Telecom

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

/ Telecom / 1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso / back.issues / 1981-86.volumes.1-5 / vol3.iss084-128 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1991-01-20 | 356.4 KB | 8,787 lines

24-Oct-83 17:24:42-PDT,8703;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Oct 83 17:14:46-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 ********************* 25-Oct-83 16:07:06-PDT,4669;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 25 Oct 83 15:59:26-PDT Date: 25 Oct 83 1600-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #84 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 26 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: Re: Modem Quality MCI Mail Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #83 MCIMail; the Feds in general 1200 baud via non-Bell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 83 00:01:41 EDT From: Margot <Flowers@YALE.ARPA> Subject: Re: Modem Quality I have no quantitative data to offer you, but here is some anecdotal information pertaining to your question. I have used a UDS 212A 1200 baud line powered modem in a GTE area which I consider to be noisy: from 213-393 to 213-206. (For some voice conversations in this area, "noisy" is a mild description of the line quality.) The only noise symptom I have noticed when using the modem is maybe once every 10-30 minutes I get a burst of about 2-5 meaningless chars. This same modem works with no noise symptoms at all calling from 203-787 to 203-436 (a non-GTE area). A few times I have tried this modem on long distance calls from 213-393 to 203-436: on Sprint it does not work but on ATT it does. I have tried calling in the reverse direction a few times (203 to 213) and couldn't get a connection to work on either Sprint or ATT. But I haven't tried very hard with either of them. In fact, I heard so much noise on the line when I called MCI Mail's 800 number that I was surprised the connection worked at all. ------------------------------ Date: 24 October 1983 23:28-PDT (Monday) From: Tony Li <Tli @ Usc> Subject: MCI Mail Reply-to: Tli @ Usc-Eclb Yes, the MCI system is definitely a Vax under VMS. I tried to get set up this evening, and as soon as I logged in, it booted me off with a disk full error message. (* Sigh *) Also, I tried the usual ^C and ^Y. No effect. Clearly, they have re-written their driver for the outside lines. I wonder what bugs they managed to install? Cheers, Tony ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Oct 83 23:32:31 PDT From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #83 I heard someone say that S.W. Bell has surrendered on residential modem rates in Oklahoma. Anyone have more definitive info? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 83 05:09:47 EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: MCIMail; the Feds in general Well, I tried the MCI registry service tonight, and *guess* *what*: %DCL-E-OPENOUT, error opening DISK$NP22OEDS00:[MCIAR.PROD.CODEFILES]00690053.UID; as output -RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, Exceeded disk quota They're running it on a vax!! And gak, look at them filenames would you. Naturally, I couldn't ^Y out of the com file. It looks like they have a smart front end talking to a downline vax; the front end actually handles the logins and starts a network file job on the vax or something. 'Twould be interesting to know just how they're running such a monster. Disk quota, indeed. I've often wondered where to obtain the latest news on FCC laws and such. Where are such laws written? Would the library be a good place to look? Thither I went recently to look up a bunch of motor vehicle laws, and found them in a neat little bound set of volumes entitled ''New Jersey Statutes'' - what else? Are Federal laws similarly treated? I didn't have a chance to look around. Or would it be easier to call up the PUC with specific questions? At the moment I'm curious about rules concerning RFI and who's responsible, cable networks, and cellular radio. _H* ------------------------------ From: parsec!kolstad%allegra@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: Mon, 24 Oct 83 18:57:04 edt From: decvax!allegra!parsec!kolstad@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: 1200 baud via non-Bell Cc: reply to note by STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL We have no problem accessing almost the entire US through MCI. We have no success outside of a few hundred miles with SPRINT. We use MCI exclusively for our long distance data connections (typically 40-80 hours/month). Rob Kolstad PARSEC SciCompCorp ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Oct-83 18:21:14-PDT,3687;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Oct 83 18:13:52-PDT Date: 27 Oct 83 1545-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #85 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 27 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #84 MCI laws TELECOM Digest V3 #84 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 83 21:11:53 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #84 FCC regulations. They are bound up neatly too. But there is a whole damn lot of them. You better figure out which "part" you want. I don't know how you go about getting exactly what you want. I know we got the parts corresponding to Broadcast through the NAB and you can get the amateur regulations through the ARRL. It seems that the government doesn't worry about selling directly to the public but allows other publishing companies to do so (the FAA regs are this way too). New regs are published in the Federal Register but that is a lot of stuff to go through to find it. There is a telephone number in D.C. that you can call at the F.C.C. and they have a recording announcing FCC actions, new rules, notice of proposed rulemakings, etc... This would likely give you an idea as to when to go down to your nearest library (that is a repository of Government documents) and start digging through the recent FR's. