, UNDER THE ASSISTANCE & SUPERVISION OF AN ATTORNEY WHO IS EXPERIENCED IN THE AREA (I ALREADY HAVE ONE LINED-UP). IF NECESSARY, WE CAN INCORPORATE AND PROCED TO FILE A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL. WE WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE THIS ACTION IF CONVENTIAL METHODS (MEDIA ATTENTION, PETITIONS) FAIL. - IF YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ISN'T ALREADY ON THE OMUG MAILING LIST, CONTACT ROBERT BRAVER IMMEDIATELY AT 360-7462, OR LEAVE [Some text deleted which violates the spirit of TELECOM. --JSol] I imagine that this is Bells' way of "testing the waters". If an insuffeceint number of peaple raise an objection then I think it would be a resonable prediction to say the other states will be hit with this also. It has been pointed out by one member of the BBS that not only Comp-u-serve, The Source, and Infotex will be affected but the MODEM manufactures and the retailers will suffer as sales drop as a result of this. C u in a BIT. Rich ( The Dragonfly ) 74055,1540 --- End of forwarded message --- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 83 04:46:45 EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: recent discussions revisited Flick on blowers, slam all dampers open, turn on scrubbers, check supply pressure, engage ignition system.... Somehow this ''access charge'' for long distance calling seems utterly bogus. For one thing, has anyone considered how much equipment usage is devoted to calls that wind up busy or no answer?? Regardless of completion status, there is still ''usage'' to connect party X with party Y's phone, or at least make an attempt. For interoffice signaling, it would seem that the maximum bottleneck would be lots of ''Hey, connect line Q over *there*'' requests, and once the connection is established, maintaining it is relatively easy. Of course for long-haul digitally- switched stuff, it's all just more bits. I'd like to see you get people to pay willingly to listen to busy signals! If you make it so long-distance capability is optional, how is someone who didn't bother to get it supposed to call the folks in Omaha when Grand-dad just had a coronary? Borrow a neighbor's line? Go use a public phone? In other words, it's another concept that sounds pretty screwy and will be very difficult to live with. Seems that the carrier services can reap quite enough profit by billing for actual use, with compensations for the abovementioned non-connection cases. Another nit: Why do people with modems necessarily run up more usage than anyone else? I can talk to someone two towns over [still a local call, thank clod] for three hours, and then call a *closer* number and spend half an hour reading mail and bboards. I think *anyone* who is getting screwed because they use a modem sometimes should put up maximum resistance. Maybe they'll get the idea someday. It also does seem to be a gross invasion of privacy for TPC to ferret out modem carriers like that. I rent my line from the phone company for the purpose of placing calls and exchanging audio signals in either direction, and the content or type of those signals are none of their bloody business. Furthermore, since I am *not* a business, and not using the modem for any kind of profit, I should not *conceivably* be charged their so-called ''business rates''. Twist down feed valves, close dampers, drain float bowls, shake down the ash pit... _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 14-Aug-83 18:32:56-PDT,8258;000000000001 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 14-Aug-83 18:32:06 Date: Sunday, August 14, 1983 6:30PM From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM at USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #49 To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Monday, 15 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: ANALIT - Detecting Carriers Finding Touch-Tone(TM) CATV Datacomm Services Telco Tariffs / FCC Certification Telephone Flames ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 1983 1552-PDT Subject: ANALIT or whatever From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> The use of a program to periodically scan for a particular tone on each line (or each of a list of suspected lines) in a CO strikes me as a bit strange. Assuming the detection hardware were readily available to be switched into each of these lines quickly, this seems to be a rather ineffecient method of scanning. I seem to recall that there once was (and may still be) a class of service which said, in effect, watch for DTMF dialing and flag it. In this mode, ESS would accept tone dialing, but the ringback/dtmf test line would ignore tone signals. When tones were used, a printed log or perhaps special entries on the AMA tapes would be made, thus informing the company of unauthorized DTMF use. It makes far more sense, though, simply to ignore touch tones on lines not paying for the service, which appears to be the current policy in ESS offices. Checking for carriers would be somewhat more difficult, since there are not already detectors for this purpose. Also, DTMF signals need only be monitored during dialing; once the call has been set up, the detectors are free to be used elsewhere. Detecting carriers requires the detector during the entire call. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1983 22:06 EDT From: DVW.STRAT@MIT-OZ Subject: Finding Touch-Tone(TM) In regard to Phil's message; I have found that down here (in Virginia/DC/MD), offices run by ESS really don't need to check for Touch-Tone(TM) on rotary lines, simply because if one doesn't pay for tone, a tone pad will not break the dial tone, regardless of whether it's hardwired or acoustically coupled into the line. They're not filtered, because other carriers can receive them, but the CO refuses to hear them.. It shouldn't be that hard to find modems in ESS offices, because the software (from what I've heard) is hackable to listen for anything from DTMF to MF to whatever else they'd like. --Bob-- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 1983 0657-PDT Subject: CATV Datacomm Services From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Appropriately enough on reading Lauren's comments re communications provided by local CATV companies, I recalled just having read the following, from the Aug 8 issue of DATA CHANNELS (V 10 # 16), one of those high-priced technical newsletters: MOUNTAIN BELL SEEKS PROBE INTO CABLE COMPANIES' DATA SERVICE CAPABILITIES Mountain Bell, which in June asked the New Mexico Corporation Commission to stop Albuquerque Cable TV from offerring data transmission services it claims compete with telephone-delivered services, has now asked the NMCC to let it expand its complaint. The telephone company now wants the commission not only to investigate whether Albuquerque Cable is offering common carrier services without a certificate of public convenience and necessity, but also to launch an industrywide investigation into the state's cable companies' capabilities to provide services in competition with telephone companies. Rather than looking at the specifics of individual companies' actions, the Bell operating company wants the commission to look at the extent to which cable companies, now unregulated by the state, can offer ways to bypass the phone company's local loop, Mountain Bell's Jim Haynes told DATA CHANNELS contributing editor Anna L. Zornosa. Mountain Bell appears to be concerned about Los Alamos Cable TV, which plans to offer 3 data services to its small but sophisticated service area. The services, Subnet, Biznet, and Labnet, will allow subscribers with terminals in their homes to use the cable system to transmit high-speed data for a variety of applications. Labnet, the service most important to the company's interactive data program, will offer employees of the Los Alamos National Laboratory a way to work at home by using personal computers to tie into the labs. This service, an LATV official told us, will supply enough revenue to get the others off the ground. A deal between the cable system and the laboratory is nearly sealed, and the service could start in a month, he said. The other 2 services are designed for the city and county governments, students at a branch of the University of New Mexico, and businesses. Subscribers will pay $25 per month to access the services. "It's going to bring us a lot of revenue," the official said. "Surveys have shown people are very interested." Regarding Mountain Bell's challenge, he suggested that the telco "regrets the fact it didn't do it first." ****End of news item**** Some people have all the luck... Here in St. Louis City, the local politicos have been wrangling and fussing over whether to award a cable system charter for years, so I don't have Cable TV access at all, much less a choice of fancy services... Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 11-Aug-83 17:19:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Telco Tariffs / FCC Certification The "rules" regarding the connection of equipment to the telephone network and such are all contained in the "tariffs" that the telcos have filed with (and which have been approved by) the various state public utility commissions. These tariffs are rather like laws, but are indeed actually civil documents. The term "illegal" is frequently used to refer to acts which violate these tariffs, even though an actual "criminal" offense need not be involved. The normal reaction of the telcos to tariff violations (depending on circumstances, of course) include warnings, disconnection of service, or in some cases lawsuits. Unless there are other (criminal) acts involved, you won't normally be taken away in handcuffs for a telco tariff violation. --- On the subject of FCC certification: This certification applies to specific products and/or systems. Unless a component of an FCC certified piece of telephone equipment had been *separately* certified, that component itself would *not* be certified once it was removed from the certified equipment. Any user modifications of the certified equipment also invalidate the certification. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 1983 1517-PDT Subject: Telephone flames From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> If I may make a suggestion, many of the flames about stupid telephone rate structures and excessive charges sound well-informed, and loud. I think they would be most effective if sent to the news media, senators, and regulatory agencies, in addition to this list. I have been doing so, and what I am hearing is that there are many times more angry letters being received by these agencies on this issue than on any similar issue in the past. Creative alternatives and specific points would be useful, if one is son inclined, however just another vote will make a difference. I urge anybody with any opinion on this issue to write it up and send it to the appropriate agencies. <>IHM<> [Note from the moderator: Please do NOT mention TELECOM in any of these correspondences. That would constitute political use of this digest, which is contrary to DCA policy governing ARPANet mailings such as this one. --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 18-Aug-83 18:16:38-PDT,14742;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Aug-83 18:15:50 Date: 18 Aug 83 1813-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #50 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Friday, 19 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Detecting Modem Usage Miscellanea Still No 1+ In Pittsburgh? Punitive Tariffs For Modem Users Place Names As Prefixes Secure Dial-Ins Cincinnati Bell; Measured Service? Detecting Modems / Congressional Actions On Telephone Rates New Switch At Ucla Phone Strike Losers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven M. Bellovin <ulysses!smb@berkeley> Date: 15 Aug 83 11:17:21 EDT (Mon) Subject: detecting modem usage Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most phone systems already have equipment installed to detect modem tones? I thought that the initial presence of a modem carrier was used to disable the echo supressors; on ESSen, it shouldn't be at all hard to make a note of that behavior as well. As for DTMF -- I know that some phone lines which have *never* had DTMF service authorized will in fact accept it. My parents, for example, have had the same phone numbers since before there was such a thing, have never paid for Touch-Tone, but Touch-Tone does in fact work on their phone lines. I seem to recall some mention in this digest that that's a side-effect of the implementation of DTMF in crossbar exchanges, not ESSen. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 83 15:21:06 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: miscellanea There are Charge-Phones outside the Bell system, too! (There is one in Brandywine service area on Pennsylvania Turnpike between exits 22 and 23 in Chester County on 215-286 exchange. 215-286 is Morgantown, although Morgan- town proper is in Berks County right at exit 22.) Bell System strike does not directly involve other phone companies--but they must link together for long-distance calls. I have heard about a portion of Ohio not in the Bell System linking to directory assistance in Columbus, served by Ohio Bell. Also, I found that self-service credit-card call worked the same outside of Bell System as it did within. Special DDD instructions for Needmore (717-573) & Warfordsburg (717-294) exchanges found in Breezewood Tel. Co. phone book (Breezewood, Pa.; covers parts of 717 & 814 areas): You must make such calls as if you were in 301 area (Md.), but you are in the 717 area for incoming calls. (I noticed that such a situation existed for some southern Indiana points in the Cincinnati phone book--513 area for outgoing calls, 812 for incoming calls--but this was changed during 1982.) How full of prefixes is 513 area (southwest Ohio)? Do they still have message saying "We're sorry, but calls to Kentucky cannot be completed using area code 513; you must dial area code 606."? (Note that Ohio has 2 Bell System companies serving it: Ohio Bell & Cincinnati Bell. Cincinnati & northern Kentucky are local to each other. Both of these Bell-System firms charge 25 cents--apparently no time limit--for local calls on pay phone.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 83 15:24:08 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: still no 1+ in Pittsburgh? Instruction card on pay phones in Pittsburgh still has no 1+ for DDD. (I will have trouble looking up points in that area which have local service across area-code (412) boundary.) ------------------------------ Date: 15 August 1983 1911-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL> Subject: Re: Punitive tariffs for modem users Interestingly enough, since most computer hobbyists use 300 baud modems, it's probably infeasible for an operating company to attempt to detect them. The signal originating at a 103-style modem is indistinguishable from that generated by an acoustic coupler, which presumably can't be billed any differently, since it has no physical connection into the network. What does SW Bell have to say about that? /k**2 ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 15 Aug 1983 23:00-PDT Subject: Place names as prefixes From: greep@SU-DSN (I just got caught up with recent telecom so this is a little dated now.) Before all-digit dialing, I think it was not too uncommon to use place-names. Examples that come to mind are MUrray Hill (NJ) and HOllywood (Calif). One of my favorites was HIlltop (hope you're not reading this on Helvetica) for Mt. Wilson, one of the biggest mountains in the LA area (where most of the radio and television transmitters are located). ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 83 12:40-EST (Tue) From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay> Subject: Secure Dial-ins Since the movie WAR GAMES there has been a lot of discussion about secure dial-in phone lines. I pass along a system I saw advertized (in Electronics I think). Step User Action Machine's Response 1. Dial in Answer Phone, do NOT produce carrier, wait for DTMF signals 2. Use DTMF to enter Look up user in Database and verify name and password 3. Hang-up Call back user at authorized address and produce carrier, allow user to log-in again but this time in normal mode. This method (I don't know if it violates any standards) does get around two security problems. 1. User's randomly calling numbers and finding phone numbers of machines when they answer with a carrier. 2. Calls only allowed from authorized locations. Random Users (most break-ins) not allowed. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 83 7:46:58 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-bmd> Subject: Cincinnati Bell; measured service? The following items turned up in June 1983 Cincinnati area phone book: 1. "If you have a question about Cincinnati Bell (other than questions about your bill, or repair or service ordering matters), please write:..." 2. Checklist to help determine whether you need flat-rate or measured local service. Note that one of the questions (dealing with calling crosstown) mentions specific place names (as samples) and would thus have to be changed for people outside Cincinnati area. (In my own case, outside Cincinnati area, I still have flat-rate service. That's the service I have heard about since I was growing up, and I'd have to change my phone number--no charge--to get measured service, which is only available to people in electronic exchanges. Newark, Del. has electronic [302-366,368,453,454] and nonelectronic [731,737,738] mixed together.) ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 17-Aug-83 16:20:01-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Detecting modems / Congressional actions on telephone rates Greetings. I don't think that most ESS offices have the capability to scan *all* subscriber lines for *any* tone at *all* points during the duration of the call! If anything, the proper equipment for tone detection would normally be bridged onto a line only during the dialing interval. This isn't to say that a handy method to help pick out people using modems doesn't exist, however. All that telco has to do is carefully watch the line usage statistics (and these can be setup to cover all lines for *all* calls, including local) and flag lines which have statistically high usage either incoming or outgoing. Once such a line was flagged, special tone detection equipment could be hooked to the line (without actually requiring that telco listen to conversations), to detect any given tones of interest. The courts have apparently held that such tone detection equipment used in this "directed" manner is not an invasion of subscriber privacy (such equipment has been used in the past to help collect evidence against phone phreaks). Much of the time this equipment won't detect any modem activity (maybe the heavy usage is a teenager in the home or an older person who relies heavily on the phone) but the usage statistics technique can certainly narrow down the search space drastically. Whether usage of a modem (even for long periods) actually *should* be charged at a higher rate is another matter, of course. Personally I think not (even for business use) since, in theory, telco is (or at least will be) deriving revenue on a measured basis for *all* calls (including local, eventually) in any case. I suspect that the telcos might be hard pressed to prove a significant difference between a modem user and a "heavy talker" who both use their phone similar amounts. Most of the efforts to fight the Southwest Bell modem tariffs seem to be directed only toward non-business users right now. Personally, I feel that businesses in that part of the country should also vocally oppose these tariffs, since they too are *already* paying for those calls! Frankly, I suspect that such modem tariffs are largely designed to try get some direct revenue from incoming calls. I always figured that someday someone would try charge ya' for whenever people call YOU. In a situation where measured service is in force for all calls, these modem tariffs would be (are) *real* killers. Let's hope that the telcos outside the southwest don't try to implement such tariffs (it's pretty unlikely that they'd try so long as the SW Bell cases are in court). --- A few nights ago, C-SPAN spent all night running the House/Senate Joint Commerce Committee hearings on telephone rates. It was a fascinating program, including testimony by the heads of the Bell regional holding companies, FCC officials, state PUC officials, and various other persons. It is beginning to look strongly like the the current "access charge" provisions are going to be tossed out the window, and a comprehensive "bypass tax" imposed on *all* alternative carriers instead. It is very complex and confused right now, but emotions are running very high in the committee. I was impressed to find many detailed points (e.g. including the impact of forced local measured service on the elderly who rely heavily on their phones) being discussed. Of course, it is unclear how many of these issues Congress can really address -- they are mostly concerned with the access charges right now. However, there is obvious worry about the massive rate increases that have been filed around the country -- even the FCC is concerned about these and has commissioned (yet another) study on the matter. There are also bizarre issues regarding "a telephone welfare program" and all sorts of other oddities. I hope to submit a detailed report on these matters to TELECOM when I have some free time -- these issues are getting *very* hairy and will be extremely far reaching. Anybody who needs more information right away should contact me directly. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 83 23:36:51 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-ATS> Subject: new switch at ucla UCLA has recently become the first of the UC Campuses to own its own telephone switch, a model SL-1 from Northern Telecom of Canada, with a capacity of 15,000 lines and numerous features. The switch was chosen after a request for bids, to which only Northern Telecom and General Telephone responded. The UCLA telecommunications office has acquired the nickname "Bruin Bell". Among the features are about 15 possible dialing limits on campus telephones, ranging from no dial-out, campus only, ... , USA only, North America only, and finally (!) the world! This permits an excellent pecking order. However the most interesting features are call-forwarding and the automatic notification to the called party that the calling party has hung up. Call-forwarding is executed by dialing 42, followed by the 5-digit extension number to which calls are to be forwarded. The switch responds with a tone, indicating that call-forwarding is in effect. Note that there is no verification that the number to which calls are to be forwarded to is the intended number. If you are the unfortunate recipient of a mistake in call-forwarding, as I was recently, neither the operator nor the repair service can turn it off. You must somehow locate the telephone which is having calls forwarded to you, and from that line, and only that line, dial 43 to cancel the service. Perhaps I was stupid, but it took several calls which were intended for the same number, quite different from mine, before I realized what had happened. I then had to find someone who was trusted by the personnel in the telephone office, to tell me where the forwarding telephone was. I leave the rest to your imagination. However sober thought indicates that the possibilities for mischief are virtually unlimited! For example, a practical joker could wander through the campus and, whenever a telephone is unattended, forward its calls to the Chancellor's Office, or to the head of Bruin Bell, etc. Note that lines in hunt-groups cannot forward calls and that, normally, calls can only be forwarded to other campus telephones. Another interesting feature is that if the calling party hangs up and the called party doesn't, then, after about 10 seconds, 4 beeps are heard by the called party. This fouls up most VOX telephone answering machines! Perhaps there is a lot to be said for pots. Cheers (this system makes General Telephone look good!) vail ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 14:30-EST (Thu) From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay> Subject: Phone Strike Losers It seems that the most likely losers in the phone strike are likely to be AT&T's competitors. Rolm stock is already dropping, tymenet and tymeshare can't install new customers, several PBX manufactures (Northern Telecom and others) report sales are dropping. Ma Bell seems to have a significant incentive to keep the strike going for the short term. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 19-Aug-83 21:58:29-PDT,6303;000000000001 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Aug-83 21:57:57 Date: 19 Aug 83 2156-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #51 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Saturday, 20 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Modems & Charge-A-Call In Non-Bell Areas Touchtone Enabled Randomly? Punitive Tariffs For Modem Users Place Names As Prefixes Echo Suppress, Secure Dial-Ups ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Aug 1983 1902-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #50 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> To: Steve Bellovin, Re: Modem usage I think the echo suppressors are in distance tandems, and therefore so would be the detectors. To: Carl Moore, Re: Charge phones outside the Bell System I drove through an area served by "North Pittsburgh Telephone Company", not affiliated with the Bell System, and they indeed had charge-a-call telephones, MCCS, ACTS, etc. The reason turned out to be that this telephone company pays the local Bell affiliate to administer its operator services, and sends TSPS calls to Ma-Bell TSPS. Interesting. Re: Bell System strike I recently have been reading up on the CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signalling) protocols, and among other interesting features, something called 'SPecific Number Blocking' was mentioned. Indeed this is a feature intended to handle mass long-distance calling to 800 numbers, but will work for any number of the DDD network, and eventually over all CCIS equipped systems. The upshot of all this is that when there is more than one number that will reach a desired service, it is possible to get around the specific number block by dialing the alternate number. What possible use, you ask, could this have? Well, in the recent weeks, during the strike, many people attempting to reach foreign-NPA directory assistance have been greeted with a circuits busy message. May I remind you, however, that in most areas, directory assistance can be reached by dialing NPA+555+121X, where X is any of 0 through 9. The blockage only is affecting 1212, since the average caller knows not of this feature. ------------------------------ Date: 18 August 1983 22:06 edt From: RK at MIT-MC (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) Subject: touchtone enabled randomly? Around the Boston, MA area the situation seems to be that touchtone is enabled on all ESS lines whether or not you pay for it. I recently moved and ordered two lines (617-254-). They messed up the order for the second line and forgot the speed dialing and touchtone, yet touchtone still worked. I have run across many other lines in the area were touchtone worked even though no one was paying for it. I've yet to run across one on an ESS around here that didn't. I seem to recall the situation being the same at my parents in Brooklyn, NY (212-853- or ULster 3) but I don't remember if they are ESS or crossbar. I know it definitely doesn't work on my parents in Tobyhanna, PA (717-894-), but that is a step by step. ------------------------------ Date: 19 August 1983 02:17 EDT From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC> Subject: Punitive tariffs for modem users Date: 15 August 1983 1911-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYW Subject: Re: Punitive tariffs for modem users Interestingly enough, since most computer hobbyists use 300 baud modems, it's probably infeasible for an operating company to attempt to detect them. The signal originating at a 103-style modem is indistinguishable from that generated by an acoustic coupler, which presumably can't be billed any differently, since it has no physical connection into the network. What does SW Bell have to say about that? /k**2 Who said that they couldn't bill accoustic couplers? Why should they be billed any differently from direct connect modems? Besides, there are 1200 baud accoustic coupled modems too. You can't try to reason like that with these people as they obviously think very differently than we do. They seem to think that data connections are only made by high-tech businesses, eccentric millionaire hobbyists, and computer genius 'hackers' with an IQ of 200 who go around breaking into top secret nuclear defense computers. Sigh. How can we bring them back to reality? If we don't then I am sure this nonsense will spread from Oklahoma to all 50 states. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 83 7:38:32 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: Place names as prefixes MUrray Hill turned up in NYC (Manhattan). Where in NJ was it found as an exchange name? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 83 17:57:11 PDT From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Echo suppress, secure dial-ups On international circuits, such as TASI satellite or cable, the echo suppress frequency is different than a modem tone (the protocol is something like "send the echo suppress, then follow by not more than 180 ms of silence in direction of transmission.") However, that's for TASI to avoid clipping, not to suppress echo. In any case, it was used on TASI to avoid clipping data, so I'd assume, if they make specific reference to echo suppress, it must be different than a carrier. I read somewhere, I thought, that it was 1850 Hz. I heard that some government agency in Washington was having the security guard on duty during the evening answer the dialup normally, and if he got a correct password, would place the modem on line. Although not nearly as extensive as the system mentioned previously, it would get rid of a majority of hackers, and wouldn't require buying anything, assuming you already have a security guard... Phil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Aug-83 16:00:23-PDT,4592;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 22-Aug-83 15:59:47 Date: 22 Aug 83 1558-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #52 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 23 Aug 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Echo Suppressors / Touch-Tone / Tariffs Manual Modem Security Control Why Can't They Charge For Acoustic Couplers? TSPS Operator ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 19-Aug-83 02:19:44-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Echo suppressors / Touch-Tone / Tariffs Greetings. A few brief comments: Echo suppressors do indeed respond to modem answer carrier (nominally 2225 Hz.) However, this is a purely local action within the suppressors, and no information regarding the detection of a modem is passed back along the network. Even if this *was* done, it would only detect relatively long distance calls. --- ESS offices allow Touch-Tone to be enabled or disabled easily on a line by line basis. In Crossbar offices, an entire vertical of the crossbar switch is normally enabled whenever a single subscriber in that vertical orders Touch-Tone service. With step by step, all bets are off -- there are all sorts of ways of providing the service, but normally groups of numbers are enabled at the same time. In fact, in many cases, entire offices are enabled, period. For example, I believe that every subscriber line in General Telephone step by step offices in Los Angeles is currently enabled for Touch-Tone use. --- Finally, the fact that a person is using an acoustic modem (instead of a direct-connect) makes no difference in terms of terminal usage tariffs such as those of Southwest Bell. Telco tariffs generally allow wide latitude in their handling of "unusual" users, how ever those are defined. For example, it is possible in some cases for telco to have your line disconnected if you receive a large number of calls and you refuse to get a rotary. At least, they can *try* to do this to you -- and the tariffs often do contain such provisions. The issue is *how* you are using the line, not whether or not you are directly attaching equipment. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 19-Aug-83 18:20:51-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: Manual modem security control Oh yeah... Having a security guard answer the modem lines is a *fine* idea! All you gotta do now is put Votrax chips into all the autodialers so that *they* can talk to the guard just like a human could, right? Give me a break! Uh, how about a control-C? --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 1983 1152-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #51 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> To: RK at MIT-MC, Re: TouchTone enabled randomly 212-853 is crossbar, and therefore will probably handle touch-tone on all lines anyway. 717-894 is old step-by-step. very strange stuff. Usually on SxS, if there is a touch-tone subscriber in a given block of numbers (assuming it is offered), the tones will work from any number in that block. <>IHM<> [Lauren's message is a bit more accurate. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 83 23:47:34 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> Subject: Why can't they charge for acoustic couplers? There was this case called the Carterfone decision. The device was an acoustic coupler for hooking up a telephone to a two-way radio. The phone company was barred from prohibiting or charging this hookup. This case has to be 10 or 15 years old by now and was the first step in the Consumer telephone battle. -Ron [This really doesn't address the issue, which is "is transmitting data over a phone line a separate service?" --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 83 15:55:35 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: TSPS operator For the 1st time today, I heard the above term ("TSPS operator") used in reference to the local operator I reach by hitting "0". (Since the Bell System strike is still on pending acceptance of settlements, the operator I got was probably one of the supervisory personnel.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 2-Sep-83 21:18:31-PDT,10066;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 2-Sep-83 21:17:34 Date: 2 Sep 83 2115-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request at USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #53 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Saturday, 3 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: "Unusual" User News Bulletin Unused Area Codes More Miscellanea Carterfone Rotaries Duck Soup Billing Malfunctions Special Instructions In New Hampshire ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 83 7:55:54 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: "unusual" user "...have your line disconnected if you receive a large number of calls and you refuse to get a rotary"?!? Just how would such refusal impact the phone system? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Aug 83 7:52:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: news bulletin Date: 24 Aug 83 2201 PDT COMPUTER TROUBLESHOOTER: 'Artificially Intelligent' Machine Analyses Phone Trouble WASHINGTON - Researchers at Bell Laboratories say they've developed an ''artificially intelligent'' computer system that works like a telephone network. Slug PM-Bell Computer. New, will stand. 670 words. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Aug 83 13:24:22 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: unused area codes Omitting N00, N10, and N11, the following area codes are not in use. (I am not sure about dialing instructions to Mexico.) 407,508, 706 (see under Mexico), 708, 718 (to be implemented 1984 in NYC), 719, 818 (to be implemented 1984 in Los Angeles area), 903 (see under Mexico), 905 (see under Mexico), 908,909,917 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Aug 83 16:01:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: more miscellanea 1964 Cincinnati Enquirer microfilm had many letter prefixes from Cincinnati area; most of these have the number 1 (as in CH1, etc.). Any reason for such 1's? I saw a pay phone at Cambridge, Ohio (614-439-9110) which had dial tone but still required deposit of 20 cents for calls which don't require coins on most DTF phones. (Such phone was put in by GTE of Ohio.) [GTE pay telephones in the Los Angeles area also required a dime before it would complete ANY call, dispite the fact that it was DTF (dial tone first). This is because the touch tone pad (or dial) is disabled until you insert the dime. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1983 02:13 EDT From: DVW.STRAT@MIT-OZ Subject: Carterfone Just for clarity's sake I will quote directly from the C & P Telephone Acronyms Directory (with a legislative jargon section). "Carterfone decision - A 1968 FCC decision which held that telephone company tariffs containing blanket prohibition against the attachment of customer-provided equipment to the telecommunications network were unreasonable, discriminatory and unlawful. The FCC declared the telephone companies could set up reasonable standards for interconnection to insure the technical integrity of the network. Following Carterfone, the telephone companies filed tariffs for protective connecting arrangements to facilitate the interconnection of customer-provided terminal equipment." If you read that slowly, you can almost hear their distaste... --Bob-- ------------------------------ Date: Sunday, 28-Aug-83 18:18:44-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Subject: rotaries How would not getting a rotary affect telco? Heh heh. I spent the better part of a day down at the Calif. PUC arguing about this topic (amongst others) in an informal hearing consisting of my clients, myself (as a consultant), a PUC official, and a bunch of officials from PacTel. The story is hilarious, since it involves PacTel bringing forth piles of statistics that they had gathered on incoming usage of my client's phone line (a telephone joke service called "ZZZZZZ" -- it was the last listing in the L.A. phone book). I successfully showed that most of their statistics were being erroneously interpreted -- clearly PacTel had not been expecting the people they'd be dealing with to know more about a typical Crossbar office and the toll network than they did! I had a great time demonstrating that the only reason they wanted my clients to get a rotary was that it would result in more COMPLETED calls (as opposed to calls that reached a busy singal). More completed calls means more revenue -- but does not directly reduce interoffice trunk loading or other significant factors in a Crossbar office. They never really admitted that revenue was the primary factor, but it became pretty clear. This is the *very* short version of the story -- the long version is very involved and this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. The bottom line, however, is that many Telco tariffs give TPC a very broad ability to rather arbitrarily declare various actions to be "detrimental" to other person's phone service, even when this cannot be technically proven. This can turn some rather trivial situations into rather complex headaches. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 83 14:06 EDT (Monday) From: Denber.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Duck Soup From the Fall 1983 edition of the Sharper Image Catalog comes: The phone that quacks. [really] A valued addition to the den or desk of any outdoorsman, the Decoy Phone artfully conceals the newest solid state technology. A soft, pleasant quacking characteristic of the species replaces harsh rings. Simply lift the head and you're on the line. The head also serves as a shoulder pad [that's using your head] to free your hands during important calls. Cord extends four feet and retracts automatically when you replace the handset. Pushbutton True-Tone dialing so you can access MCI and other long distance economy services. Weighs 7 lbs. [precooked, I assume], measures 13 1/2 x 9 x 7 1/2". The rugged, unbreakable ABS plastic has been beautifully detailed to resemble the finest collectible decoys. Yet it's strong, surprisingly light for its size, and comfortable to use. Mounted on its own solid oak base for even more authenticity. One year warranty. Adds the feel of the outdoors to any room, and a sure conversation starter [no doubt]. Use your 30-day return privilege to try the Decoy Phone in your home or office. You'll agree it's one of the most ingenious phones ever made. Decoy Phone #CDK365 $249. - Michel ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 1983 1757-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Billing malfunctions The OCCs, who at the present time generally do not receive information telling them that a call has been answered, supposedly will remove incorrectly charged calls simply by asking. But soon they will be able to receive the so-called supervisory information from the local operating companies. This supervisory information is right 99.99 (or so) percent of the time, but I've had occasional difficulty with false charging on calls into my home exchange (617 263) in Acton, which I thought had been fixed. I first noticed it when calling from a pay phone in Germany; my money started disappearing as soon as ringing started (pay phones in Germany require prepayment and count down the money as the message units elapse). I was told that the failing trunk had been found and fixed. But a couple of weeks ago, I was making a calling card call to home, got no answer, and also couldn't get the MCCS responder to notice my "#" so it would say "You may dial another number now." This could only have been caused by one of two things; a malfunction in MCCS, or the fact that the 263 exchange had reported answer even though it hadn't happened (the MCCS responder is only there before and after the distant end is on the line). So when the bill came in, I called the business office and complained. Only with great difficulty could I convince the representative that there could have been a malfunction. Finally she agreed to remove the charge, but told me that the matter would be referred to SECURITY. I told her that she better refer the problem to a technical department, not security, but she insisted that security had to be notified. I wonder what sort of treatment we'll get from the OCCs when this sort of thing starts happening. We all know that computers never make mistakes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Sep 83 7:45:55 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: special instructions in New Hampshire The following turned up in the call guide for Portsmouth, Exeter, Dover, Somersworth, Rochester area (including adjacent Maine ex- changes); some rewording by me. Local calling also includes phones located within your city or town but served by exchanges other than those shown for your local calling area; no toll even if you dial 1+ 7 digit number; this does not apply to coin phones. (I don't know what exchanges--or parts of exchanges?!--are involved here.) [I've seen this in the Springfield, MA. Telephone directory as well. Apparently New England Telephone does this whenever it splits a town across an exchange boundary which is not "local" (assuming "local" implies that you don't dial a 1 first). --Jsol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 6-Sep-83 20:44:35-PDT,4315;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 6-Sep-83 20:42:10 Date: 6 Sep 83 2038-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #54 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 7 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Area Codes Area Codes Strike Info? More Miscellanea - Rotaries - Billing Malfunctions 2 More Items Key System Sales By Pacific Telephone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 1983 2253-PDT From: Chris <Pace@USC-ECLC> Subject: Area codes After reading Cmoore's list of unused area codes, I thought I would ask a couple of questions that have had my curiosity for a long while: 1) Is there an ordering to the way zip codes are laid out? (its certainly not geographic, nor alphabetic...etc) Is it by long distance trunk lines or what? and, 2) Why do area codes stop at N19 and not continue to N99? Thanks in advance, Chris. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 1983 0930-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Area Codes 903 is no longer used. It used to allow direct dialing for a few towns right on the Mexican border. Customers with IDDD can reach all points in Mexico which have dial service by dialing country code 52 followed by the city routing code and number. Customers who do not have IDDD may call Mexico City by using area code 905 and may reach much of northwestern Mexico (any point which has a city routing code beginning with 6) by using area code 706 followed by the city routing code with the 6 dropped. ------------------------------ Date: 4 September 1983 02:08 EDT From: Peter J. Castagna <PC @ MIT-MC> Subject: Strike Info? How is the strike affecting people? My cousin in 212 just got a new phone number. It turns out that there is already someone on that exchange with the same number; when I called him at 2 a.m. I got this weary-sounding lady who replied by hanging up. Since then I have talked to an ex-lineman and to my cousin; the only way, the expert says, that this could happen is that the new connection was made by an untrained person. The phone company says "just crosstalk; we'll fix it right away..." but it's been this way for two weeks. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 1983 2030-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #53 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Re: more miscellanea GTE pay stations in west LA often swallow your dime after an 800+ call or similar non-charging calls, such`as foreign DA. Re: rotaries Lauren, Is Bob trying to revive 'Z'? When was this meeting to which you refer? Re: Billing malfunctions What is 617-263? It sounds perhaps like a #2 ESS. In any case, there is a third possible cause; that being that a tandem switch somewhere along the line (probably near the Acton destination) returned false supervision. If there is a #4A XBar involved, I could believe that explanation. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 83 9:34:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: 2 more items (This required doublechecking by me.) 302-792 (Holly Oak, Del.) is an electronic exchange, but I heard that a pushbutton residential phone on that exchange can't make self-service credit card calls. (Therefore, the strike cut sharply into such calls.) The following pseudo-foreign exchanges turned up in the 415 area, judging from the V&H coordinates: 529 Richmond (E. Bay service); 761 South San Francisco (S.F. service); 766 Oakland (S.F. service); 993 Pacifica (S.F. service). ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 1983 1841-PDT Subject: Key system sales by Pacific Telephone From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> Does anyone know if Pacific Telephone has tarriffs to allow them to sell residential in-place key telephone system? <>IHM<> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Sep-83 20:23:28-PDT,4353;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLB> Mail-From: JSOL created at 8-Sep-83 20:23:09 Date: 8 Sep 83 2021-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLB> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLB Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #55 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLB TELECOM Digest Friday, 9 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: 415 Psuedo-Foreign Exchanges Area Codes Phone Books, Aircraft, And Paranoia 617-263 Touchtone Area Code Designations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 83 00:09:19 PDT (Wed) From: jmrubin%UCBCORAL.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: 415 psuedo-foreign exchanges I think 529 is not a foreign exchange. All of the phones that I know which have it are in the southern end of the city of Richmond, CA (Richmond Annex--a thin strip about .25 to .5 miles wide just to the west of the 526 exchange) (By the way--one interesting point--sections of the East Bay [Oakland] exchange are known within the phone company by their old 2-letter mnemonic names. Thus, the central Berkeley exchange is called the Thornwall exchange (including both 849=TH9 and 644, which has no mnemonic equivalent) The north Berkeley exchange (which is the same for billing purposes) is the "Landscape" (e.g. 526) exchange, North Oakland is still Olympic (653) in internal communications, et. al.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Sep 83 7:54:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: Area codes Previous notes in Telecom digest said that the easiest-to-dial area codes were assigned to the biggest cities: 212 to NYC, 213 to LA area, 312 to Chicago area. (All 3 of these areas have adopted N0X and N1X exchanges rather than split into 2 areas, because they cover such tightly packed metropolitan areas, and now the 1st 2 have splits coming next year.) Also, N1X always indicates a state or province which has 2 or more area codes. You can't have area codes beyond N19, because the system has to determine, without timeout, where a direct-dial call is going. In those areas where N0X and N1X are used (see above), direct-dial calls to other areas require 1+ just before area code. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 1983 0826-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Phone Books, aircraft, and paranoia To quote a news commentator: The kind of paranoia which would permit a society to shoot down a commercial airliner is precisely what one would expect from a society which hides its telephone books in the fear that foreigners would learn too much. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 1983 0828-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: 617-263 That exchange is a #2 ESS. The problem was, at one point, identified to a specific trunk from the 4A toll switcher. I suspect that the trunk was taken out of service, was improperly tested, and then put back into service unrepaired. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 2021 EDT From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A Subject: touchtone I just changed apartments and discovered that one of my phones (the older of the two) didn't work. The one that we got at the end of last year worked. I remebered something about switching transmit and receive to get touchtone to work so I swapped the three signal lines until it worked (since I didn't know which was ground and didn't have a volt meter on me). The last combination worked. Could someone please explain to me what was wrong and if the solution I used the proper one? Thanks, -Rudy ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 1983 1622-PDT From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: Area code designations As I understand it, the area codes were originally designated by a combination of population and lack of pulses on rotary phones. That's why NYC is 212, LA is 213, Chicago is 312, Philadelphia is 215, and places like Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA and Tulsa, Oklahoma and Alaska get area codes like 717, 918, and 907 respectively. --Lynn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 14-Sep-83 16:57:50-PDT,3662;000000000001 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by USC-ECLC; Wed 14 Sep 83 16:54:28-PDT Date: 14 Sep 83 1652-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #56 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 15 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: NOTICE!!! Touch Tone Polarity Duck Decoys Area Codes Dialing Weirdos Area Code/Prefix 409 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 1983 1936-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: NOTICE!!! TELECOM has been moved to USC-ECLC. This move is rather abrupt and I regret that I was unable to provide you with sufficient notice. Fortunately pointers on USC-ECLB point to their corresponding mailboxes on ECLC so no mail should be lost. The archives are currently unavailable. If you need to retrieve an issue, please send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLC. I will send a note when I have found a new home for them. Cheers, --Jon ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1983 2318-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #55 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Rudy: I suspect I will not be the only reply to your query, but here goes... Older touch-tone pads are not polarity guarded, and therefore, since they derive their power from the DC bias on the subscriber loop, don't function with reverse polarity. The more recent units have some sort of bridge rectifier in the pad to correct for either polarity. T and R don't stand for transmit and receive; rather Tip and Ring, which, along with sleeve and (I think it was collar or something) refer to the contacts on the old telephone switch board plugs. A ground lead is not required for operation of modern single party lines. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 9 Sep 1983 14:39-PDT Subject: Duck decoys From: greep@SU-DSN I suppose the duck phone could also be used by people who don't want visiting TPC service people to realize they have more phones than they're supposed to. Sort of the opposite of the more common use of ducks as "decoys". Does the catalogue say whether the thing can swim? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Sep 83 10:15:18 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: area codes I am not sure why Boston is 617 (when western Mass. is 413) and Washington is 202. My comments about "easy-to-dial" came from earlier Telecom digests. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Sep 83 10:28:21 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: dialing weirdos I called a certain number 3 times; 1st & 3rd calls got "has been disconnected", but 2nd got "is not in service". This was all within no more than 10 minutes. Unusual? I have a rotary dial. Sometimes, when I dial a leading digit other than 1, I get a short burst of the dial tone just after the dial has returned to its original position. Does that mean that some clicks did not go through? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Sep 83 14:22:34 EDT From: cmoore@brl-bmd Subject: 409 409, now in use as a Texas area code, was the first NYC prefix of the form N0X or N1X. The first such prefixes in NYC were unused area codes. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 18-Sep-83 01:30:30-PDT,4368;000000000001 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-Sep-83 17:22:07 Date: 17 Sep 83 1721-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #58 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 18 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Rotary Dial Enterprise Xxxxx Duck Decoys Holographic Telephone Credit Cards On Trial In West Germany Billed Number Screening ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Sep 1983 1911-PDT Subject: Rotary dial From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> It sounds like you are on a step-by-step machine. When you dial a digit, on SxS, the dial-tone is not turned off until after it has been determined that the pulse train is complete. There is a delay of roughly the maximum allowable pulse time plus a bit, after which the decision is made. When you dial short initial digits (eg: 1, 2, or 3), you are more likely to hear the dial-tone. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 83 20:04:24 PDT (Wednesday) From: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Enterprise xxxxx A few days ago, I called the operator to get an Enterprise number. I could hear her flipping pages, so I assume she was looking it up on a big list. What's going on? Why would anybody want an Enterprise number rather than an 800 number? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 17:55 EDT (Thu) From: Mijjil the Hutt (Matthew J Lecin) <LECIN@RU-GREEN> Subject: Duck decoys The television program SILVER SPOONS has one of those duck decoy phones in it. It quacks somewhat like conventional duck-call gizmos. The question isn't "can it swim?", but rather "Can it fly?" {Mijjil} ------------------------------ Date: 16-Sep-83 14:48 PDT From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc. Cupertino CA <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2> Subject: Holographic telephone credit cards on trial in West Germany The Bundespost, West Germany's postal and telecommunications authority, is evaluating the use of plastic credit cards that contain holograms for consumer placement of credit telephone calls from specially equipped public telephones. The holograms contain a number of credit units, which are destroyed as they are used up. The telephones are supplied by Landis & Gyr AG of Switzerland. Consumers prepay 10 or 20 Deutschmarks (about $4 or $8, respectively) for the cards. From LASER FOCUS Sept. Issue ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 1983 1422-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Billed number screening After several conversations with the Business Office all resulting in being told that what I wanted was not possible (even though it's been available for quite a while), I finally received the following letter: Dear Mr. Covert, As a result of recent technological developments, we are now able to offer a feature of your telephone service called billed number screening. This feature is offered at no charge and provides the capability to prevent attempts to bill long distance calls to your number that are made to and from other telephones (third number billing). This letter confirms your order to add billed number screening to your service, 263-5433, beginning 09-16-83. Once billed number screening becomes part of your service, no third number calls will be billed to your account or to the numbers you have specified. Therefore, it is important that you make other arrangements for long distance calling with those people authorized to bill to your number, e.g., Calling Card(s). Please call us at 345-3830 if you have any questions about this service or about your order. Yours truly, K. Boucher Service Representative [As many of you know, over the past year or so third party billing from pay phones has been restricted to require confirmation. However, calls placed from other telephones were not subject to any screening, allowing significant potential for abuse or error. This plugs the hole.] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Sep-83 14:51:49-PDT,5127;000000000001 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 20-Sep-83 0311-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 20-Sep-83 0308-PDT Date: 19 Sep 83 1735-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #59 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 20 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Telecom Archives Telecom Digest 57 Mobile Phones Billed Number Screening Telstar* Long-Distance Carriers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Sep 1983 1542-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Archives The archives are now on SRI-CSL, in <TELECOM>. They are named the same as they were on BUG:<JSOL.TELECOM> on ECLB. If you need any help with the archives, please let me know at TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLC. --Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 13:15:45 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: telecom digest 57 I have received telecom digests 56 and 58 in the past week, but no 57. Is the numbering system messed up? [Yes, due to a mistake I made, Issue 57 is nonexistant. Sorry. --JSol] ------------------------------ From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven M. Bellovin) Date: 15 Sep 83 08:05:01 EDT (Thu) Subject: mobile phones GM has announced that cellular mobile phones will be an option on some Buicks next year. Initially, they will be available only in the Chicago area, though they expect to go national within two years. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Sep 83 10:30 EDT From: Dennis Rockwell <drockwel@BBN-VAX> Subject: Re: Billed number screening Interesting! When I moved to the Boston area (January of this year), I was advised to get a calling card (at no extra cost) because they were about to stop third number billing altogether. This was the same phone company, but a different business office (but Lexington and Acton aren't *that* far apart). Of course, this is the same business office that sent out an installer after I had told them that the wiring was already in place, and that I had my own phone. ------------------------------ From: genrad!rob%decvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 16 Sep 83 08:29:58 EDT (Fri) From: decvax!genrad!rob@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: Telstar* While walking by a phone center store last night I saw a telstar. I asked about it and the service person didn't know how it worked. She said I could purchase one and return it in 30 days for full "no-questions-asked" refund. So I took her up on the offer. This AT&T unit, (labeled American Bell), is a voice synthesis dialer, call storer, call screener, and call forward announcer. It sells for $299.95 and has a 10% discount right now. I played with it for 1 hour last night and discovered the following: - It records the number a person touches in with the time he called. - It picks up all calls after a specified number of rings from 1 - 15. - If you set it for 1 ring and the caller touches in a number that you have stored in your directory, your phone will ring to signal that a call has passed the screen. - Likewise if you have the call forwarding announcement it tells the caller what number to call to get you. (I think it should have the option to tell everyone.) - You can call home and check the time. (Big Deal.) - You can call home and get someones telephone number from the directory. - You can call home and pick up your calls. (Callers can't leave msgs.) - It has a security code to prevent someone else from taking your calls. - It can hold 50 numbers and store 30 calls. - It has button emergency dialing. (I accidentally called police.) - Directory is stored by "names" like the "Demon-Dialer". - You do your dialing from the phones key-pad. - You can put all of your phones in the house in series to access it. And finally - It does not work in 617-263 for outgoing calls. It seems to send out the tones too fast for the central office. Every call I dial gets intercepted and redialed from the telstar. Thus I get a recording saying that my call can not be completed as dialed, please try again. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions I get. I will call the repair number to see if the outgoing "dialing" can be fixed. I will not keep it beyond 30 days. Rob Wood (decvax!genrad!rob) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 14:45:03 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: long-distance carriers My office is out of range of MCI & Sprint service because it is too far out from major metro areas. What bulk service would be available to me if I have to do much personal business long-distance from there? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Sep-83 17:53:24-PDT,3254;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 22-Sep-83 1746-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 22-Sep-83 1742-PDT Date: 22 Sep 83 1644-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #60 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 23 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Duplicate issues [york: Re: long-distance carriers] MCI MCI to Aberdeen. Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #58 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 1983 1049-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Duplicate issues Some of you received more than one copy of TELECOM. This was due to a mailer problem which (we hope) has been fixed. Sorry for the inconvenience. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 83 13:30:15 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: [york: Re: long-distance carriers] My reply appears after this forwarded message. (I can't send it to the sender because the mail system did not recognize the address.) ----- Forwarded message # 1: Date: 20 Sep 1983 11:52-EDT From: york at scrc-vixen Subject: Re: long-distance carriers To: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld@mc> Well, the MCI ads now say that they can reach EVERY phone in the country. Try calling your MCI rep again. ----- End of forwarded messages What do you mean, "reach EVERY phone in the country"? Do you mean the points I call or the points I am calling FROM? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 83 15:09:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: MCI The nuisance part of my phone bill I was trying to deal with is credit-card calls from work back to where I come from. In Maryland, I have been told that an MCI credit card account would require my calling from Baltimore. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 83 14:38:53 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: MCI to Aberdeen. Carl, have you checked recently. MCI picked up Aberdeen through a Bel Air number about a year ago. -Ron ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!ihuxm!cmsj%harpo@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 19 Sep 83 10:01:37 EDT (Mon) From: decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxm!cmsj@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #58 Regarding the question on Enterprise numbers: Some things die very slowly in thhe Bell System. Enterprise numbers were/are the early form of "800" service. There are those customers out there who are quite happy with their Enterprise service and have no desire to "upgrade" to 800. Besides, 800 usually costs more and Enterprise service can be made more "local" in the sense that only one (or at most a few) TSPSs have to maintain paper records (Enterprise numbers translate into plain old telephone numbers, hence the lookup.) Chris Jachcinski Bell Labs, Naperville, IL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 25-Sep-83 09:26:04-PDT,3698;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 25-Sep-83 0925-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 25-Sep-83 0919-PDT Received: from USC-ECLC by USC-ECLC; Sun 25 Sep 83 08:56:08-PDT Date: 25 Sep 83 0854-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #62 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 26 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Archives RENs and WWV number Long distance phones services ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Sep 1983 1426-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Archives I have the archives split between two machines, for disk space reasons, so if you are looking for a particular group of messages it would be helpful if you knew the dates of the messages as well. The archives are located on USC-ECLC and on SRI-CSL, note: File on SRI-CSL material distributed between <TELECOM>VOLUME-1.TXT 12 June 1981 and 31 December 1981 <TELECOM>VOLUME-2.TXT 1 January 1982 and 31 December 1982 File on USC-ECLC PS:<JSOL.TELECOM>TELECOM.RECENT 1 January 1983 to Present Please note that you do need to login to FTP files from SRI-CSL and USC-ECLC. We provide an account named ANONYMOUS, which you log into with any password (you must type a password). People who cannot obtain copies of files themselves may request copies of the file by sending mail to TELECOM-REQUEST at USC-ECLC ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 1983 09:03:43-EDT From: prindle at NADC Subject: RENs and WWV number I have two questions: #1) All the various FCC registered equipment has a Ringer Equivalence Number. How can one translate the 0.6A and 2.3B, etc., into something that will determine the maximum amount of equipment which may be connected to one line? What do the numbers and letters mean and what happens if the maximum is exceeded? #2) Some years ago, I read (maybe not on this list) of a number in Port Bliss, Texas (915-568-1313) which was connected to a radio reception (sometimes good, sometimes bad) of the WWV time broadcast. The number had, and still has, the unusual characteristic of not appearing on the caller's long distance phone bill (at least for calls of a minute or two). The number appears to simply be a centrex (or whatever) extension at a military base. Is this behaviour intentional or accidental, and if intentional, who picks up the bill? Frank Prindle Prindle@NADC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 83 22:41:26 PDT From: edh%ucbdali@Berkeley (Edward Hunter) Subject: Long distance phones services Now, that I have moved across the country from most of the people I know it is time to become concerned about my long distance phone bills. Consequently, I would like to join one of the various long distance services. What I would like to hear from the people on the list is their feelings good or bad about any of the services. So with that let the flaming begin. Thanks in advance. -edh [I, too, would like to have a complete LIST of all long distance carriers and their charges to compare with, but please, TELECOM is *NOT* a forum for advertising. Personal opinions on quality of connection are welcome. Perhaps someone will volunteer to make such a list? --JSol] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Sep-83 16:55:26-PDT,14543;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 27-Sep-83 1653-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 27-Sep-83 1647-PDT Date: 27 Sep 83 1448-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #63 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 28 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Missed V3 #61 phone hookup query Longdistance services for telecom Re: long-distance carriers (in Telecom V3 #59) Telecommunications Security and Privacy. Spin back the years... long-distance D.A. charges?!? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27-Sep-83 00:42 PDT From: RICH.GVT@OFFICE-3 Subject: Missed V3 #61 Did I miss receiving Volume 3, Issue 61 of the Telecom Digest, or was a number skipped? I got #60 dated 23 Sep and #62 dated 26 Sep, but no #61. -Rich [Yes, shoot me again, I goofed once again and misnumbered the digest, forgetting issue 61. There was no issue 61. Things should be straightened out enough now so that this won't occur again. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 25 September 1983 14:59 EDT From: Hal Abelson <HAL @ MIT-MC> Subject: phone hookup query How should one hook up a six-wire phone set (red, yellow, green, black, blue, white) to a 4-wire connector (red, yellow, green, black)? It doesn't seem to work to simply ignore the blue and white. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 83 15:40:10 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: Longdistance services for telecom I have been using the "residential" Sprint service for some time. There is a $5.00 per month charge and (since it is residential) I cannot use Sprint between 9:00 am and 11:00 am, Monday through Friday. This has not been a problem. To obtain service for those 10 hours I would have to obtain "business" service at $25.00 per month. The service may be used from most cities within the United States at no extra charge (you are given a list of numbers to call in a sheet, indexed by City and State). It is not as comprehensive as MCI (e.g. Monterrey, CA is not yet served), however the service is reliable and the quality is good, though not quite up to AT&T "Long-Lines" service. I have not tried using modems with it. It may even be used for calls within a local area which are "toll calls", as so many in the Los Angeles area are. This service turns out to be more useful than one might expect -- I was recently a patient in the UCLA Hospital and the new UCLA telephone system allows a patient to make unlimited "toll-free" local calls. All others must be operator- assisted, and are charged at that rate. So a call to say, Malibu, which is normally a few cents, would be over $1.25. Sprint has a number in Beverly Hills, which is local to UCLA, and I was able to use it to avoid the operator charges for these types of calls. The billing is comprehensive and much more readable than that provided by the local operating companies. I have not yet had any billing discrepancies and I have had the service for over two years. An obvious advantage is that, in case of such a dispute, Sprint, MCI and the similar services can't disconnect your basic telephone service if you don't deposit the amount they claim you owe with the local Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This can be, and is, done by the local operating companies, sometimes forcing a subscriber to deposit thousands of dollars with the PUC. It is not clear what effect the acquisition of Sprint by GT&E will have. Sprint bills have carried inserts stating that soon new services, such as abbreviated dialing, will be available. However, AT&T has recently announced that it is planning to substantially lower its long distance rates at the beginning of the year. One can expect substantial rate-changes from the competing companies in response. One can also expect special rate-offerings to large organizations who might otherwise operate their own micro-wave and satellite links. In addition, the local operating companies will be required to provide "4-wire" service to the competing companies (as it currently does for AT&T "Long-Lines"), and this should lead to a substantial improvement in the quality of their service. Perhaps the chaotic price structure of the airline industry, since it was deregulated, should give us an idea of what to expect from the telephone company. One can imagine bargains such as a 55% discount if one calls Dubuque, Iowa between 5:00 am and 7:00 am during the Month of June, 1984 (excluding Mothers' day when which there will be a 50% surcharge). So, it appears that now is not a good time to make a long-term judgement about these services. good luck vail ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1983 9:02-EDT From: chris Subject: Re: long-distance carriers (in Telecom V3 #59) Sprint has recently announced that their service is now availabe from anywhere in the United States to anywhere in the United States. This is a dramatic improvement from their earlier service in which you had to call from one of about 50 Metropolitan areas to one of about 100 Metropolitan areas (as I recall the old service.) Unfortunately, since I've stopped using Sprint, I threw away the announcement, and can't give more details. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1983 20:08-PDT Subject: Telecommunications Security and Privacy. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL On Monday, September 26th, I appeared before and presented invited testimony at the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials on the subject of Telecommunications Security and Privacy. Due to the activities of the Milwaukee 414s and the subsequent hoopla that has been generated in the media, HACKING has been getting a bad name. I therefore decided to address my testimony to the TRUE nature of computer hackers and hacking (in an attempt to put the entire situation in some type of perspective). I also addressed what can and should be done to help abate the 'unsavory' hacking problem. And lastly, how low tech the current hackings have been and what we might be seeing more of in the future. I'm told the hearings went out live over CNN -- there were at least 16 video cameras that I could count and the rest of the room was jammed to standing room only with reporters and other media. Individuals who presented testimony were: Neal Patrick (of the 414s); Jimmy McClary (Los Alamos Division leader for Security); Donn Parker and myself (from SRI); and Steve Walker (formerly of DARPA/Pentagon). Those interested in what I had to say about hacking and such are invited to FTP a copy of my prepared testimony from [SRI-CSL]<GEOFF>HOUSE.DOC; There is also a .LPT version with line-printer overstriking, should you want that. If you cannot FTP a copy for whatever reason, I'll be able to send one by netmail if you mail a request to Geoff@SRI-CSL. Geoff ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 83 00:03:46 EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Spin back the years... I'm going to pull a small time warp and reference some messages from last July or so, when I started building a small list of ''things to flame about on Telecom'' which has been slowly growing till now. I hope these aren't so late that the context is forgotten by now. Okay, first the Telstar: For the same $299.95 do you get the RK06 to plug into it??? It takes one helluva lot of bits to record 30 msgs worth of digital speech. The rest of it sounds like a fun toy. Re: Radio Shack modular cord kits: Our shop got their first one recently. One of the grunts tried to put a plug on the end of a cord, and promptly shattered the plastic hinge at the end of the crimper. I eventually found out how to get the thing to perform [experimenting with somewhere around Version 4]. What you have to do is load the plug and cord, squeeze *gently* to get it started, and then put the lower die of the crimper down on the table and beat on the top part with your fist. The hinge then [you hope] won't have to bear any strain. I still prefer finding a Genuine Bell cord and cutting one end off. I trust my own soldered splices ahead of any crimped connection from Radio Shack! The Bell plugs are actually heat-sealed into the plastic blocks, I think. I've had a gander at Central Office batteries on occasion. They are somewhat awesome. They are a rack full of 2.5 foot high glass battery jars, through which you can see the plates and everything else. Emerging from each one are two large rods which connect to overhead copper slabs so massive you could swing beef on them. These, routed upstairs on a mess of porcelain insulators, provide the entire office with power during outages, including for lights! [There is such a thing as a 48-volt bulb]. The office on a typical day, one ESS exchange, draws about 1 kiloamp [Or was that crossbar, I forget??] anyway, it's a lot. Those batteries can't last forever but I would imagine they have a very large amp-hour capacity. Rumor has it that NYC ran out of numbers largely due to those dialup pagers. Splitting the area code sounds like it's going to be a real kludge. I wonder how many floors in the same building are going to be a long-distance call from other ones?? It would have made much better sense for a pager service to have a *small* hunt group of dialins, and a machine [maybe even with voice recog for rotary folk] to parse further dial pulses/numbers and page the right guy. There are enough touchtone phones in the field to make such a setup practical, and with voice rec getting better you could accommodate everybody. Surely such a system would be immensely more cost-effective over time if they invested in such a machine, instead of paying the rent on all those lines for n years!! Has anyone tried NY Tel's latest ''service''? I'm not sure what it's officially called but ''Dial-an-orgasm'' is descriptive enough. You get to hear someone [usually female] ''talk dirty'' for 30 sec or so. The trick is that they never use any *profane* terms; simply suggestive ones. If I remember right, the number's 212 976 2x2x where X varies between unknown limits. There seem to be a lot of different ones. Naturally there is some group that is trying to have it taken down, like that old similar thing set up by Hustler [?]. Central office tone detection [a slight aside from the modem-detection issue]: I've heard that in some ESS office, the hardware is capable of hearing and logging any touchtone dialing after the call is completed. This means that someone has access to all your long-distance service passwords, your bank-by-fone account, and anything else you called and punched numbers at. It sounds highly illegal under most circumstances. Anyone know the real story on this?? Do they/can they enable ''subsequent tone listening'', and why? How far can we trust these guys, anyways?! Remember, not everyone in TPC walks around with a halo on his head. Ah yes, mobile telephones. I recently purchased a programmable scanner, which can hear all the local repeaters. It is amazing how people throw their personal life out all over the airwaves like no one could hear them. After listening to it for a while, trying to figure out how it all works, I called and asked about them. I was given something like the following. Rent per month is about $250. You pay an initial $330 or so installation fee, and a $1000 deposit. You can only access certain repeaters in your area, and since there are a limited number of repeaters and only one person can use one at a time, you often luse when you try to make a call. However, they are shipping out the current ''antiquated'' system soon, and putting in some kind of cellular system. In *Morristown*?! Seems that the implementation of cellular is farther along than I thought. At any rate, I can determine a few things about the current setup that you may find interesting. What happens right when someone picks up is unknown, but I would assume that some sort of billing code is transmitted. Often there is a 2kHz ''standby'' tone from the repeater, and when someone has accessed the thing, the tone disappears. You then sometimes hear a tape loop ''Foo-town mobile!'' followed [in any case] by a dial tone. Dial pulses [!] proceed and seem to be tone-modulated somehow. I assume that the customer turns on the car phone, sends on the frequency that the repeater listens to, and then listens for the repeater to acknowledge him. It is the repeater only that one hears on the scanner; in most cases the car is too faint to be picked up. Following the dial tone, the rest sounds like a normal phone conversation, until the mobile party hangs up. The car unit sends a sort of warble which is the EOT signal, and then dies. The repeater drops the call and goes to idle mode. Have they gotten cellular to the point where if your unit missed the fact that your local repeater told it to swap frequencies and then did so, the mobile unit will know it? I suspect that the first versions will have lots of annoying bugs when put into actual use. Do they use analog, or digitally transmitted voice? Well, that about empties my crock for the moment. Enjoy... _H* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 83 9:31:22 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: long-distance D.A. charges?!? News item Sept. 23: AT&T is considering charging 75 cents per call to long-distance directory assistance. (New fallout from breakup of AT&T.) It's an unexpected (and very annoying) surprise for me, and I'm sure it is for a lot of others. (Just last night, I wanted to call Elkton, Md. from Newark, Del., and had to call Md. directory assistance because Elkton, although just over the state line from Newark, is not in the Wilmington directory, which includes Newark.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 28-Sep-83 18:43:16-PDT,7782;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 28-Sep-83 1837-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 28-Sep-83 1831-PDT Date: 28 Sep 83 1751-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #64 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 29 Sep 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: AT&T Breakup Issues Re: long-distance carriers (in Telecom V3 #59) touch-tone phones as a terminal connecting up 6 wire phones -- question of hal@mit-mc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Tuesday, 27-Sep-83 18:18:13-PDT Subject: AT&T Breakup Issues I can't see why anyone would be surprised that AT&T no longer wants to offer free long distance directory assistance. After all, the whole point of that service was that enough "actual" calls were made based on the D.A. calls to help pay back for the D.A. calls themselves. Once people are using alternate long-distance carriers, AT&T is simply providing a free D.A. service and those persons never create revenue by making an "actual" billable call. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that they'll get anything like $.75/call. Much more likely is that part of the universal service fund will be used to fund some sort of inter-carrier directory-assistance operation. Remember, it's looking very much like ALL of the alternate carriers will be forced (quite rightly, in my opinion) to pay money into the U.S.F. to help support "universal" service and local service in general. This will of course tend to force their rates up. In the end, I expect to see very little disparity between long distance service rates from AT&T and the other carriers. Yep, long distance will be cheaper. But your local calls will cost you a pretty "penny" per minute and your monthly rate will be sky high. This is the price you'll pay for competition in telecommunications. Also likely is that the less well-known alternate carriers who are attempting to garner business exclusively from large business concerns will also be forced to pay money into the fund. By the way, many of the alternate carriers are still largely useless for modem operations higher than 300 baud (if that!) over long distances, primarily due to poor circuit quality and (in some cases) the use of statistical multiplexing on carrier circuits. To put it bluntly, I consider the AT&T breakup to be one of the most ill-conceived and short-sighted fiascos in recent history. Some will most certainly gain, but ultimately I expect that most consumers will be paying far more overall for services which are not worth, relatively, the massively increased costs. Of course, the places to complain about telecommunications issues are not only this digest, but include the FCC and your local PUC's. Overall, amazingly few people *do* bother to complain, so those who do speak out have a good chance of having someone listen to them, at least to some extent. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1983 00:31:05-EDT From: grkermit!chris at mit-vax From: chris Subject: Re: long-distance carriers (in Telecom V3 #59) Sprint has recently announced that their service is now availabe from anywhere in the United States to anywhere in the United States. This is a dramatic improvement from their earlier service in which you had to call from one of about 50 Metropolitan areas to one of about 100 Metropolitan areas (as I recall the old service.) Unfortunately, since I've stopped using Sprint, I threw away the announcement, and can't give more details. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1983 0851-PDT From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL> Subject: touch-tone phones as a terminal I have an application in mind where a computer we would own would need to contact each of 100,000 places of business with varying frequencies ranging from once per year to a couple of times per week. Because of the volumes involved it would be impossible to place a terminal at these sites, so I propose to conduct the dialog by having the computer speak over an ordinary phone line using something like a TI voice synthesis unit, and letting the business respond with their touch-tone phone. (A complication is that they might only have impulse <gasp!>) This certainly is technically feasable. Does anyone know, on the one hand, whether there is a company that already makes the hardware so we don't have to cobble it together by ourselves, or on the other hand whether it has been tried and already been found impractical for human-factors reasons? I can see, for example, that people might hang up the phone when they find out they're talking to a computer, or they would try to talk to it, or they wouldn't understand the verbal instructions so they would have to have printed instructions which would invariably be unfindable when needed because they only get used once per year. Thanks in advance for any info. Dick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 83 22:16:27 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: connecting up 6 wire phones -- question of hal@mit-mc How should one hook up a six-wire phone set (red, yellow, green, black, blue, white) to a 4-wire connector (red, yellow, green, black)? It doesn't seem to work to simply ignore the blue and white. The usual use of a six wire phones is as a single-line extension of a key set. Normally the wires are used in pairs as follows: red-green talking-dialing black-yellow A1-A2 (shorted when phone is off-hook) blue-white ringer The red and green serve the usual purpose (tip and ring) for talking and dialing. The black and yellow are shorted when the phone is taken off-hook (this disables the hold circuit on a key phone) and the blue-white operate the ringer (be sure that you have a ringer and not a low-voltage buzzer -- in this case replace it by a ringer or simply disconnect the buzzer). So, if the phone is connected normally, you should (1) not use, but tape, the black and yellow leads; (2) connect both the red and blue leads from the telephone to the red-lead of your phone circuit; and (3) connect both the green and white leads from the telephone to the green lead of your circuit. Unfortunately, these phones are not always wired in this standard way. However, this pairing is almost always used. You can expect red and green to be the normal talking circuit. The two wires you don't use can be verified using an ohmeter: when the phone is on-hook they should be open and when the phone is off-hook they are shorted. With a little experimentation, you should be able to make the phone work. The key points are that two wires form the talking-dialing circuit; two others form the ringer circuit (which is the same as the talking- dialing circuit in ordinary telephones) and two others are shorted when the phone is taken off-hook (these are not used on ordinary telephone circuits). Note that, if the phone is touch tone, there is a possibility of polarity reversal, and if everything but the touch-tone dialer works, you should interchange the red and green wires from the telephone. Good talking! vail p.s. Where did this telephone come from? I have never seen one on the new or used telephone market. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 2-Oct-83 20:18:25-PDT,3982;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 2-Oct-83 2015-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 2-Oct-83 1826-PDT Date: 2 Oct 83 1356-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #65 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 3 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: 6 wires for a phone 6 wires for a phone sri-csl<geoff>house.doc Public Telephone Directories cordless phone DX-ing, Long distance DA charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Sep 1983 0626-PDT From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: 6 wires for a phone Weren't the other two wires there to carry the current for the light on the old princess phones? --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Sep 83 20:23:41 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: 6 wires for a phone Date: 28 Sep 1983 0626-PDT From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: 6 wires for a phone To: Telecom at KESTREL, Vail at UCLA-CS Address: Kestrel Institute, 1801 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (415) 494-2233 Weren't the other two wires there to carry the current for the light on the old princess phones? --Lynn ------- It's been a long time since I looked at a Princess phone, but as I recall it used 4 wires: The customary two for talk-ring-dial and two for the light. The "trend-line" phones used to (and some still do) use 5. Four as above, and the fifth was used to enable party identification. This latter is unnecessary on single-party lines. vail ------------------------------ Date: 29 September 1983 13:19 EDT From: Jeffrey R. Del Papa <DP @ MIT-ML> Subject: sri-csl<geoff>house.doc is now available as ml:users1;house doc enjoy, jeff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Sep 83 09:59 EDT From: Damouth.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Public Telephone Directories Rochester Telephone has quietly removed the directory from all public coin-operated telephones (the Airport seems to be an exception). Is this a local phenomenon, or wide-spread? They claim that it is better to dial Directory Assistance than to use a (often mutilated) paper directory. Assuming this is true, we have still lost a major public service: the most convenient way to find a restaurant, hospital, or whatever, in an unfamiliar city or even an unfamiliar part of your own city, has always been to stop at the nearest phone booth and look in the Directory. Any comments on the most effective way to get these directories reinstated? Presumably, funding should come from local governments or business associations, since the benefits are not directly telephone-related. /Dave ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 83 21:00:33 PDT (Thu) From: jmrubin%UCBCORAL.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: cordless phone DX-ing, Long distance DA charges Some people who have shortwave radios are now tuning into their neighbor's cordless phones, and there has been information on this topic in the magazine Popular Communications and on the program World of Radio (WRNO shortwave, and some NPR stations) It is generally regarded as legal in the U.S. to tune to "utility" stations (which is what a cordless phone is) as long as you don't reveal the contents or take advantage of it. (International regulations are stricter) I think N.Y. Telephone counts any Directory Assistance call within N.Y. State as counting against your local D.A. allocation. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 3-Oct-83 17:11:41-PDT,6099;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 3-Oct-83 1709-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 3-Oct-83 1706-PDT Date: 3 Oct 83 1535-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #66 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 4 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: High speed modems for switched network Data collection by polling remote locations for human response Re: Spin back the years... Cincinnati Bell area Third Party Billing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jimbo%ucbic@Berkeley (Jim Kleckner) Date: 1 Oct 1983 1303-PDT (Saturday) Subject: High speed modems for switched network I read an article about two weeks ago in the IEEE "Potentials" magazine which discussed modems for dial-up use. The author worked for Anderson-Jacobsen on the design of their 4800 BPS full-duplex modem which has the model number AJ-4048. The article indicated that the modem has been in use since September of 1982. Has anyone out there had any experience with this unit? Further, has anyone been able to get hold of the new 2400 BPS full-duplex modems from Vadic? While not economical for the average user, these units could help cut the cost of uucp trunks quite a bit. Thanks, Jim Kleckner ( jimbo@Berkeley or ucbvax!jimbo ) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1983 0256-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Data collection by polling remote locations for human Subject: response [Usenet-address: "{ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert"] The product I have been working on which should be on the shelf VERY SOON, called TMS (Telephone Management System), may very well meet your needs. It can make outgoing calls, speak a voice announcement (which may be varied based on the particular call being made), accept touch-tone input, and respond further based on that input. It is an option on the DEC Professional 350 personal computer. The complexity of your application will determine whether the currently available storage (10 Megabyte Winchester) will be adequate, or whether you would need to connect the PC with TMS via DECNET to a host with more storage. An application to do what you want might be made general purpose enough so that it could not only be used in your environment but also in others. You may want to contact our product manager at {decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!eve!steingart His name is Bob Steingart. TMS can work with Touch-Tone or rotary phones for outgoing. The polled party must have Touch-Tone, so it should only be used for calling to pre-defined groups. (Receiving rotary pulses, although occasionally done, does not work reliably, and does not work at all from No 1 and No 2 ESS offices.) The requirement for Touch-Tone response allows it to determine whether it reached a destination where the purpose of the call is understood. Outgoing calls would begin with a repetitive, simple, prompting announcement. Locations which only have rotary service would have to have auxilliary or acoustic tone pads. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Sep 83 16:05:26 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@BRL-VLD> Subject: Re: Spin back the years... You refer to the upcoming split (212/718) in NYC. It should NOT create long-distance calls within a building. Such a split is planned to be along borough lines, protests by some notwithstanding. Besides, setting up the new 718 area will not change the existing message-unit plan in NYC area (includes Westchester & Nassau suburbs), it just means that some calls will require more digits. Such message- unit plan already requires the area code on local calls which cross area code boundaries (e.g. 212-327 to 516-239 is a 1-unit call). However, you might find some buildings with more than 1 area code in LA area after 213/818 split. There are some exchanges which are designated "LA foreign exchange" in, say, Burbank (213-849 - Jsol), which goes into 818 area, but the LA foreign exchange stays in 213. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Oct 83 12:34:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Cincinnati Bell area Back in 1977 in Cincinnati Bell area (all of 513, a chunk of 606 and a much smaller piece of 812), calls within such area did not require use of an area code, but long-distance calls from such area to all other points did. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Oct 83 12:37:52 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld In Manhattan, I never recalled seeing phone books in outdoor phone booths. (From 1976 onward.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Oct 83 12:42:50 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld (add this to note about Manhattan phone booths) "From 1976 onward" refers to my own visits there, not necessarily to when such directories were removed. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1983 1624-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Third Party Billing Unless your business office was confused (a not unlikely possibility) you misunderstood them. When they advised you to get a calling card, it was because of the new policy of requiring confirmation on third number billing from coin phones. There is no intention of eliminating third number billing. It can still be done from non-coin phones without confirmation and from coin phones with confirmation. Once billed-number screening is activated, the operator will get an immediate indication that 3rd number billing is not permitted when the number is entered. By the way -- it was (according to the letter) supposed to have been activated on my line two weeks ago. Still hasn't been. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 4-Oct-83 16:35:38-PDT,8917;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 4-Oct-83 1605-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 4-Oct-83 1600-PDT Date: 4 Oct 83 1502-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #67 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 5 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Phone Wiring General Info? Bell Breakup Re: High speed modems for switched network Telco's listening to subscriber lines Third Party Billing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 83 17:53 PDT From: Gloger.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Phone Wiring General Info? Gentlemen, Can any of you say where one can find general information on wiring up residential and small business telephone systems? Stuff like 2-wire and 4-wire circuits, and where on the red/green/yellow wires are the audio and the ring signals, and where on the old and the new style phone connectors are those signals, and what are the voltage/current/frequency characteristics of the signals, and do multiple phones at the same number get wired in parallel or serial? What I'd like to find is something like a small book or a magazine article or a pamphlet which covers the subject. (Seems like this info. should be easy to find in a library or an electronics hobby store or a phone store, but also seems like it's not really there. Is that maybe a consequence of the long monopoly that Ma Bell had even on wiring inside the home or office?) If there's a good answer to this, it'd be a blessing if you'd send it to TELECOM Digest. If no good answer, I'd very much appreciate hearing so directly. Thank you, Paul Gloger <Gloger.