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 25 October 1983 19:36-PDT (Tuesday) From: Tony Li <Tli @ Usc> Subject: MCI Reply-to: Tli @ Usc-Eclb Hi Hobbit, I don't think that the MCI mail program is a com file. Normally, if you set nocontrol, you get a pair of CRLFs. I didn't even get that. So.... A separate program? Any ideas?? Tony ;-) ------------------------------ Date: 26 October 1983 07:58 edt From: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS Subject: laws Federal laws are compiled into something called "United States Code" (USC). Regulations are in something called "Code of Federal Regulations" (CFR). Both of these are many volumes; you are probably interested in Title 47. Yes, a library is the place to go; if they don't have it, the librarian will know where the nearest library is that does. You can most likely find out where to go simply by calling your local public library. -jwd3 ------------------------------ Date: 26 October 1983 19:10 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #84 If you are interested in FCC rulings there are three places to find them. When they first come out, they appear in the Federal Register -- usually about 2-3 weeks after you read in the newspaper that the FCC voted on an issue at some meeting. It takes that long to write up the vote formally. About 2 months later it will be published in a government publication called FCC Reports, which is found in many law libraries and other such places. Finally, regulations, as opposed to the full text of FCC decisions with explanations of their reasoning, will be published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which is found in most libraries. For example, rules about connecting things to the phone line are Part 68 of the commission's rules. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 28-Oct-83 16:52:02-PDT,1053;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 28 Oct 83 16:49:08-PDT Date: 28 Oct 83 1647-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #86 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 29 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #80 Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #80 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Oct 83 1134 EDT (Friday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz@CMU-CS-A> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #80 Oslo Norway indeed does have backwards dials. Most of the rest of Norway is forward. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 83 1134 EDT (Friday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz@CMU-CS-A> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #80 So what other 800-9xx-9999 numbers exist? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 29-Oct-83 14:56:11-PDT,8096;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 29 Oct 83 14:44:38-PDT Date: 29 Oct 83 1439-PDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #87 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 30 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: Re: Vadic vs. 212 Heavy-handed late charges by G T & E. Sprint covers USA Non-Bell Carriers at 1200 baud ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Oct 1983 0028-PDT Subject: Re: Vadic vs. 212 From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> Vadic triple calling another vadic triple will talk vadic protocol under most conditions. When answering, the Vadic offers first a 103/212A initial carrier signal, then, after a time of not receiving a reply, tries vadic protocol, which itself soulds almost exactly like a DTMF '9' signal. If it receives no responce, it will repeat the cycle once and eventually give up. The originating Vadic listens to the initlal 103/212A offering, and after a time, will accept the offer. This time **SHOULD** be greater than the time mentioned in the above paragraph. It is usually VERY close, sometimes shorter. This accounts for the situation you observed. Upon hearing a Vadic format offer carrier, the calling Vadic will respond immediately with its own VA3400 carrier, however. If you want to force them to talk VA3400, which IS preferred, simply pause a bit after the destination has answered, then active the data switch. This increases the effective expect delay, allowing the answer modem to time out and offer VA3400 format before the calling modem gives up. One other note of interest is that while I was at DECUS in Las Vegas, I observed SUBSTANTIALLY better quality with Vadic format over 212A. Las Vegas is "served" (if you can call it that) by Central Telephone. The connections we were able to get, when the tandem wasn't overloaded, were so terrible that one often had trouble with voice communications. When I called a 212A dial-up, on several occasions, the connection was unusable; characters constantly filling my in and out streams. After replacing the calls to a 3400 dial-up, I had clean error-free connctions. This is even the case when I call from home. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 83 20:59:31 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: Heavy-handed late charges by G T & E. Mark Bernsley is 23 cents richer today at the expense of his local phone company, having won a decision that, modest as it may appear, could shape national public utilities policy. Bernsley learned Thursday that General Telephone Co. of California will have to refund a 23-cent late payment charge added to one of his monthly bills. More significantly, the Santa Monica-based utility also will have to recast its method of calculating late-payment fees on customers' bills. How that authority is carried out could well influence how future late-payment fees are calculated and collect by other utilities across the country, a PUC spokesman suggested. General Telephone, largest of the non-Bell System telephone com- panies, had convinced the PUC in 1982 that the failure by 20% of its 2.3 million customers to pay their bills on time forced the utility to bor- row funds at high, short-term interest rates to support day-to-day operations. This, the company said, increase operating costs by $8.5 million, an unfair burden to place on the rates of the majority of customers. Granted authority to dun delinquent customers in August, 1982, Gen- eral Telephone quickly began levying late-payment charges. In Bernsley's case, 23 cents was added to his bill last November, representing 1.5% monthly interest against his unpaid balance from October. But Bernsley maintained that he had paid his October bill, in full and on time. As proof, he offered the canceled check showing that it had cleared before the date on his November bill. Bernsley, a West Long Angeles lawyer specializing in business and tax law, queried General Telephone, learned of the PUC late-payment charge authorization and requested a copy of the order. "Reading the tariff, it seemed clear to me that, since my payment was received before the presentation date on my November bill, it was not late," Bernsley said in an interview. The company, he learned, has unspecified "cutoff dates" for comput- ing customers' bills before the monthly "presentation date" printed on the bills that are distributed in 10 monthly billing cycles. Bernsley's payment, apparently, fell between the undisclosed cutoff date and the "presentation date" on his bill, and so he was assessed a late charge. Since people all over the state were having this done to them," Bernsley said, "I decided to petition the PUC to get this cleared up." That petition led to an order last July requiring General Telephone to spell out exactly how it calculates its late charge. We agree with Bernsley's assertion that the customers have a right to know the actual cutoff date relied upon by General for receipt of payment each month," the PUC said. Bernsley appealed that decision as not going to the heart of his grievance, and on Oct. 19 won the following modifications in General Telephone's late-billing practices: -- The company must refund Bernsley's 23-cent late charge, and "refrain from collecting late charges where payment is received before the presentation date of the following bill" until it can eliminate the "ambiguity" surrounding the late-payment date. -- The company's 1.5% monthly late fee must be lowered in conformity with the formula contained in the California Constitution's usury clause, the PUC held, since utilities, unlike charge-card companies are not exempt from it. General Telephone was granted the right to argue that point in its pending rate-increase case. "It's important that this be clarified, and it will be clarified," said Tom Leweck, a General Telephone spokesman. He said the company collects about $600,000 a month in late charges. Bernsley, by the way, reckons that hiring an expert to present his case and retrieve his 23 cents might have cost "thousands of dollars." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Oct 83 21:07:17 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: Sprint covers USA The following is an excerpt of a letter I received from GTE Sprint today: Now you can save with SPRINT on every out-of-state call you place to every phone in the United States. Sprint is giving you this exciting (sic) new feature at no extra charge. o Save up to 50% on calls to Sprint Network cities o Save up to 35% on calls to other cities. We're also pleased to announce that SPRINT U.S. -- Universal Service includes calling to several off-shore locations. All of our Home SPRINT U.S. Customers in the continental United States are able to call anywhere in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Complete rate information is shown on the reverse. vail ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1983 2057-PDT From: STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL Subject: Non-Bell Carriers at 1200 baud I have switched from Sprint to MCI, after having trouble getting modem connect at 1200 baud on Sprint for any distance over about 50 miles. MCI works fine. Maybe their ads are correct--they claim they use the latest technical equipment. The quality certainly seems to bear that out. So far the score for 1200 baud data calls is: Bell, MCI 100 Sprint, ITT 0 --david-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 30-Oct-83 18:37:23-PST,3109;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 30 Oct 83 18:30:43-PST Date: 30 Oct 83 1826-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #88 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 31 Oct 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Bell vs. Vadic lawsuit against Sprint telecom 800-9xy-9999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29-Oct-83 21:34:24-EDT From: jalbers@BNL Subject: Bell vs. Vadic From a message in V3, I87 reguarding Bell 212 vs. Vadic 1200 baud, I got the impression that some kind of error checking is done with the Vadic. Does anyone know what is done? I am very interested.. Jon (jalbers@bnl) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 83 21:48:00 EDT (Sat) From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: lawsuit against Sprint A lawyer in New Jersey has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sprint for allegedly billing for incompleted calls. He claims that they start charging after one minute, regardless of whether or not the called party answers. Sprint has refused comment on the charges, but points out that they don't have access to the supervision circuits (yet), and they're willing to credit customers who complain. The lawyer points out that they very carefully don't tell people how they charge for calls. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Oct 83 18:03:45 PDT From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: telecom I forgot to state that the information concerning General Telephone's late charges, included in Issue 87 of Telecom, 1983, was a complete copy of an article in the Business Section of the Los Angeles Times published on Friday, October 28, 1983. A similar article appeared in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook on the same day. vail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Oct 83 22:55:30 PDT From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: 800-9xy-9999 Here is a list of 800-9xy-9999 #'s as of 9/29/83. (dialed from 415) (dialed during DST) 916--National Weather Service--I think Cleveland (Lake Erie) 917--NWS--maybe Cincinatti (EDT, on River) 918-EDT Time only 919-EDT Time, ad for Cincinatti (?) Dept. Store 920-CDT T&T from Cintell (sp?) Bank 940-CDT T&T from 1st National B&T Co. 953-MDT T&T from KRDO (Colo. Springs per N. Am. R&TV Station Guide, 14th Ed-- Vane A. Jones, publ. by Howard Sams) 955 St. Louis NWS 956 Safety Fed. Sav/KCMO T&T (K.C.) 957 WWV-National Bureau of Stds. 958 Mountain Bell T&T, with PDT/MST--most likely Phoenix 959 Oklahoma Cy NWS 960 Albuqerque Sunwest Bank T&T 968 Albuqerque NWS 970 Republic Bank T&T-CDT 990 Mountain T&T, request for ads 996 United Missouri T&T, CDT 998 Denver NWS ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 31-Oct-83 16:56:42-PST,4572;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 31 Oct 83 16:49:58-PST Date: 31 Oct 83 1646-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #89 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 1 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 89 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #88 MCI system N.Y. State Government Phones FCC Rules and Regulations letter prefix Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #85 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 83 23:19:37 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #88 OK...if you want to get into the trivia: 303-963-xxxx is just a reserved exchange in Denver which has varous things on it: 1111-road conditions on one side of the city. 1234-rode conditions on the other 1311-Time/Temperature In C&P land: 301-WE6-XXXX: National Weather Service (C&P) 301-TI4-XXXX: C&P Time Wasn't it in San Francisco that you dialed POPCORN for the weather. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon 31 Oct 83 01:31:44-PST From: David Roode <ROODE%SRI-NIC@SRI-NIC> Subject: MCI system Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 It looks to me like they have an X.25 gateway to the VAX that they use--i.e., it is not the standard (physical) terminal driver with which you interact. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 83 08:15:22 PST From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: N.Y. State Government Phones There was an article in yesterday's N.Y. Times about N.Y. State's new phone systems. It shows what large long distance users are likely to do in the future, especially if the rates are kept artificially high so as to subsidize local service. New York has private lines from Albany to New York City, and will be getting in more soon, from Albany to the cities along the old Erie Canal. Their computer system can instantly determine, for example, that an employee code is only valid for dialing Washington, D.C. at priority #3. If it is at 9 A.M., the call may be routed on a cheap route to California, and back to Washington, D.C. at Pacific Time night rates. The system can choose between several long distance sellers, including AT&T, MCI, et. al. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 83 11:31 EST (Monday) From: Wheeler.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: FCC Rules and Regulations My copy of Volume II of the FCC Rules and Regulations has this entry as a notice at the beginning: The FCC Rules and Regulations are grouped into ten volumes and sold in volume units by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. The price of the volume entitles the purchaser to receive its amended pages for an indefinite period. The volumes are then listed, showing which parts are included in each. The address is Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Jack Wheeler - Xerox - Rochester ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Oct 83 12:05:15 EST From: cmoore@brl-bmd Subject: letter prefix In Delaware County, Pa. yesterday, I noticed that there was still a letter prefix (215-EL6, Newtown Square exchange) on the label on a pay phone. Phone books in the Phila. area now use all-number prefixes (change within the last few years). ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1983 14:14-EST From: york at scrc-vixen at mit-mc Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #85 My group will be moving into new office space soon and we are looking at commercial phone systems. The best pick so far looks like a system from Executone, called "Command". The system supports up to 8 CO lines and 16 stations. Each station has a speaker, as well as a button for each of the other stations in the system (i.e. you don't have to remember your co-workers' extension numbers) and a button for each outside line. The price is reasonable and the people seem reasonable. Does anyone have any experience with this vendor or this system? Comments on other particularly winning or losing systems will be appreciated. Reply to me unless you think that the comments are of general interest. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 1-Nov-83 14:49:18-PST,2861;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 1 Nov 83 14:45:37-PST Date: 1 Nov 83 1441-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #90 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 2 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 90 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #89 212 modem experience with MCI S.F. Popcorn (V3, #89) Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #88 Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #89 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 31 Oct 83 21:26:43-PST From: John Reuling <Reuling@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #89 on trivia- No, POPCORN gets you time of day in San Francisco (as well as in the rest of 415). To get Weather in 415, call WENDELL! -John ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Oct 83 13:47:00 EDT From: scrod!johnl%ima@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: John Levine@BRL-BMD.ARPA, The I.E.C.C.@BRL-BMD.ARPA, Subject: 212 modem experience with MCI I use MCI all the time for 1200 baud modem communications. When I can get through, it works fine without noticably more glitching than Bell. (Getting through is a pain because I'm using the Boston MCI "credit card" access number which is often busy. The regular access which I use from home works fine.) On another note, I am dubious about claims that the Vadic protocol is much more noise-resistant than is 212. On a Vadic modem it is, but the Vadic modem is an ancient design. Modern modems may well do as well with 212 as Vadic does with 3400. John Levine, ima!johnl and/or Levine@YALE.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Nov 83 06:51:13 PST From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: S.F. Popcorn (V3, #89) No, it's time that's P-O-P-C-O-R-N in S.F. (actually 767-abcd) Weather is 936-abcd. (or WE6 if you prefer) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 83 08:41:18 PST (Tuesday) From: Sabiers.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #88 Ron, If my memory serves me, POPCORN (or 767-xxxx, where x is any number) gives the caller the time in Northern California (Pacific Telephone territory). Now a helpless GTE customer, Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Nov 83 09:47 PST From: Swenson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #89 "Wasn't it in San Francisco that you dialed POPCORN for the weather." In the Bay Area, time, not weather, was ROchester 7-8900. Actually, RO7- NNNN, where n is non-zero and perhaps non-1. POPCORN works. Bob Swenson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 2-Nov-83 17:23:11-PST,6233;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 2 Nov 83 17:17:43-PST Date: 2 Nov 83 1715-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #91 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 3 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 91 Today's Topics: POPCORN in San Francisco Gen Tel struggles back 1200 Baud modems Home Wiring and Choosing Numbers In Pacific-Telephone Territory Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #90 Bay Area time-of-day # demo of MCImail MCI mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Nov 1983 1425-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: POPCORN in San Francisco POPCORN is our time number ("at the tone, the time will be..."). Actually, it's just (415) 767-nnnn where nnnn can be any four digits, but CORN is easier to remember for most people. --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 1 Nov 1983 15:19-PST Subject: Gen Tel struggles back From: obrien@rand-unix I am not a true telecommunications expert (though when the wind's in the East I know a hawk from a handsaw). However, I thought I'd mention something that's going on in the Santa Monica/Ocean Park/Venice area which is rather obvious to everyone living here. For a couple of months now, Gen Tel has been replacing just about every wire pair in the entire area. There are areas in certain intersections which have been staked out from 8AM-5PM as Gen Tel territory every day while people work down in manholes. New junction boxes are going in on the streetcorners, and alleys are closed down for days while men go up poles and replace cable, even replacing the drops to people's houses. It ranks as one of the biggest, if more unobtrusive, public works projects I've seen. And, for a wonder, things are getting better. My phone used to drop off into space down at the CO about 1/3 of the time, but now I actually can't remember the last call that didn't complete. I never actually thought it would happen, but Gen Tel is getting its act together. Maybe I'll actually have an electronic exchange by the turn of the century! (Though I'll never get call waiting. I want my data calls to stay completed. Does this mean I'd rather talk to computers than people?