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 83 16:14-EST (Sun) From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-cs@Rand-Relay> Subject: Bell Breakup Lauren doubts the wisdom of the AT&T breakup since it will lead inevitably to higher personal costs of phone use. This is based on the belief that the phone service providers in their race after large businesses will dump costs off on the residential and small business customers. (If I have paraphrased badly, I apologize) My question is this: why should the packet of bits I (a residential customer) want transported from one location to another, be a less lucrative commercial business than that of a fortune 100 customer? There are many ways to turn a buck in business. Sometimes the hardest buck to turn are those big sales to the big companies. Look that the trouble Sattelite Buisness Systems has had getting costumers. On the other hand, the Pet Rock people went after the mass market consumer and made a bundle. Residential phone service is a lucrative commercial venture because of the incredible volume, and potential for growth in needs and services, (teletext, etc, home banking, bullitin boards, swap shops, etc.) I would like to see the support for the contention that residential and small business phone service is going to degrade or become more expensive merely on the grounds that it is somehow "less economically lucrative". - Steven (Roi de Soleil) Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 83 18:23:23 PDT (Monday) Subject: Re: High speed modems for switched network From: (Larry Kluger) Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I have had good personal experience with Codex model LSI 24/24 modems for use over the DDD network. The modems are full duplex synchronous at 3200 bps. If the modems detect circuit degradation, they fall back to 2400 or 1800 bps. An asynchronous adapter is available. My company has used the modems for daily communication between our Palo Alto, CA and Japan locations without serious problems. Japan makes a trans-pacific phone call and it all works. The modem uses a non-standard protocol so it can't talk to any other type of modem. The modem can be used with an RJ-11 jack and a standard 500 or 2500 phone for auto-answer and for originate. The modem's list price is $2650 each. (last time I checked) Larry Kluger ------- p.s. to the moderator: Please edit this msg if parts of it aren't "appropriate" for ARPA distribution. ------------------------------ From: Jo <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBOndlADC Has anyone had any reason to believe that it is possible to exceed the limit on the amount of equipment which can be placed on one line? The ringing generator in a C.O. ought to be able to handle quite a bit, and the duty cycle should not be enough to burn out your pair in the cable, but it does seem that there might be a limit. #2) The "official" WWV number, 303 499-7111, is fed directly from the NBS in Colorado, and does go off hook. There are a number of numbers at various military bases, some of which go off-hook, and some of which don't. The one at Fort Bliss doesn't, so as far as the phone company is concerned, the call never answered. Obtaining information by wire without paying the lawful charges is called fraud by wire and is considered a felony by the Federal government and most state governments. Whether it's the caller or the person who wired up the number so that it doesn't go off hook (or both) who will lose the right to vote is up to the courts to decide. Calling WWV is less accurate than picking it up off air due to the unknown length and other characteristics of the transmission media involved in a call. In fact, I called the 303 499 number with three way calling and could here the difference between the two calls. -------- 3-Oct-83 20:20:33-PDT,1639;000000000001 Return-path: <RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO> Received: from DEC-MARLBORO by USC-ECLC; Mon 3 Oct 83 20:18:28-PDT Date: 3 Oct 1983 2306-EDT From: John R ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Sep 83 19:25:05 PDT From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: Telco's listening to subscriber lines As far as telephone operating companies listening to their subscriber's lines, I would like to present the following bit of federal law, from section 605 of the Omnibus Act (section 2511 of Title 18, U.S.C.): "(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communications common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication." So, I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. As long as the telco can defend it's listening because it was protecting its rights or prop- erty, then it would seem to be legal. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Oct 83 12:36:34 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Third Party Billing Wrong. C & P telephone, while it has been doing third party billing verification from pay phones for a long time, sent out little brochures saying "He's got your number, and you've got his bill." The pitch was that they were getting rid of third party billing in March and therefore you should sign the card and return it to get a calling card. I haven't actually tried making a third party call here since I very dutifully returned the form and got the calling card. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 5-Oct-83 13:49:50-PDT,8297;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 5-Oct-83 1342-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 5-Oct-83 1340-PDT Date: 5 Oct 83 1224-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #68 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 6 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: garbled digest RE: Phone Wiring General Info Third Party Billing Piracy Some misc. items... Variable Day Plan phone line limitations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Oct 1983 1650-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: garbled digest Apparently the program I use to prepare the digest went haywire. I will look at the digests more carefully in the future. Sorry, --Jon ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1983 1853-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: RE: Phone Wiring General Info From your nearest Phonecenter Store you should be able to get a couple of free pamphlets describing how to wire up single line phones. It's pretty simple. Red and Green are the two wires to connect. Some Touch-Tone phones may be polarity sensitive (so if the dial doesn't beep you may have to turn the wires around) but most now have bridge rectifiers in them. No other wires should ever need to be connected on today's single line phones. You aren't allowed to do your own wiring on party lines (the only case in which yellow would be used for party identification). Old lighted-dial phones used to run power for the lights on yellow and black, but most of them now use low-power LED illumination which is powered from the line. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1983 1901-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Third Party Billing I repeat -- third party billing is NOT being eliminated. They've just gone to great effort to implement the third party billing screening system so that anyone who wants to can turn it off. It even works from Washington, D.C. -- So if C&P said they were eliminating it, they were wrong. The only things I have ever seen have been notices that Third Party Billing from Pay Phones would require verification. They still do not even verify from non-coin. Calling Card calls are cheaper than third number billing in order to encourage use of calling cards, which have a PIN and are thus more difficult to hack. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1983 1952-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Piracy My last phone bill had a $50 "Maint Serv Chg" on it. I called the Business Office to find out what it was -- and they couldn't find any record of it, so they took it off. It may have been from the time I reported that MCCS was not working on my phone (they had apparently dropped the Touch-Tone bit from my line). Their first response was "it's because you have customer provided equipment." I wonder how many customers pay the charge without asking. ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Monday, 3-Oct-83 23:18:27-PDT Subject: Some misc. items... Greetings. A number of various points to cover... --- Regarding the AJ 4800 baud full-duplex (dialup) modem: I had one of these modems here in the Vortex for a couple of weeks, and tested it rather extensively with a matching modem on a (semi-local) VAX. I was disappointed. I got a fairly high error rate, including (but not limited to) about one noise "hit" every 10 seconds or so when the modem was sitting idle. When data was actually flowing, the error rate seemed to drop somewhat -- apparently indicating some problem related to the modems' idle state scrambler pattern. The unit also exhibited problems with its automatic equalization sequence. The device has no built in data error checking, and is very expensive, making it not at all cost effective. My testing involved a two central office hop. I should mention that some other people who tested the modem (particularly those in the same central office as the VAX) reported better results. In any case, I think that it's too expensive even if it worked perfectly all of the time. --- I've seen John Covert's Telephone Management System, and it *is* quite impressive. Of course, it may be a bit expensive for some more simple applications. For such tasks, it is pretty simple to rig up a touch-tone decoder (genuine Bell 407 modem or the various cheapo decoder chips and boards now available) and an inexpensive Votrax voice synthesizer. I've setup such systems several times over the years -- they're not really terribly complicated, though they may be necessarily limited in various respects. --- There are a number of reasons why the revenue base to be derived from residential telephone subscribers cannot be compared to that of businesses. I'll only mention a couple here. First of all, note that the range of services that most residential subscribers really need is comparatively limited. Oh yeah, there will be all sorts of interesting services appearing that are directed toward the residence customer, but any increase in the monthly bill by more than a fairly small amount will probably be considered to be quite extravagant by most people for quite some time. Unlike residential users who mainly use the phone for personal communications, businesses use the phone to make money. To the extent that they can increase their business, they can justify larger outlays of money for telecommunications services of various sorts. For the residence customer, it's more a matter of convenience, since the new features will rarely add to his or her income producing ability (at least in most cases). One additional point to consider: when a business wants new phone services (at higher costs) they can usually pass those costs along in some form to their customers, thusly spreading the cost increase quite widely. Residential customers do not have such a capability. Any increases they pay come strictly out of pocket -- and they usually have nobody to whom they can "pass along" the new costs. The end result of the above (and other) factors is that for the forseeable future, a quite vivid disparity between the telecommunications income potential of business and residential subscribers is to be expected. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1983 2032-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Variable Day Plan The person who mentioned this a few days ago probably thought he was kidding -- but it's right there, on page 54 of FCC Tariff 1, filed 3 October, not yet approved: The Variable Day Plan applies to dial station calls placed during specified hours from phones in Nevada to Conus, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The discount is 20%, Monday thru Friday, 8-9 AM, Noon-1PM, and 4-5PM. Expires April 17, 1984, unless sooner cancelled or extended. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Oct 83 16:56:30 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: phone line limitations In answer to the question: Has anyone had any reason to believe that it is possible to exceed the limit on the amount of equipment which can be placed on one line? The ringing generator in a C.O. ought to be able to handle quite a bit, and the duty cycle should not be enough to burn out your pair in the cable, but it does seem that there might be a limit. ------- Both the talking current and bell current are limited. So, if you use ordinary instruments, there is a limitation, typically around 4 bells or instruments in use at one time. However, if your bells or instruments are self-powered then there need be no specific limitation. vail ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 6-Oct-83 14:12:20-PDT,7772;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 6-Oct-83 1409-PDT Mail-from: DECNET site ECLC rcvd at 6-Oct-83 1405-PDT Date: 6 Oct 83 1330-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #69 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 7 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Alternative billing arrangements in the proposed tariff Beam me up, Operator Computer communications to telephones Third Party Billing Use of pulse/tone dialing phones Multi Line Switch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Oct 1983 2231-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Alternative billing arrangements in the proposed tariff The proposed tariff talks about calls billed to Calling cards issued by an exchange operating company or AT&T (maybe you can get a direct from AT&T card?) and charge or credit cards issued commercially. For the charge or credit cards it says that they may be used from phones "suitably equipped." I wonder what kind of phones we may see. The tariff also continues to refer to third party calls, saying that they may be subject to verification. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 83 04:32:43 EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Beam me up, Operator [Invoke a vision of fifty or so utterly bored people sitting hunched over flickering TSPS consoles...] What is commonly called WX or Enterprise numbers are simply entries in a table [printed on the flysheets that sit at every TSPS position]. These point to real numbers. The only difference in the call is the billing, which is called ''auto collect''. Basically such a call is charged to the other end without asking. Since WATS lines are automatic and a good deal less confusing, the WX concept is indeed dying out. When in hell are they going to implement real keyboards and real alphanumeric displays for TSPS?? The software thereof has reached quite a level of complexity. As things are now, using a TSPS console is akin to firing up your favorite screen editor from an ADM1. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 1983 0654-PDT Subject: Computer communications to telephones From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Regarding your inquiry on Telecom about an application for a computer to talk over phone links directly to people: I can't offer any advice as to the technical details, as I know nothing about the subject. However, I just ran across an ad for a book specifically about this subject, so I thought I'd mention it to you. (If you already have this book, or know of it, please just flush this, and forgive the bother.) Author: John A. Kuecken Title: TALKING COMPUTERS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS Published by Van Nostrand/Reinhold 266 pages, 110 illustrations, $26.50 What I have here is one of those business-reply ad cards from a package mailed out by Electronic Design magazine, and it doesn't have much info, but it does mention that the book discusses speech synthesis techniques, telephony, tone and DTMF generators and detectors, and security techniques. It looks like it should be info of interest to you or the others on your project. Hope this is of some help. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1983 10:08:29-PDT (Tuesday) From: David M Alpern <Alpern.IBM-SJ@Rand-Relay> Subject: Third Party Billing I have been informed by business offices multiple times that third party billing is to disappear "sometime soon." Last spring, March I believe, it was the Cambridge, MA office that informed me of this after I complained about a series of calls billed to my number. The policy that calling card numbers will be the only means to bill to a line other than the caller's or receiver's has been stated to me enough times, by phone companies in enough spots in the country, that I tend to think it's more than an unfounded rumor. On the other hand, I must admit, I've been hearing this for about 3 years and haven't yet seen any action. Do you have any real information I don't on what the policy is going to be? Or are we really just tossing statements from various confused business office personel back and forth? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 1983 1026-PDT Subject: Use of pulse/tone dialing phones From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Hi! There has been quite a bit of discussion on Telecom in the past regarding Touch-Tone phones working or not on rotary lines. I don't recall seeing this specific point mentioned: If you have a pulse or rotary-only line, with Touch-Tone service NOT enabled, if you buy one of the commercial phones which switch between pulse and tone dialing modes, can you use it in pulse mode to get to one of the local access numbers for Sprint or MCI or the like, and then switch over to tone and send that service the access code and number to reach? I always thought you could; that the Touch-Tone "enabling" was turning on the RECOGNITION of the tones by the central office, not the ability to GENERATE those tones. But I'd like confirmation before I make any plans based on that assumption. If that assumption is true, the other question in my mind is whether most commercial phones with this feature are designed for such frequent use of that switch. If the manufacturers envisioned that such a phone would only be switched from pulse to tone or back again when the phone was moved to a new location, they would probably install a relatively low-quality, short-life switch to save money, and it would rapidly wear out if you used it every day or many times a day to make alternate-service long-distance calls. I made the mistake of buying one of the cheapy phones about a year ago (from a local discount store, for $18 then -- about what is now being sold for under $10), and I think it is already half worn out. I seem to get a wrong number about half the times I use it to dial. That's why I am wondering about parts quality and lifespan with regard to this issue. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 83 0009 EDT (Thursday) From: Michael.Fryd@CMU-CS-A (X435MF0E) Subject: Multi Line Switch I have a problem. I have a wireless telephone (Touch Tone) and 3 phone lines in my house. I would like to get a box to go between my phone and the wall such that when I take the phone off-hook remotely, I can choose which line to use. The user interface I have in mind, is that when I first take the phone off-hook, I must type a single digit to indicate which line I wish to use, and I then get a dial-tone. My needs are simple; I don't care if the wireless phone rings when people call me (I have normal phones that ring loudly) I just want to choose lines from the wireless handset, without going to the base-station. Is there anything currently on the market that will do this at a reasonable cost? If not, who makes DTMF decoder chips? It seems to me that it would only take a few chips aand perhaps some relays, to make such a device; or are there hidden problems that would make this complicated? (Of course, I wouldn't dream of connecting a non-approved device to the network, but I find it enjoyable to go through the intellectual adventure of designing it). -Michael Fryd ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Oct-83 16:41:25-PDT,4853;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by USC-ECLC; Fri 7 Oct 83 16:37:53-PDT Date: 7 Oct 83 1636-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #70 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 8 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Re: Bell Breakup Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #69 re: area codes Re: Multi Line Switch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 83 12:10:55 EDT From: Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: Re: Bell Breakup The best "support for the contention that residential and small business phone service is going to degrade or become more expensive" with the Bell break-up is experience: 1. Folks now have to shell out $10.00 to $50.00 to own their telephone instruments or face a five-fold increase in the rental fee from Bell. 2. There's an immediate move to add a $2.00 surcharge to all residential monthly phone bills to cover costs of providing hook-ups to the long distance phone companies. (Rather than the long-distance companies paying such charges themselves.) 3. The telephone companies, themselves, are filing rate increases and justifying increases in our costs of 15% to 40% in part on the increased costs of doing business brought about by the break-up. 4. The instruments which we purchase for rather inflated prices are not nearly so durable and reliable as those made and severely tested by Western Electric. You know, the telephone business is a bit more complex than Pet Rocks. One problem with SBS is that it's not the only show in town. Unfortunately, the local Bell Operating Company is. Brint ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 1983 1457-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #69 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Will Martin: The switch is indeed to enable generation of the tones; the central office parameter is to enable detection, as you suspected. You bring up an interesting point about the quality of the switch. The answer is undoubtedly manufacturer/model dependent. I suspect that some will provide the life you need. It appears that we have entered the era of the disposable telephone. If I recall corectly, the GTE flip-fone was supposed to sell for $8 and be disposable as well, but somebody up in corporate management decided that the public wouldn't go for it, so they bumped up the price and offered some sort of warranty. Michael Fryd: I suspect you will have to build the device, but take heart; it should indeed be pretty simple to do. The parts required would be 3 4PDT relays (if you don't have a key system, DPDT would suffice), or similar analog switch networks, the DTMF decoder, and some logic (perhaps a small microprocessor). But as long as you are doing this, why not support some more features. Like being able to put the lines on hold, conferencing, etc? You could set it up so that when you flashed your handset switchhook (out of band break signal), all active lines were put on hold, conferences intact and remembered, and you were put in a touch-tone command mode. This would allow you to do a variety of other tasks. You would of course, need a small matrix switch consisting only of a few more relays, but this could all be done fairly easily. You could even have common bells on the handset, and a way to automatically answer the ringing line without your direct intervention. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 1983 17:13:19-PDT From: Douglas W Martin <CCVAX.martin@Nosc> Reply-to: CCVAX.martin@Nosc Subject: re: area codes Several recent issues of the telecom digest have discussed unused area codes. Can anyone tell me the status of codes 200, 300, ..., 700? Are any of these area codes in use, and/or what about future plans? Doug Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri 7 Oct 83 13:41:22-EDT From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: Re: Multi Line Switch It sounds like the device you want is a Mitel MT8870 (ca $45 from some random place in New Jersey, got it from Mitel distributors list). It is a REAL decoder, incorporating all filters and detectors in an 18pin dip, 5v power supply. Add a couple r's and c's and a colorburst crystal and you're in business. BCD outputs for all 16 combinations and signal detect strobe, latched outputs. Gene ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Oct-83 17:21:02-PDT,3204;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by USC-ECLC; Sat 8 Oct 83 17:19:12-PDT Date: 8 Oct 83 1717-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #71 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 9 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Third Party Billing intercept "not in service yet"? ComKey 416 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 October 1983 00:33 edt From: Dehn at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Third Party Billing From an insert in my June bill from Southern New England Telephone: "Starting July 19, 1983, on all phone calls originating in Connecticut billed to a third number, our operators will call the billed number for authorization BEFORE completing the call." Yes, this applies even from residence phones, and even if the billed number is out of state. -jwd3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Oct 83 7:50:31 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: intercept "not in service yet"? Suggestion at U of Del (Newark, Del.) that intercept be placed on the (not-in-use-yet) 302-451 exchange to tell callers to use the old numbers; no plans to implement suggestion, however. (1983-84 student directory printed the new numbers, which won't be in use till December. This is 1st I have heard of 302-451.) ------------------------------ From: genrad!rob%decvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 6 Oct 83 06:48:21 EDT (Thu) From: decvax!genrad!rob@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: ComKey 416 I have a friend with a small business who asked for my advice on his phone system. He currently has 6 touch-tone 6 button key-set phones. AT&T has advised him that as of the first of the year he can continue to lease what he has a yet undetermined rate, or lease or purchase a new system. His current system has a grey box (3' X 3') in a closet that does the hold, lights and ringing for his 3 incoming lines. He has a separate Bogen intercom that is very old and needs replacing. Their proposal is to purchase a ComKey 416 system. These require no "grey box". They are $330 per set. Installation of $27 per set. To purchase replacement intercom would be $125 per set if he goes again with Bogen. His current intercom has 12 sets but through compromise could cut back to 10, but 4 of those locations can not have phones due to unlimited access. It seems a waste to put a $330 set and restrict the outgoing calls. Finally he wants to increase to 5 phone lines. Questions we would like comments on are: Is there any recommendation on competing companies? Can an intercom be bought from someplace (shack) and added to 416? Should he keep the intercomm separate from phone system? Is something "new" in the works from AT&T that he should wait for? Thanks for your assistance. Rob Wood (decvax!genrad!rob) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 11-Oct-83 14:59:51-PDT,4111;000000000001 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 11-Oct-83 14:01:23 Date: 11 Oct 83 1401-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #72 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 12 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Phone Wiring Info Third Number Billing Phone wiring info Call Waiting on Data Line ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 83 07:16:50 EST From: <EEvax.davy@Purdue.ARPA> Subject: Phone Wiring Info I purchased a book recently (at the local Waldenbooks store) entitled "Kiss Ma Bell Goodbye" - I don't remember the author, I think it was $5.95. This book describes how to hook up your phone, along with how to hook up things like answering machines, autodialers, etc. It is written in layman's terms, so even the average moron could understand itt (If I can follow it, anyone can!). --Dave Curry decvax!pur-ee!davy eevax.davy@purdue ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1983 2011-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Third Number Billing Interesting -- yes indeed, SNET is verifying all third number billing. That's good, I like that. Most places are still doing that only from coin phones. We'll see what happens with the breakup -- one aspect of the breakup that hasn't been discussed is the fact that the world's largest private police force (Bell Security) will be split into eight parts (AT&T plus the 7 regional holding companies). That huge private police force was one of the reasons they were able to do third number billing for so long. Of course, with billed number screening, operators shouldn't even try to verify if my number is given. It's supposed to be rejected as soon as it is entered. Still isn't working, but then it was only late last week that I complained, and today was a day off for Bell. A good indication that 3rd number billing is NOT being eliminated is the presence of 3rd number billing in Tariff #1 of the brand new company. It would have been a convenient time to eliminate it if there were any intention of doing so. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1983 0750-PDT Subject: Phone wiring info From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) I have no idea if this book is at all worthwhile, or if it contains the info you are seeking, but the following paperback has been advertised in the last few issues of the book catalog from Publishers Central Bureau, the discount mail-order book organization: Item No. 549360; HOW TO INSTALL YOUR OWN TELEPHONES, EXTENSIONS, AND ACCESSORIES AND KISS MA BELL GOODBYE by Wesley Cox. (No info on number of pages or publisher; 40 line drawings.) Softbound, $4.95. Described as "An illustrated guide for consumers who wish to save big money by installing their own phones and phone accessories. It's legal at last, so why not take advantage of the new telecommunications laws?" I have not seen this book, only the ad for it. If anyone has read or owns a copy, please send a review to the Digest. Knowing the author and title, any bookstore should be able to get a copy on special order; this is one of the full-price new books, not a remaindered and discounted book. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 11 October 1983 11:58 mst From: Schuttenberg.Dbu at HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS Subject: Call Waiting on Data Line I have the "call waiting" feature on my phone line and would like to use a terminal on that line. I'm told that the "beep" produced when a call arrives will invariably cause a disconnect of my terminal. Is this true, and if so, is there a solution - perhaps a device that will mask the "beep"? I really don't care whether I'm notified that a call came in. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 12-Oct-83 16:06:18-PDT,5716;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 12-Oct-83 16:05:27 Date: 12 Oct 83 1603-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #73 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 13 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: ARPANET/MILNET Split problems Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #72 Call Waiting on Data Lines Crank-phone disconneted. Call Waiting on Data Line ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Oct 1983 2054-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: ARPANET/MILNET Split problems With the split of the ARPANET and MILNET on October 4th of this year, mail system maintainers were told to implement gateway routing for mail, for the day when ARPANET and MILNET become completely separate communities, connected only by those sparse mail gateways. With such changes come problems, and since the split, most MILNET subscribers haven't received a single TELECOM digest. Hopefully that is now over and we can all once again enjoy our news digest. Also, an interesting point is that the USENET feed for fa.telecom (the news group which distributes TELECOM) is on MILNET, so you USENET subscribers have not received any digests either! You can now all submit to TELECOM as well. Submissions are to be sent to the follwing addresses: ARPANET: (net 10.) mail to TELECOM@USC-ECLC MILNET: (net 26.) mail to TELECOM@USC-ECLB USENET: mail to ...brl-bmd!telecom or ...ucbvax!TELECOM@USC-ECLC CSNET: mail to TELECOM@USC-ECLC (same as ARPANET) Mail to the TELECOM-REQUEST address at either ECLB or ECLC should work also, for communications with the moderator (me). For you MILNET subscribers. Send me mail at TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLB with the issue numbers you are missing and I will remail them to you out of the archives. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1983 1421-PDT Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #72 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> Schuttenberg: It is not actually the tone which causes disconnection, but rather the fact that during the tone, the two ends of the data connection are separated. You can't solve the problem by defeating the tone, but you can defeat the feature by the use of another feature. If you have call forwarding, simply forward your calls to another number or perhaps a busy-test number. If you have 3-way, you can also defeat it, but the process is a bit more obscure. First call something on the primary circuit that will not dump you, such as a non-answering busy-test on another exchange, or a disconnect recording. When the connection is established, flash into a 3-way dial-tone and call your computer. DO NOT FLASH AGAIN. This method will cause callers to your line to get a busy signal, and you will not be dumpped off the computer. The forwarding method is preferred, as it doesn't tie up a 3-port conference circuit and an extra outside trunk for the duration of the call. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1983 1545-PDT From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: Call Waiting on Data Lines Call waiting DOES disconnect a data line when the beep from the incoming call comes through. I recommend getting another line (if it is a viable option for you). --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 1983 10:04-PDT Subject: Crank-phone disconneted. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL USA TODAY, Monday, October 10, 1983. By Larry Gilbert BRYANT POND, Maine -- People here and in nearby Woodstock will be able to reach out and touch the world Tuesday -- without having to crank up their phones. The last hand-crank system in the USA will be replaced by 529 dial and touch-tone telephones. Not everyone is happy. "The phones held this town together," said the Rev. Linwood Hanson, paster of the Baptist Church. The old crank system centers around a museum-piece switchboard manned 24 hours a day in Eldon Hathaway's living room. Operators provide wake-up calls and general information on the town's activities for $3.50 a month. F. Robert Jamison, managers of Oxford County Telephone & Telegraph is behind the change. he bought the old system in 1981 for $50,000. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 83 17:46 EDT (Wed) From: Christopher J. Tengi <TENGI@RUTGERS.ARPA> Reply-to: Tengi@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Call Waiting on Data Line It is true that call waiting can cause problems when a modem is being used on the line, although you may not be disconnected. When I first got my phone (from good old NJ Bell), I had the call waiting feature included since there was no additional service charge. I have a Vadic 3400 series modem that I use to hook up to Rutgers and every now and then I would notice strange things happening to my terminal screen. One time I decided to listen in after the screen got messed up and sure enough, I heard the second call waiting beep and the screen had more garbage on it. This was most annoying while editing as the beep caused bogus characters to be entered into the buffer. I don't know of any device to mask the beep, so I just punted the service instead. /GTen ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 13-Oct-83 17:16:33-PDT,3712;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 13-Oct-83 16:29:05 Date: 13 Oct 83 1628-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #74 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 14 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Re: Call Waiting on Data Line Imprisoned in a telephone booth... Poor Bryant Pond... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 19:17:50-EDT From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: Re: Call Waiting on Data Line In response to Schuttenberg.Dbu@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS (I can't get there from here): The only way around getting interrupted by call waiting that I know of requires that you also have call forwarding: before dialing up your host, forward your phone to some innocuous number-for some reason (at least in this area) you don't get the beep then. (By innocuous I mean something on the order of "busy trunk" [if there is one in your area and you can find it out], or weather, time, etc. or if you aren't real concerned about the ears of your caller, you could forward to your dialup (actually that would work fine if you were using the only dialin, or used the highest number on the search). Otherwise, live with it (and hope the host detatches on disconnects, or at worst logs you off) or get another line with budget service and forward to it (easier to bear if you are sharing accomodations, or can get your department to support it). Gene ------------------------------ Date: 12-Oct-1983 23:33 From: decwrl!rhea!castor!j_covert From: <decwrl!rhea!castor!j_covert@su-shasta> Subject: Imprisoned in a telephone booth... >From the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Munich, 13 September 1983 Lock snaps shut -- Man captured inside telephone booth A 47 year old Yugoslav became a prisoner of technology in a telephone booth in Goetheplatz Sunday night. Just after 10 PM he was calling a compatriot when the lock, which is normally only used to lock the booths when the phone is out of order, snapped shut. The rain-soaked man, who was also plagued by an urgent call of nature, first tried to make passers-by aware of his unfortunate situation. After a half an hour of useless effort he reported his emergency to the fire department emergency number (112) but could not make himself understood to the clerk at the emergency reporting center. However, just to be sure, the clerk sent a radio-dispatched emergency car to the telephone booth. The emergency crew finally facilitated his release. -tom ------------------------------ Date: 13-Oct-1983 00:11 From: decwrl!rhea!castor!j_covert From: <decwrl!rhea!castor!j_covert@su-shasta> Subject: Poor Bryant Pond... With the "new" step CDO which was installed up there the subscribers lost the custom calling features they had... Call Forwarding. Speed Calling. Call Waiting. All of these could be provided by the old "number please" board. Although I don't know how often it was... those operators were quite busy; Bryant Pond was no sleepy little town with a single operator answering the board in between milking the cows. The last time I visited both operators were handling calls as fast as they could put them up and take them down; more than half the cord pairs seemed to always be at use at any point in time. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 14-Oct-83 18:11:55-PDT,4029;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 14-Oct-83 17:17:20 Date: 14 Oct 83 1717-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #75 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 15 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: MCI Mail Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #72 Call Waiting on Data Line ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Oct 1983 1731-PDT Subject: MCI Mail From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> I just completed the initiation dialog to the MCI mail service. It is an interesting dialog, in which the system asks questions such as your social security number, and mother's maiden name, for identification, and allows you to specify your own unique ID code if you don't like the one the system generates from your name. After this, a series of survey questions are asked, hoping the user will provide answers. For each question, a simple <CR> indicates you don't wish to answer; and one may quit the survey at any time without disturbing the service application previously entered. To the best of my knowledge, there is no cost to establishing yourself as a user; only when you actually send something. I think you can set up a recipient address on-line, also without charge. I can't tell what kind of hardware the system was that did the querying, but backspace is character delete, Ctrl/U works for delete line, after logging in, and Ctrl/R works as a retype. Other control characters are taken as a delimiter, and RUB characters are ignored. This leads me to believe that the application is running under VMS. If anybody is interested in playing with this thing or establishing their own account, the number is 800-323-7751. (100-300baud/1200baud) <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Oct 83 16:37:18 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #72 It's not the "beep" that causes the phone to hang up as near as I can tell (although it may glith up the screen). No amount of screaming, humming, beeping, or whistling into an extension causes my modem to quit. However all the people around here (C&P) who have call waiting also notice a click just before the beep which is the line being interupted momentarily. Not only is this heard by the call waiting user but is heard by the person he is currently talking to as well. This interuption is enough for our computers to say "oh well, he dropped carrier." In addition the click occurs again when one of the parties hangs up while in "hold" mode. Someone on UNIX-WIZARDS a while back put out a modification to the modem control driver to ignore short interuptions of carrier. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 83 17:33 EDT (Wed) From: Christopher J. Tengi <TENGI@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Call Waiting on Data Line It is true that call waiting can cause problems when a modem is being used on the line, although you may not be disconnected. When I first got my phone (from good old NJ Bell), I had the call waiting feature included since there was no additional service charge. I have a Vadic 3400 series modem that I use to hook up to Rutgers and every now and then I would notice strange things happening to my terminal screen. One time I decided to listen in after the screen got messed up and sure enough, I heard the second call waiting beep and the screen had more garbage on it. This was most annoying while editing as the beep caused bogus characters to be entered into the buffer. I don't know of any device to mask the beep, so I just punted the service instead. /GTen ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 15-Oct-83 21:21:53-PDT,5469;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 15-Oct-83 20:33:25 Date: 15 Oct 83 2033-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #76 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 16 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Re: Phone Wiring General Information Getting their facts straight... MCI Mail FX Lines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 14 Oct 1983 17:40-PDT Subject: Re: Phone Wiring General Information From: nomdenet@Rand-Unix Try You & Your Telephone by Tom Rogers Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 99 pp. I stumbled upon this book while glancing at the book rack in a radio parts & components store. The book concerns itself with (home) telephone basics -- dialling (pulse & DTMF), ringing, the handset, the network, loading (how many phones can be put on one line), do-it-yourself wiring -- and con tains nothing on telephone services like automatic diallers, MCI, Sprint, etc. Its explanation of home wiring is very good, covering the station protec- tor, station wire, color coding, receptacles, and specialized tools. The book also describes a wiring and modular cord test set, a schematic, and instructions for its use. Chapters 1 Should You Buy or Rent? 2 The Telephone System 3 Old Telephones 4 Dialing 5 The Handset 6 The Network (including a schematic diagram) 7 Ringing (explains Ringer Equivalence Numbers) 8 Talking 9 Home Wiring 10 Receptacls and Connecting Points (Blocks) 11 Station Equipment 12 Specialized Tools Appendices A Troubleshooting B Numerical List of Area Codes C Federal Communications Commission Rules D Index of Manufacturers and Suppliers A. R. White nomdenet @ Rand-UNIX (213) 393-0411, x7997 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 1983 0828-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Getting their facts straight... An article by Brian Flanigan and Colin Covert (no relation) of the Knight Ridder Service reports on the group of Detroit teenagers headed by "The Wizard of ARPANET" who, the article states, "claims to have penetrated ARPAnet, a highly secure Defense Department telephone network that serves military computers." The article goes on to say, "The network carries sensitive information on phone lines reserved for military use." ------------------------------ Date: Sat 15 Oct 83 10:16:04-PDT From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: MCI Mail When I couldn't register for MCI mail on 800-323-7751 (is there a "new user" name and password?), I called local MCI sales; they referred me to 800-MCI-MAIL. They didn't know anything but referred me to 800-MCI-CALL, where I found out the service offers four kinds of messages: Instant letter: direct from sender's terminal to another subscriber's; $1/"ounce" (7500 chars) to send, free to read. (Like ARPAgrams but more expensive) Overnight letter: from you to one of their laser printing centers to destination by noon the next day via Purolator Courier. (System will tell you whether PC serves the area.) $6. 4-hr letter: to printer to destination within 4 hr via PC (only 15 areas now). $25. Letter: to printer to destination via U. S. mail, usually arrives within 24 hr. $2. Sender (and instant mail receiver) can use any access numbers (all in "welcome kit"). Bill comes each month with nonzero charges. +j [The way to register is to use username REGISTER, password REGISTER. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 15 October 1983 13:51 EDT From: Richard P. Wilkes <RICK @ MIT-MC> Subject: FX Lines Well, the mess continues... From the friendly folks at C&P of Maryland: "In accordance with the Decree, the C&P Telephone Company of MD will be prohibited from providing your foreign exchange service after Dec. 31, 1983." I have a FX from Baltimore to Laurel MD which puts me in the DC calling area. They tell me that as early as Dec. 1, they will be disconnecting my line (that is if they can't get an exclusion from the courts). Interestingly, they suggest that I contact AT&T, MCI, Western Union, SPCC, or USTS after Dec. 31 for this type of service. Hmmm... what a hassle. I think that "good ol' days" will be remembered as the time you could walk into a phone center store, place your order, get your phone and books, and have the whole thing installed within days for $20. Now, you have to place the order by phone, go to the Central Office and wait for 2 hours (!!) behind people who haven't paid their bills in years for a "phone representative" to give you your new phone number and tell you that it will be two weeks before the line is connected. Ug... Almost makes one want to be an anti-antitrust lawyer. -r ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 17-Oct-83 17:24:50-PDT,12340;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-Oct-83 16:15:32 Date: 17 Oct 83 1615-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #77 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 18 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: 1200 baud via non-Bell Ringing my phone Re: MCI mail sign-on Dialing arrangements NEED HELP with a modem (INTERTEL MCS1200) Re: ComKey 416 If it ain't POTS, we can't deal with it. (or pre-echo of the breakup) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Oct 1983 0211-PDT From: STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL Subject: 1200 baud via non-Bell For some time I have been unable to get my Hayes Smartmodem 1200 to recognize 1200 baud handshakes from either the east coast or Chicago to Los Angeles via SPRINT. Bell works fine. It isn't the modem since another copy of the same modem also just sits there on SPRINT. The SPRINT people acknowledge that it's their system, which works ok at 300 but not 1200 baud. Has anyone had any luck at 1200 baud with any other non-bell carrier coast-to-coast? --david-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Oct 83 15:49:48 EDT From: Brinton Cooper <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: Ringing my phone I'm sure that this has been asked before, but I wasn't around then, so... What are the ways which I can use to ring my own telephone (e.g., for troubleshooting the bell)? I think we're on some kind of ESS, but I'm not sure. We do have foreign area exchange service, and Touch-Tone(R) works on our lines. Thankx, Brint ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 1983 1934-PDT Subject: Re: MCI mail sign-on From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> Terribly sorry... I neglected to put that information in my initial message. The username and password are both 'REGISTER' <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 1983 0913-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Dialing arrangements It may come as a surprise to many people that the rotary dial arrangement in the U.S. (and most countries) is not universal. At least Sweden and New Zealand have different dials: Interruptions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Digit: US 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Sweden 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N.Z. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Does anyone know of any additional arrangements or of any other countries which use the Swedish or New Zealand arrangements? ------------------------------ Date: Mon 17 Oct 83 05:49:37-CDT From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: NEED HELP with a modem (INTERTEL MCS1200) I just acquired a modem, INTERTEL MCS1200 very cheaply, which I am trying to get to work and would appreciate some help with. Is there someone out there who either has one, has access to a manual for it, or can give advice with the followig problem. Note: I only have a 2 page copy of specs and description, and am rather ignorant with hardware. Description: sync or async modem, operating at 1200 or 1800 Baud. DataRate: sync at 1200 on unconditioned Type 3002 lines and 1800 on C2 conditioned Type 3002 lines. async operation up to 1200 bps on uncond. 