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue 1 Nov 83 17:42:11-CST From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: 1200 Baud modems I'm starting to see more and more 1200 baud modems appearing on the market, with the price dropping steadily to the point where they are within reach of many people who couldn't afford them before. Has anybody tried to put together any information to aid those of us who are shopping around? I'm thinking of something like MIT's TERMS.INFO file for terminals. I would hate to get stuck with a $250-$300 turkey. The particular modem which prompted this message is the Signalman Mark XII modem put out by Anchor Automation, Inc. I picked up a brochure for it at DEXPO last week. It supports auto-dial and is 103/212A compatible. An educational discount brings the price down to $265. Does anybody have any experience with this beast? ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 1 Nov 1983 17:16-PST Subject: Home Wiring and Choosing Numbers In Pacific-Telephone Subject: Territory From: nomdenet@Rand-Unix I want to get a second telephone line specifically for use with my terminal. I live in Pacific-Telephone territory, and I have two questions: - Does Pacific Telephone permit people to do their own house wiring? - Do I have a choice of the line's number, or even of the last four digits, or must I accept what Pacific assigns me? Please respond to me, and not to the list. TIA, Bert White Nomdenet @ Rand-UNIX (213) 393-0411 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1983 2026-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #90 From: Mike Newton <Newton@CIT-20> In the North Bay Area (several years ago) POPCORN got you the time, but an unknown feature of the POP prefix was that POP-0011 was the ring- your-own phone number. (At least from the 707-64x area). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Nov 83 7:45:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Bay Area time-of-day # I have seen 767 exchange listed in 415 as time of day, but I was never able to call it long-distance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 2 Nov 83 08:40:34-PST From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-AI.ARPA> Subject: demo of MCImail The file <ROODE>MCIMAIL.DEMO contains a transcript of a brief demo session with MCIMAIL. I thought some people might be curious. This file is on host SRI-AI. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Nov 83 16:41:55 EDT From: matt%aplvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: MCI mail [Please ignore this letter if it is a second posting - I am unsure whether the first one got there] ---------- I tried today to register with MCI mail and everytime it asked for type of account (busines, etc.) I got the following message ***ADB Fatal Error*** code 1 --> 000065537 code 2 --> 000000000 %NONAME-F-NOMSG, Message number 00013D14 %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows modules name routine name line line rel PC abs PC G5ABORT G5ABORT 12 00000016 00030092 CHXDBIO CHXDBIO 754 0000021A 0002EB92 BGNUPD BGNUPD 528 0000005F 0002B56B AUTOREG AUTOREG 1769 000005CE 000251CE Later that same day everything worked. Nothing like tested code, huh? matthew diaz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 4-Nov-83 15:26:28-PST,6881;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 4 Nov 83 15:17:01-PST Date: 4 Nov 83 1514-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #92 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 5 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 92 Today's Topics: Requesting a phone number MCI mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 3 Nov 83 16:28:53 PST From: tekchips!wm.tektronix@Rand-Relay Subject: Requesting a phone number I just moved and I seem to be having a slight squabble with the local phone company. I should mention that the company I am having problems with is GTE, not that I have anything against them since I have never done business with them before. I called in to order service, and I asked if I could choose a phone number. I've always asked if I could have a choice of numbers, and while sometimes I've had problems talking them into it, I usually at least gotten my choice of a few dozen free numbers. Until now. The first person I called said I could not choose my number. She said that the computer assigned them and she could not alter that in any way. The number the computer assigned me was attrocious. So I canceled the order. The second try got me someone who said she COULD give me a requested number. We tried a couple until we found one that was free and not reserved for business use. So far so good. I got a number I wanted! When the Friday came when my service was to begin, my phone did not work. The next Monday, I called the business office, and they had no record of my order. After talking to several people, including a supervisor, I was told that I would have to start over and do a new order, AND (here comes the interesting part) they said that I would have to take "whatever number was assigned to me." I had not mentioned to them that I wanted a specific number, so I found it curious that they had "lost" my order, but somehow knew that I had gotten a requested number. I refused to start a new order, and requested to talk to a supervisor, since I now knew that it was possible to request a number (it had been done for me). The operator did not want to let me talk to a supervisor. In fact, through all this I have never been able to talk to anyone above the first level supervisors. Back in Texas, I've gotten as high as a vice president. I finally talked to someone who magically knew all the people I had talked to, and who also said that my order had been canceled because that number was reserved for business use. I knew this was wrong, and they changed their story to say that it was part of a block that was reserved for incoming calls only. This person also told me that she had talked to the lady who had taken my