3002 and 1800 ... Data Format: serial sync or async (strap selected) Op. Mode: half or full duplex, 4wire lines Carrier: switched or constant Modulation: FSK Clear-to-Send-Delay: 0 85 + 5ms or 60 + 5ms (strap selected) Transmit Level: 0dBm to -12dBm adjustable by calib. potentiometer Receive Level: +5dBm to -35dBm etc..... These are the setup and problem symptoms: - I hook red and green phone cables to one pair of line connectors and connect it to the second pair with a jumper-wire - I connect via RS-232 cable to my H/Z-100 - the indicator lites test ok - the switch to have the modem "self-test" is "frozen" and can't be moved to cause a self-test. - the indicator lights come on ok, but when I would expect to see the RTS and CTS lights indicate a "conversation", nothing happens. the lites on are: PWR, DCD, RXD. - the jumpers look "right" as far as I can tell without manual, but the modem must have gotten wet as all are corroded (that's why I got it cheap in the first place) Anyone with advice out there ? Werner (UUCP: {ihnp4,ut-sally,decvax!allegra,ucbvax!nbires} !ut-ngp!werner or: { ut-sally , ut-ngp } !utastro!werner ARPA: werner@utexas-20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon 17 Oct 83 11:36:19-EDT From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: Re: ComKey 416 Random order of response... I thought that intercom was one of the options available on ComKey. Am I wrong? (I see no reason, personally why intercom should be physically separate-the closest to that advice is that even Bell operating companies sometimes use non-WE equipment, specifically to add intercom to a 1A2 style key system [central apparatus] since the WE version is more complicated and costly for small systems.) I suggest you check with a few suppliers about what they have availble. Distributors that have serious product lines include Graybar (check for your closest) Buckeye Telephone and Supply Co. 1800 Arlingate Lane Columbus, Ohio 43228 614/276-8131 Famous Telephone Supply PO Box 2172 Akron, Ohio 44309 800/321-9122 216/762-8811 TW Comcorp. 122 Cutter Mill Rd. Great Neck, New York 11021 516/482-8100 314/569-2950 Gene ------------------------------ Date: 17 October 1983 16:57 EDT From: Jeffrey R. Del Papa <DP @ MIT-ML> Subject: If it ain't POTS, we can't deal with it. (or pre-echo of the Subject: breakup) The local operating company has reached a new low. An only slightly complex installation order caust great amounts of pain. The order was for the same service I had 1 year previously. (Two incoming lines, one with unltd service and several listings, the other with message units, a hunt group between the two, and one rented phone per line.) The sevice was ordered in early june for installation on august 28'th. We picked up our phone for the second line, with only minor problems. (the service office was far worse than described, and we had to deal with two of them.) To our suprise, the installer showed up on the 28'th, only one day after the strike ended. he poked around, discovered that on the three service drops (the previous tenants ran a hifi salon out of the apartment) one contained our secondary number, one was shorted out back at the CO, and the third had one of the previous residents services on it (the service was also installed at their new place.) he straightened out the wiring, installed one jack, identified each of the jacks as to which line they contained, and was generaly helpfull. He claimed that the rest of the CO wiring would occur before 6pm that day, and left. Well of course they didn't manage to get it turned on. Calls to repair, and the business office produced claims of: It will be turned on by 6pm today (or occasionly tommorow), there a problem, call (the buisness office) (repair) there is no problem, your service is working, and finally we don't have a pair out to your area. After one week of daily calling, someone came out and badly misinstalled a "AML" unit on our outside wall. An aml is a two line carrier unit that stacks two lines on one pair. the installer neglected to install any of the weatherproofing, and of course it didn't work. More calls to repair. great amounts of invective. Get to know many supervisors and foremen. beat there direct phone numbers out of directory assistance. know several of the less competent installers by name. Of course, when they installed the aml in the CO, they disconnected our number from the out of service intercept. of course our old phone was shut down, and a referal trap was put on it, and of course it refers people to the non working primary number. Requsting that they put our primary number back on the intercept, or on the pair we have working, or setting the primary line busy, so the hunt circut would forward, or changing the referal, were disregarded, "because your service will be working by 6pm today". more invective flowed. It rained, the AML started recieving a local radio station. I called the sister of a coworker, that was in the regulatory section of the PUC (mass). She had one of the people in the complaint section give me a call. I explained the problem to the person. She failed to understand. I got questions like "Why do you have two lines? What is a hunt group? AML?". I handwaved a bit, and gave her my stock of names and phone numbers. she said she would call them and get an explaination. After two weeks had elapsed, the installation manager said that tommorow morning we would have two supervisors, and a craftsperson out to your house. at 8am on saturday they arrived as promised. the craftsperson (who was the one who came out the first time.) rewired the AML slightly, installed a battery, and flipped the switch inside from "ship" to "operate". Winnage! two working lines. ringing even. A promise from the buisness office to not charge for installation. a promise to credit for message units on the non unltd. line. A claim that the hunt relay works... Three weeks later I call home, and get a busy signal. On a hunch, I call the secondary line. it rings. On monday I call repair and claim disfunction in the hunt circut. they make default promise (6pm). they loose. on the third cycle I am told that the problem is definitely in the CO. I tell the nice person that I knew that, and that would she please explain why they didn't fix it. she says "a foreman will call within 1 hour" this doesn't happen. nor does the line get fixed. On friday of the following week, we get a call. they are going to fix it, but they have to disconnect our service to do this. They don't guarantee finishing before quitting time, and wouldn't we rather wait untill tuesday, rather than risk loosing our service over the three day weekend. we agree with them. At 8 am tuesday, they call and tell me that they are shutting my service off. this happens. when I return at 9pm, the service is restored, but the hunt relay still fails. After calling on wensday, a repair type shows up at the house on thursday and removes the aml, changes the carbon blocks in the lightning arrestor, and reverses the polarity on one of the lines, forcing me to go around and re-wire the jacks so the touch tone pads work again. The repair person does not know what a hunt group is, (after rowan explained it to him 4 times he finally understood, and even thought it was a good idea to have them) he called the CO and discovered that hunting does not work over AML's, and that the service order for the office work went in at 5pm. on friday they finally call and say that it works. they were finally right. I have asked the buisness office to please correct the start of service date on our phones to reflect the date when the installation was completed. I also asked again about the formal complaint proceedings. They handwaved, and said they take them over the phone. I asked for the address to send the complaint to, and about any special forms to complain on. the person didn't know but would have a supervisor call with the info. I wonder if it will happen. tiredly, Jeff ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 18-Oct-83 19:17:54-PDT,11907;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Oct-83 18:00:03 Date: 18 Oct 83 1755-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #78 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 19 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: Telephone Company Unplugged. Re: Ringing my phone WWV toll free Md. FX ringing your own phone Re: Dialing arrangements installation of service DC area code Trade Unions and Competition in the U.K. Telephones in the PRC help with cheap 1200 baud modem ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Oct 1983 21:13-PDT Subject: Telephone Company Unplugged. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL Tiny Phone Firm Closed by State with Customers 15 Years on Hold FRUITDALE, Ala. (AP) - This tiny town's telephone company has been told to hang it up because state officials say some would-be callers have been put on hold as long as 15 years waiting for a dial tone. ''This is the sorriest phone system I ever saw in my life,'' said Billy Coaker, a Fruitdale resident who has complained for years about the poor service. ''They ran a line to my house in September of '79. It was four years ago, and they haven't put a phone in my house yet.'' Last Friday the Alabama Public Service Commission ordered the Fruitdale Telephone Co. to shut down and let somebody take over the phone business in the southwest Alabama community. The 200 customers of the Fruitdale system live about one hour's drive north of Mobile in a sparsely populated area where you can go for five miles without seeing a house. The company never fully recovered from damage inflicted by Hurricane Frederic in 1979, and unsuccessfully sought federal loans for repairs. The owner of the independent phone company, A. B. Miller of Leakesville, Miss., was unavailable for comment Monday. His secretary said he was out of town. In Montgomery, PSC Commissioner Lynn Greer said he expects Miller to appeal the order. It was the first time the PSC has ever voted to shut down one of the state's 38 telephone companies. Greer said Fruitdale's equipment was outdated, with some telephone lines ''strung on fence posts.'' ''It's been going on for years,'' Greer said. ''We've had hearing after hearing, trying to give him a chance. Some of those people have been waiting 15 years to get a telephone.'' Miller, who also operates the tiny Mississippi Telephone Corp., had about 200 customers in Alabama. He did not attend Friday's PSC hearing. About 700 people had signed petitions calling on the PSC and Gov. George C. Wallace to help them get phones. ''I am most distressed at the news,'' said Robert Richard of Montgomery, Miller's attorney. He said a decision on what action to follow would likely be made this week after he has had a chance to read the PSC order carefully. The company had applied unsuccessfully for ''loan after loan'' and was unable to serve the approximately 600 potential customers in Washington County and northern Mobile County, Greer said. Presumably, another independent, Millry Telephone Co., will take over. The PSC two years ago declared the area ''open territory,'' allowing any phone company to apply for servicing the area. ''I don't know whether we have any competition or not,'' said Millry business manager Ed Williams. Millry serves about 4,000 customers. Two years ago, the Mississippi Public Service Commission suspended Miller's certificate to operate in that state. The case was appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which overturned the suspension after ruling the PSC did not give proper due process to Miller. Recently, the Mississippi PSC suspended Miller's certificate a second time, and Miller again has appealed the decision. Miller has a ''few hundred'' customers in the Mississippi Telephone Corp., which was also accused of ''poor service,'' said Brian Ray, a Mississippi PSC spokesman. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 83 2:32:47 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: Ringing my phone They way it works around here (C&P Telephone of MD) is that there are "ring back" exchanges. There are a few exchanges that are reserved for these numbers, but the one that works varies from exchange to exchange and is changed periodically. What you do is dial the speical exchange followed by the last four digits of your telephone number. You will get a dial tone back immediately. Hang up your telephone momentarily and you will get a higher pitched tone. Hang up again and the phone will ring. Exchanges that have worked in the past are (446, 958, 998, and 999). Perhaps Carl Moore can tell you which one your exchange uses. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 1983 14:18:31-PDT (Monday) From: David Palmer <PALMER.SJRLVM4.IBM@Rand-Relay> Subject: WWV toll free Frank: In response to your query of some days ago, WWV can be reached toll free at 800-957-9999. This info came from net.ham-radio on the USENET. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 83 8:57:26 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Md. FX Is that the 621 exchange you have in Baltimore to provide DC area local service? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 83 12:01:43 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: ringing your own phone I think dialing 959-xxxx from my (Delaware area 302) phone yielded one ring after I hung up. (I do not recall seeing 959 in use as an exchange in the normal sense of the word in any area code.) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 83 9:28:02 PDT (Tuesday) From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Dialing arrangements I have a phone with a dial of the 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 variety (matches Covert's NZ dial). I was told it was European when I bought it. The only identification on the outside is "Telegrafverket", which I guessed to be German. Inside, the parts are marked with a script EB, sort of run together. I also have a phone made by Telefonfabrik Automatic in Copenhagen that has the US order of digits on the dial. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 83 14:38:05 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: installation of service Recently, I moved my phone (individual line, along with secretarial line running from central office to answering service switchboard), and asked that the secretarial line remain connected so I could still receive phone messages. However, I had to spend the night without any phone service; calling my own number from another phone yielded "At the customer's request, <number> has been temporarily disconnected." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 83 14:41:32 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: DC area code Someone was wondering a while ago why DC (202 area) is not among the easiest-to-dial area codes. Notice that if a state or province has only 1 1 area code, it is N0X; except for 201 in northern NJ, 202 is the easiest-to-dial N0X code. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 1983 1629-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Trade Unions and Competition in the U.K. Background: Up until recently, British Telecom (currently government owned, formerly part of the post office, separate for the last few years, due to be sold (51%) on the London Stock Exchange soon) had a 100% monopoly on telecommunications of all types in the U.K. Now, all of the changes that have happened in the U.S. since 1964 until now (but not including what's happening next January) will happen in the U.K. Mercury is a private long distance carrier, ala MCI. Engineer is the term used in the U.K. where we would use installer, repairman, or craftsperson. From an article in the October issue of Telecommunications: British Telecom engineers have begun a campaign of industrial action against the parent comanies of Mercury, the private telephone network. The Post Office Engineering Union said its members would "black" all maintenance and installation work at British Petroeum's Britannic House headquarters, four buildings belonging to Cable and Wireless, and the Barclays Bank computer center, all in London. The union is opposed to the interconnection of Mercury and the public network. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 1983 1836-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Telephones in the PRC The following are a few excerpts from an article entitled "China Improving Communications Services" by Liu Hua in Beijing (Peking), which appeared in the October 1983 issue of Telecommunications: China still has limited communications facilities... In the 30 or so major Chinese cities, the supply of telephones now averages 2.1 for every 100 persons; phone calls in these cities have only a 50 percent chance of immediate service. Approximately 400,000 subscribers were added in the cities during the past two years... Shanghai alone installed more than 20,000 telephones, equalling the total added in the city during the previous 30 years. In 1982, the southeastern province of Fujian bought a program-controlled automated telephone exchange from Japan that can simultaneously handle 10,000 telephone calls. Waiting time for a telephone call from Fuzhou [the provincial capital] to Hongkong is now nine minutes, compared to more than 20 in 1980. Fujian will soon establish telephone communications with 41 countries and regions. China intends to give priority to the expansion of the telephone service in 12 big cities. This will provide service for government offices and industrial and business establishments, expand the public telephone service, and increase the number of private telephones. The number of telephones for every 100 residents in the major cities will rise from only four to 20 by the year 2000. In the rural areas, the aim is to provide facilities for at least one subscriber in every village. By the year 2000, the development plan of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications seeks to achieve a total of 20 million telephone subscribers, compared with 4.2 million in 1980. Cities above the county-seat level will gradually get automatic dialling of long-distance calls, and in big cities, such advanced technologies as program-controlled digital electronic exchanges, digital transmission, and optical-fiber transmission will be used. "We'll strive for immediate placement of international telephone calls," said Wen Minsheng, Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Monday, 17-Oct-83 14:18:43-PDT Subject: help with cheap 1200 baud modem When you get things very cheaply, there's usually a good reason. Unless you have another one of those same bizarre modems around, you are probably out of luck. That unit runs a half-duplex protocol... it expects a true 4-wire connection for communications in a "full-duplex" sort of mode. It is (as far as I know) not compatible with Vadic 3400, Bell 212A, or any other 1200bps true FULL-duplex protocols. Sorry about that. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 19-Oct-83 15:43:16-PDT,6486;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 19-Oct-83 14:21:28 Date: 19 Oct 83 1421-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #79 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 20 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: trouble with Plain Old Telephone Service installation Access Charge Delayed. switched digits MCI Mail dial-up ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Monday, 17-Oct-83 19:18:12-PDT Subject: trouble with Plain Old Telephone Service installation Gee, I don't see what you're complaining about! That sounded like a perfectly ordinary course of events to me... Now, if you want to hear some *real* tales, someday I'll tell you about the 4 wire leased lines I used to have to a friend's house, or what happened when I ordered two FX lines into a General Telephone service area when I was served by PacTel! I'll give you a clue: getting (and keeping) those circuits running has involved the use of pentagrams and powdered bat wing, and much chanting during the full moon... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 1983 01:09-PDT Subject: Access Charge Delayed. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL a023 2316 18 Oct 83 PM-Telephone Bills, Bjt,490 Phone Bill Hike Delayed; But So Is Long-Distance Reduction By NORMAN BLACK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission is giving consumers an unexpected three-month reprieve from new telephone fees that had been scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The reprieve from paying a $2-a-month ''access charge,'' however, was accompanied by some bad news - the FCC is also delaying an average 10.5 percent reduction in interstate long-distance rates proposed by the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. The commission voted unanimously Tuesday to delay from Jan. 1 until April 3 the implementation of both the new access fees and the long-distance rate cuts. Agency officials said the delay was necessary because they needed more time to investigate the long-distance rate reductions and other changes that were scheduled to accompany the payment of the $2 monthly fee by consumers. Jack D. Smith, chief of the FCC's common carrier bureau, said, for example, the agency might want to order AT&T to make an even larger long-distance rate reduction. Smith also cited the need to investigate a proposed AT&T rate increase for private business lines; the imposition of a 75-cent charge for long-distance information calls, and a series of other fees to be charged long-distance telephone companies for access to local switches. Smith and Jerald N. Fritz, the chief of the FCC's tariff division, both stressed the delay would not affect the scheduled Jan. 1 breakup of AT&T. The company is required by an antitrust settlement to give up its 22 Bell System operating companies and that process is being overseen by a federal judge. Both also stressed the FCC is not considering any changes to the order it adopted earlier this summer establishing the principle that consumers should begin paying the new monthly fees. ''Our access rules aren't being changed,'' Fritz said. ''The question is the way the telephone industry proposed to apply our rules ...'' The imposition of the new access fees and the proposed reduction in long-distance rates are bound together because the FCC is trying to eliminate a subsidy system that has existed for decades. Under that system, AT&T's long-distance rates have been kept artificially high to produce money to hold down local telephone rates; currently, the subsidy is an estimated $10.7 billion. The FCC maintains the subsidy should be gradually removed from long-distance rates and shifted to all local telephone customers in the form of monthly access fees. In effect, all customers would be expected to help make the payments instead of just those who place long-distance calls. The fees would start at $2 a month for residential customers and a maximum $6 a month for business customers, but would gradually rise over the next six years to a projected $6-to-$8 a month. The commission maintains the change is needed to spur competition and to lower long-distance rates as a means of discouraging large corporations from building private phone systems. ap-ny-10-19 0218EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Oct 83 10:49:34 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: switched digits Is it possible for the system to reverse 2 digits which you dialed correctly? (E.g., you dialed "47" but it was interpreted as "74".) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 1983 0606-PDT Subject: MCI Mail dial-up From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) I tried calling the 800-323-7751 number for the MCI Mail registry, and got a data tone, but it wouldn't produce carrier-detect on my 1200 bps Vadic VA3434. Doesn't seem right to me that a public-access data dial-up should be so picky about what equipment it can talk to. Modems that respond to both Bell and Vadic type signals aren't that much more expensive than those that talk Bell alone, and a common-carrier type of service should interface to any common varieties of equipment. Vadic is pretty widespread, after all; it's not like I was expecting them to interface with a one-of-a-kind homebrew hodgepodge. I can see such limitations on a hobbyist's CBBS system, but not on a public-access nationwide system. I called the 800-MCI-CALL number to ask about this, and they said that ther was no plan to support anything but Bell 212A for 1200 bps. (It's HARD to dial using letters when you are used to numbers -- interesting psychological sidenote there...) Maybe I'm wrong about how "normal" the Vadic mode is; after all, it is what we have here, so it's common to me, but maybe it isn't so common to the rest of the world. Am I justified in expecting support for this mode from a public data resource, or am I demanding more than is reasonable? Will Martin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 20-Oct-83 16:39:24-PDT,10851;000000000000 Return-path: <TELECOM-Request@USC-ECLC> Mail-From: JSOL created at 20-Oct-83 15:25:17 Date: 20 Oct 83 1524-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #80 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 21 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Telegrafverket Re: MCI Mail dial-up "Poor" Southwestern Bell getting closer to double basic phone cost 800 9xx-9999 RE Re Bell Breakup Re: MCI Mail dial-up new ringing signal Re: MCI Mail dial-up Tone and voice input and output MCI Mail Vadic 3400 protocol on MCIMAIL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Oct 1983 1831-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Telegrafverket Telegrafverket is definitely neither German nor Danish. The telephone portion of the Swedish PTT is called Televerket; I suspect Telegrafverket is Norwegian. I had heard that Norwegian dials were different, but I had no confirmation. Thanks/John ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 1983 1552-PDT Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> I called it with my VA3451 and it communicated just fine. In VA3400 format, I think. You musta gotten a bad connection. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: Thu 20 Oct 83 06:33:07-CDT From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: "Poor" Southwestern Bell getting closer to double basic phone Subject: cost $910 MILLION INCREASE RECOMMENDED FOR BELL -------------------------------------------- (from the Austin American Statesman) (AP) The staff for the Public Utility Commission recommended a rate increase of nearly $910 million for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Monday. The telephone company had initially asked for an increase of nearly twice that amount - $1.7 billion. Southwestern Bell vice president Paul Roth called the staff proposal "more realistic" than recommendations made by others involved in the case, but said it still "falls short." The company asked for the record rate increase in June, saying it needed more money than ever because it must break away from its parent firm, AT&T, and stand alone next year. The staff recommendation will be considered by the commission after hearings, which begin Monday and are expected to last at least eight weeks. The hearing examiners will make their recommendations, and a final decision in the case is not expected before March, said commission representative Rick Hainline. (end of article) --------------------- (begin of comment) it seems more and more as if the break-up is being handled in a way more "in the best interest" of the phone company, rather than the public. Noone disputes seriously, that the break-up was desired by Bell in the first place, to be able to participate in the lucrative computer-related market, and get out of the "doomed" investment of lots of "lots of twisted pairs". I "gloomily" predict, that cable-TVs coax is going to make the "wire" obsolete, and that then the public is going to get stuck with buying out the "worthless" local phone-line, because "there was a promise of a continued reasonable profit" made to the investors who own the phone companies. (I hope that I am wrong) Anyway, it makes no sense to me that the minimal cost of gas, water, and electricity, all are less than for phone. Shouldn't all that automisation, computerisation , glass-fibers, digital encoding, etc, make phones cheaper rather than more expensive ? I'd expect that with more automization, costs for running the service should be less, and the increased cost of creating facilities and lines for new customers should NOT lead to an increase of service costs to all. Anyway, I wished we would only pay the phone company for providing the service and pay (and own) for the hardware ourselves, bundled into the house mortgage. still looking for a better and cheaper way ... ---Werner (@utexas-20.ARPA or @ut-ngp.UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1983 0755-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: 800 9xx-9999 I don't expect 800 957-9999 to continue reaching WWV for very long after the appropriate people at Bell realize that revenue is being lost. It looks like some hacker put in several pointers to various time and weather numbers using the format 800 9xx-9999. ------------------------------ From: ittral!monti%ittvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 19 Oct 83 03:26:35 EDT (Wed) From: decvax!ittvax!ittral!monti@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: RE Re Bell Breakup This little note is to Brint Cooper (CTAB) abc@brl-bmd. Your comment of: ... The instruments which purchase for rather inflated prices are not nearly so durable and reliable as those made and severly tested by Western Electric..... is not totally correct. There several companies putting out telephone apparatus that are as well made as westerns handware because several telephones that Bell Stores are selling and are going to sell are made by other U.S. firms. The ITT telephones are made and tested to the same standards as westerns' telephones and the operating companies will be buying a lot of them come the first of the year. And apparently the price is right as well. So I suggest you do a little looking at the telephony industry before you make "blanket" statements about quality and price. I do agree that some of the Japanese and European telephones are not worth whatever they're sold for. They're pure junk and I hope the public looks at a lot of telephones and especially --tests-- them before buying them because they will be upset expecting a western quailty telephone for $19.95. Jim Monti ITT Telecom Raleigh, NC decvax!ittvax!ittral! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1983 0628-PDT Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) A 3451 is a triple modem; it handles Bell 212A, Bell 103, and Vadic 3400 type modes. The 3434 handles Vadic 3400 and (I think) Bell 103 modes only. So yours was working as a 212A. (I had tried this dial-up repeatedly before I called them and then sent that message.) Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 83 12:02:39 EDT From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: new ringing signal The ringing signal on incoming calls to 302-731 (Newark, Del.) recently changed (no insert yet in phone bill) to the ring I normally associate with electronic exchanges. Does that mean that such exchange has indeed gone electronic? (Is it true that some non-electronic exchanges have IDDD?) Up to this point, by the way, people on 731, 737, 738 who want call holding, etc., had to change (no charge) to 366,368,453,454. When this happened, the old number was given an intercept to last for 3 months or until the next directory came out, whichever was later. (Newark has had both electronic & nonelectronic together, and a change as mentioned just above was possible for someone keeping the same address.) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1983 0952-PDT Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> I am not so sure it was operating as 212A. I can call the dial-up and check, but from the time it took to accept carrier, I think it was a 3400 carrier. You will recall that the negotiation process uses several delays to decide what it is talking to. Also, the connection was relatively clean, not typical of 212A on longish halls. Even so, it DID work at 1200 baud. If you still can't talk to it, perhaps you are right about the 212A format, but it should work just fine at 300. One other point was that the 1200 baud mode of operation expects 2 consequtive carriage return characters for auto- baud. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 83 12:04:28 CDT (Thu) From: jacobson@wisc-rsch (Fred M Jacobson) Subject: Tone and voice input and output I have a flyer from Computalker describing their CompuFone S-100 board. A summary: Telephone Interface * FCC Approved * Initiate and Answer Phone Calls * Trunk Status Detector * Touch-Tone (R) Generator * Touch-Tone (R) Decoder Voice Digitizer * Record Speech from telephone, MIKE IN, or LINE IN * Speech Storage: hardware data compression to and from RAM and disk * Speech Output: reproduce speech and send to telephone or LINE OUT * Rates: 1.25, 2, 2.5, 3, or 4 Kbytes/sec It costs $995 (plus $20 for software on CP/M 8" SD, more for other formats). The manual (included with the board) alone costs $30. For details: Computalker 1730 21st Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 (213) 828-6546 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1983 1243-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: MCI Mail I called MCI mail on my '3434 and it indeed does not respond to VADIC carrier. Only Bell 103 and Bell 212A. I guess MCI could have established a policy that VADIC is dead, and Bell is the way to go (I'm sure AT&T would be happy about said decision). MIT-OZ used the reverse logic saying that if VADIC is dead, most people will not have VADIC modems, hence they will use VADICs to keep randoms off their dialups! ------------------------------ Date: Thu 20 Oct 83 13:48:24-PDT From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC> Subject: Vadic 3400 protocol on MCIMAIL Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 The problem is that the modems to implement triple protocol are 2-3 times as expensive as the Bell 212A ones. If Vadic would cut the price from $895 or so to $395 or so, then this difference would be more manageable. The best argument to use with MCI MAIL might be "Well, GTE Telemail supports Vadic 3400 protocol." The problem is that things are probably too far along to be changed. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 21-Oct-83 19:17:01-PDT,4424;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 21 Oct 83 19:12:31-PDT Date: 21 Oct 83 1609-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #81 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 22 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Archive moved (again) MCI Mail dial-up Md. FX followup on self-ringing Re: MCI Mail dial-up Vadic vs. 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Oct 1983 1737-PDT From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Archive moved (again) Once again, due to disk space limitations here, the archive file TELECOM.RECENT has been moved. The new location is SRI-CSL (which supports ANONYMOUS FTP login). This means that all archives now live at SRI-CSL. --JSol ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 83 21:22:28 EDT From: Margot <Flowers@YALE.ARPA> Subject: MCI Mail dial-up I tried calling the 800-323-7751 number for the MCI Mail registry, and got a data tone, but it wouldn't produce carrier-detect on my 1200 bps Vadic VA3434. Even though I was using a Bell 212A modem (UDS line powered), I also had trouble connecting to them at first. I got only garbage on the screen until I reset the parity bits on the dipswitches on the back of the terminal I was using (Televideo 950, as I remember the manual called that setting something like "space, no parity" -- I don't have it here to check.) I called the 800-MCI-CALL number to ask about this, and they said that ther was no plan to support anything but Bell 212A for 1200 bps. They told me they supported "anything", including Bell 212. However, most of the people at 800-MCI-MAIL don't seem to be too informed about the technical details, i.e. the other ones I had talked to didn't know what "protocol" or "Bell 212" was, but they glibly told me they supported "ascii". There is a technical problems phone number they display to you when you log on but I neglected to write it down. ------------------------------ Date: 21 October 1983 00:01 EDT From: Richard P. Wilkes <RICK@mit-mc> Subject: Md. FX Yes. It is out of "Laurel." Have any alternatives? -r ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Oct 83 8:10:37 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: followup on self-ringing 959 does not now yield ringing of my phone on 302-731, which recently went to different ringing signal. I checked my notes (derived from AT&T tape) for Md., and found that 446, 958, 998, and 999 are all omitted. This is consistent with their being used for self-ringing. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1983 0612-PDT Subject: Re: MCI Mail dial-up From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) When I talked to the people at 800-MCI-CALL about the Vadic support business, the first person I talked with was probably marketing or clerical, and not aware of the technical details or issues. However, they connected me with a person who identified herself as "technical support staff" or something like that, and seemed to know what I (and she) was talking about. I didn't note her name, sorry. Will Martin ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Friday, 21-Oct-83 02:18:05-PDT Subject: Vadic vs. 212 Of course, a Vadic triple modem calling a 212 will (by necessity) communicate in 212 protocol. Interestingly, when a Vadic triple calls ANOTHER Vadic triple, it will ALSO talk 212! This is a consequence of the sequencing algorithm used to differentiate between 103, 212, and VA3400-style protocols. It is easy to differentiate between VA3400 and 212 protocols by listening to the phone line. VA3400 sounds much like a plain old 103 -- 2 distinct carrier tones, and data can be clearly heard as distinct sound units. The 212 protocol sounds more like continuous white noise -- no distinct data sound units can be heard. This effect is caused by the scrambling algorithm used by the 212's. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Oct-83 18:28:04-PDT,6638;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 22 Oct 83 18:20:29-PDT Date: 22 Oct 83 1812-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #82 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 23 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: Ringing your phone Re: "Ring back" numbers MCI Mail VADIC Modems TELTONE DTMF Receivers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 83 07:39:21 EST From: <ECN.davy@PURDUE.ARPA> Subject: Ringing your phone Around here (Lafayette, IN), we only have two ESS exchanges, the rest are some sort of "mechanical" type. On the old ones, the way to ring your own phone is to dial 115 and then your phone number. You get a busy signal, hang up, your phone rings, and you get a clicking noise when you pick up. Dialing 115 is the method used for dialing another party on your party line. I don't believe this method works on the ESS exchanges. On my exchange (ESS), I can ring my phone simply by dialing my phone number. I get a busy signal, hang up, and the phone rings. The other "fun" numbers, such as tone generators, a voice that recites your phone number back to you, etc. all seem to be 423-12XX where the XX varies, and 423 is my exchange. I suppose these numbers vary from place to place, but you might try -1210, -1208, -1202. I could tell horror stories about GTE trying to install this ESS stuff, but I haven't got time to type in that much. Leave it go at the thing was supposed to be in by Dec. '81, finally was installed in May '83, and still crashes for unknown reasons. Call forwarding and all those other neat options are still unavailable. --Dave Curry pur-ee!davy eevax.davy@purdue ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 83 23:50:17 EDT From: Don <WATROUS@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Re: "Ring back" numbers I learned about this back in the late 50's. Most places around North Jersey, I've been able to get a ring back by dialing one of (550, 551, 552, ... - stopping before 555) followed by the last four digits of your number until you get a dial tone. To this dial tone you hang up briefly once or twice (like trying to get back to an operator), and you get a single tone. Hang up and your phone rings. Pick up and you get the tone. Flash the hook again (phone acknowledges with a break in the tone) and you can get another ringback. This works for party lines also (dialing the other party's last four digits). I remember we used to get great delight doing this to a grouch down the street.... Don ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1983 02:46 edt From: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS Subject: MCI Mail Well, I finally got my "Welcome Kit" (they said 7-10 days, and sure enough, it took 10 days; they apparently had more people signing up than they were really ready for). Anyway, some observations: 1) I wonder how the typical letter-writer is going to react to the apparent complexity of the system. It is not that it is really complex (the documentation seems pretty clear, and anyone who has used computer mail and a text editor before will find nothing new), but it is an order of magnitude more complex than using the phone system or the U.S. Postal Service. Anyone who is intimidated by ZIP+4 will be overwhelmed by the number of identifiers and codes involved (only some of which are needed to send a message, of course): a user name (for logging in) a password (for logging in) a unique "MCI Mail ID" (numeric) a customer number (for billing) another password (defaults to mother's maiden name) for telephone queries local access telephone number 2)There is no mention in the documentation about privacy, other than warnings to keep your password secret. There is a prohibition against transmitting "material which constitutes an infringement of any copyright or trademark or a violation of Section 223 of the Communications Act...". It doesn't say if they consider it OK to police this by looking at your messages. It doesn't say whether they keep copies of your messages on "backup" tapes. 3) I was really surprised that there seems to be no connection between MCI Mail and the long distance service. No clever sharing of local access numbers. Apparently two separate bills, in two separate envelopes (on top of the fact that it is not clear why either of them need to be in envelopes now that I have this new electronic mailbox). Nothing in the Welcome Kit even invites you to find out about the long distance service. 4) Some of the aspects of the user interface seem likely to run into scaling-up problems. For example, if you specify a recipient name that is not unique, it gives you a list of the possibilities. If you say "Smith", you get all the Smiths in the whole country. (Right now there seem to be only 20.) -jwd3 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Oct 83 15:42:57 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: VADIC Modems The University of Maryland bought some Vadic modems from a different company who took the VADIC two ways and converted them into three ways. The price was comperable with the two way price. VADIC took legal action over this. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Oct 83 11:10:56 pdt From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley Subject: TELTONE DTMF Receivers I recently came across a product anouncement from Teltone Corporation, which described their new line of DTMF decoders. These are all one chip devices, most requiring only a +5 volt power supply and an external osc- illator. The amazing thing is their prices: $24.75 for their M-957 chip, which is a DTMF only decoder (they also make pulse decoders), has dial tone immunity, runs on either +12 or +5 volts, is CMOS, and has binary data outputs. All contained in a 22 pin DIP. If you're interested, ask for data sheets. Teltone Corporation P.O. Box 657 10801 120th Avenue Northeast Kirkland, Washington 98033-0657 (206) 827-9626 Phil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Oct-83 16:01:59-PDT,8703;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Oct 83 15:51:26-PDT Date: 24 Oct 83 1550-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #83 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 25 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: RE: self-ringing MCI Mail MCI Mail Modem Quality Ring-Backs Re: what is... area code notes, N.E.Md. Voice message systems Why is there no command to turn off call waiting? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Oct 1983 20:02:31-PDT From: Robert P Cunningham <cunningh@Nosc> Reply-to: cunningh@Nosc Subject: RE: self-ringing Another thing to try, that actually works in some areas, occasionally even with business lines, is to dial your own number. If you get the message "you're trying to call someone who shares your party line..." then all you have to do is hang up at that point, and your phone will ring. If you get the message, it will work even if you don't have a party line. This works on all residential lines, and many business lines in my state (Hawaii, serviced by Hawaiian Telephone, a GTE company). I'm not sure why, and I don't know where else it works. Bob Cunningham Hawaii Institute of Geophysics ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1983 0210-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI Mail I, too, finally received my welcome kit. So far, I'm not terribly impressed; I've expressed some of my concerns to the mail user "MCIHELP" -- a free address. We'll see what sort of replies I get back. Concerns I've reported: The list of phone numbers does not include the 800 number. I'm not local to any of the dialups listed. I hope that the 800 number will remain in service. I'm concerned about the behaviour of the "delete" key. I'd like them to accept both "delete" and "control/h", since I am very used to typing "delete" for corrections. But even if they can't, what they do when I accidentally type "delete" is bizarre. Control/H DOESN'T WORK AFTER THAT! I've asked about the "advanced" category which presumably allows me to bypass the menus (which I will soon grow tired of). From the documentation provided, it appears that it may cost extra, because it MAY (repeat MAY -- the documentation is not clear) be coupled with a "storage" option which costs $10 per month. Concerns I've not reported: Since it is a VMS system, it would be nice for users to be able to use EDT instead of the rather primitive line oriented editor. I've been beyond that technology for over ten years. Also, since it is a VMS system, and since I have a DEC PC-350, I'd like to be able to use the professional file transfer utility to send in the text of messages or to retrieve messages sent to me -- this would eliminate the noise problem (which has often been quite severe when I've been communicating with them). MCI lists its obligations to its customers, which seem to be to deliver mail -- but then says that it is not liable for any loss, misdelivery, (or apparently anything else) caused even by its own negligence. It is also interesting to note that both overnight and four-hour letters require someone to be there. This is really not surprising, since MCI is not allowed to drop things into mailboxes. But what happens if the addressee is out for a few minutes at just the wrong time? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Oct 83 02:12:18 PDT From: jmrubin%UCBCORAL.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: MCI Mail It seems to me that one potential question about MCI Mail is just what it will be able to carry. Obviously, it can't carry a 64K RAM chip or your grandaunt's knit sweater ("Beam me up, Scotty!") but can it carry 1) money (as in telegraph money transfers) 2) legal authorization/agreement (at the level of signature or notarized signature) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Oct 83 01:47:31 EST From: <ECN.malcolm@PURDUE.ARPA> Subject: Modem Quality Has anybody ever seen a comparison of the available 300 and 1200 modems that talks about their error rates? My phone is connected to a very old and noisey GTE exchange and I am hesitant to just go out and order any old modem. I have a good Bell 103 modem and never see errors when dialing into local computers. Can I expect the same with any of the available 212 modems? Are there any standards of comparison? I would love to see a graph of bit-error rate vs the Signal-to-Noise ratio on the line. Malcolm Slaney Purdue EE Dept. {decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!malcolm mgs@purdue ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 1983 19:00 EDT (Sun) From: Paul Fuqua <PF@MIT-XX> Subject: Ring-Backs Here's a ring-back method I haven't read yet: when I was a little kid, "everybody" knew that the way to make the phone ring was to dial either 44041 or 44011, then hang up. I doubt this method will work anywhere else, though. The exchanges we used were 214-239 and 214-233, both rather old (23 is AD which stands for Addison, the location) and without any call-waiting or -forwarding capabilities (had to switch to 214-661 to get them). Oddly enough, in that city (Dallas), one dials 1411 for Information, not 411, and 744-4444 for police/fire/ambulance (744 is the Dallas city government exchange). Apparently, the cost of changing the system to allow use of 911, 411, 611 (all the easy numbers of Boston) is prohibitive. pf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Oct 83 7:58:29 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: what is... N=any single digit EXCEPT 0 or 1 X=any single digit INCLUDING 0 and 1 The above is what was intended when I said "N0X". With a few exceptions, N0X and N1X are used only as area codes, with prefixes (the next 3 digits after area code) having the form NNX. In the following areas, prefixes are NXX instead of NNX: 212 New York City (to be split into 212/718 in 1984) 213 Los Angeles area (to be split into 213/818 in 1984) 312 Chicago area "Ease of dialing" refers to the amount of dial-turning necessary if you are using a ROTARY (not pushbutton) phone. The 3 area codes given above are the easiest to dial. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Oct 83 9:22:18 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: area code notes, N.E.Md. Oct. 1983 Northeastern Md. call guide shows the 2 splits of the last 12 months: 714/619 in California and 713/409 in Texas. It also has footnote attached to 212 New York City: "Effective mid-1984 Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island 718 Manhattan and the Bronx 212". However, there is no note about 213/818 split in California, which occurs before 212/718 split in NYC. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 1983 06:25-PDT Subject: Voice message systems From: AFDSC, The Pentagon <Geoffrey C. Mulligan@BRL.ARPA> Reply-to: geoffm@sri-csl Does anyone know what companies sell voice message systems? geoff ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 83 22:35:08 PDT (Wed) From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Why is there no command to turn off call waiting? It occurred to me about three seconds after my first "call waiting" disconnection that the solution is to provide a command that would turn it off and on from your phone. No big deal, right? Allocate one more bit and flip it off an on. This was in 1977 and I don't think Ma Bell has gotten around to thinking of it yet... (By "command" I mean a tone sequence like the ones you use to set up speed calling numbers, of course. You could turn it off before dialing your computer. It would be harder if computers called you, since you'd be in the middle of receiving the call by the time you knew you wanted call waiting off. The command could be one-time-only, too; that way you won't leave your phone in "no call waiting" state forever.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************