order originally and she had canceled it and was supposed to contact me because that number was reserved. When I tried to talk to the person who had taken my order, they said she worked at another office. I called that office and they said no, that she was, indeed, at the original office, but that she was on vacation. At this point I was getting perturbed at the number of different stories I was getting. When I pointed out the discrepancies to them, the representative I was talking to got all huffy like I was calling her a liar. I assured her that I was not calling her a liar, but that I had gotten at least three different stories and I just wanted to know which was correct. To which she blithely said, "They're all correct!" I got a supervisor to admit that they could choose numbers, but that it took too much time, and "if everyone did it...". Already they are getting $30 just to throw a switch (I have my own phones, and there was already service at the house), but I told them I would gladly pay extra for the right to pick my number. I told them I would keep placing orders and canceling until I got a number I liked, thinking that would convice her that it would be cheaper just to give me a number I want. She said they should charge me $20 every time I did that. I asked them if they were tarriffed to do that. That's only a brief symopsis. My complaints are: They are claiming I cannot choose a number "because of the computer". I know this is a lie. They also canceled my order, I assume because some supervisor found out that one of the representatives had done something nice for someone. They also keep lying to me. I imagine I have no right to any specific number, in fact, I would guess that the tarriffs say that they can change my number any time they want to. Do I have any recourse? At this point, I am simply doing without a phone, I'm so pissed off at them. Have they done anything illegal? Why are all of the "good" numbers reserved for businesses? I can understand blocks of numbers being reserved, but this is rediculous. I know this is probably hopeless, but can anyone out there help or offer suggestions? Up the creek without a phone, Wm Leler wm.Tektronix@Rand-relay *!tektronix!tekchips!wm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, Sept 28 1983 From: TIM%VPIVM2.BITNET@Berkeley (Ron Jarrell) Reply-to: TIM@VPIVM2.BITNET@BERKELEY.ARPA Subject: MCI mail Got my welcome package. It weighed about 2 pounds. According to it, the advanced mode, which allows you to use commands instead of menus, also allows you to store message for 5 days, do bulk mail, and maintaining mailing lists. Basic service only allows you 24 hour storage. There is also a service that allows you to register your letterhead or signature, which will then be digitized and stored for their laser printer. Advanced service allows you to store multiple ones and call them as needed. This costs $20 annually to maintain the graphics. Advanced costs $10 monthly, to cover "storage allocated". I have a pending question to find out if that is accurate, or if it depends on usage. According to my package, membership in MCI mail automatically gives you an account on Dow Jones, and vice versa, though apparently they haven't finished the connection, because using the dowjones command reports "Command not implemented yet." I \did/ get a set of information and instruction sheets on dowjones though. Seems to be halfway decent. Only problem is that the phone numbers are only in certain cities. Still waiting to see if they are keeping the 800. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 5-Nov-83 17:39:57-PST,3954;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 5 Nov 83 17:32:10-PST Date: 5 Nov 83 1731-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #93 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 6 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 93 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #92 WWV # WWV Up the creek without a phone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Nov 1983 16:34-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #92 From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL Re: Requesting a phone number [from GTE]. Last month, in the process of acquiring Mobile Telephone Service on the GTE Los Gatos Mobile System, I WAS CALLED by their Sales Rep after receiving my check for $23.00 and Transmitter Specs. When the Rep called, I asked if I could have a specific number. [I knew this number was available, because Los Gatos has all their mobile numbers in a certain pre-fix, and by dialing the number I wanted, I got a not in service recording.] When I asked if I could have my requested number, the Rep put me on hold to see if it was available. Moments later, the Rep came back on the line and said I could have the requested number and it would be activated in 3 working days. Now, I don't know whether Mobile Service is treated any differently than land-line service (of any type), but I was able to request and get my requested number! An interesting aside about Mobile Service... All I had to pay for was one months Service ($23.00) up-front. There was no insecurity deposit or connection/service establishment charge! Perhaps the solution to your problems is to get a mobile phone! Geoff ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Nov 83 10:49:24 PST From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: WWV # 800-957-9999 now gets you an operator who asks "What City?" (Directory assistance?) Some of the other 800-999-abcd #'s still exist. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Nov 83 10:50:56 PST From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: WWV Oops--I meant 800-9xy-abcd The # was 800-957-9999 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Nov 83 14:59:44 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: Up the creek without a phone. Wm. Leler writes of his frustrations of dealing with G. T. & E. He writes that they appeared to deliberately mislead him and even seemed to lie. As a long time customer of G. T. & E., I can assure him that the problems he describes are not uncommon, and that while, as has been noted in Telecom, G. T. & E. is trying to bring its physical equipment up to standard, it seems to be making little attempt to bring its office employees up to the normal standards of civility and politeness one is accustomed to. My own experience is that the installers, linepersons, etc. are most helpful, but that the office staff is inadequately trained, underpaid, and overworked. Moreover they believe that the "system" works. That is if they fill out the form initiating a certain action, e.g. installation, bill changing, etc., that this action actually will occur. In recent years, it has attempted superficial improvements in public relations -- e.g. holding open houses at its switching offices, especially when new switches have just been installed. At the last such open house I attended, they were replacing a Strowger step-by-step switch, installed in the 1930's, by a Western Electric EAX-1, designed in the early 1970's. They have a long way to go! Welcome to the Land of G. T. & E. vail ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Nov-83 13:09:30-PST,3769;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 7 Nov 83 13:04:26-PST Date: 7 Nov 83 1304-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #94 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 8 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 94 Today's Topics: L on delete and advanced features. Toll free WWV MCI Mail and the 800 number ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: L on delete and advanced features. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL Date: Sat Nov 05, 1983 12:37 pm PST From: MCI Mail Customer Service / MCI ID: 106-0184 TO: * Geoffrey S. Goodfellow / MCI ID: 103-7391 Subject: Delete Key and Advanced Features We do not support the delete and backspace keys to delete a previous character, because those keys may send different messages when used. We therefore settled on Control H so we could support all our users in a uniform manner. What is probably happenning with you delete key is that the previous character is being deleted, and also whatever is on that line is being transmitted. That is why a control key will not do anything at that point--those characters are gone. If you ever use delete and wonder what really happened to your message, read your draft (or outbox, if the message is sent.) Our advanced services will have a minimum charge for storage provided, whether or not you use that additional storage. Craig Customer Service 5-Nov-83 21:35:14-PST,344;000000000001 Return-path: <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 1983 08:24:14-EST From: prindle at NADC Subject: Toll free WWV WOW! The so-called toll free WWV number (800-957-9999) now goes through to Denver local directory assistance (like 411 or 1-555-1212). The operators there have no idea why, but admit they are besieged with calls for WWV! ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 1983 1231-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI Mail and the 800 number Since none of their access numbers are local to me, I sent a message to User service asking if the 800 number would stay in effect. The answer was yes. But who knows if user services really knows anything. I sent them a fairly long complaint about the behaviour of "delete" -- (try it; I don't feel like explaining it again). I basically suggested that they make delete and backspace work the same. The response was "Precisely for the reason you have stated (one of the reasons was that deletes occur randomly as errors, and their response to delete is bizarre and disgusting) we tell users to use CTRL/H and do not accept DELETE or backspace." As most of us know, CTRL/H is backspace. And a previous reply from user services had told me that delete was accepted, but that the character would not be erased from the screen. And now I've almost given it all away -- the rest of the bizarre behaviour is that after delete has been used (or received as noise), neither CTRL/R nor CTRL/H work properly with earlier portions of the line. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Nov-83 14:34:06-PST,7450;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 8 Nov 83 14:22:31-PST Date: 8 Nov 83 1420-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #95 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 9 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: sorry MCI delete key 800-9xy-9999 HELP ADVANCED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Nov 1983 1336-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: sorry Yesterday's issue was subject to the typical Digestifier bug. I know what the problem is, but I haven't come up with a fix for it. I can avoid the problem manually, but like all manual operations, occasionally something falls through the crack. --Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Nov 83 20:30 EST From: Dennis Rockwell <drockwel@BBN-Vax> Subject: MCI delete key Hmm... last night (at about 2245) I accidentally hit the DELETE key on my terminal while entering a postal address, and my session wedged. I hung up the phone and redialled (using both the local Boston number and the 800 number), got the modem tone, but I never got any response to my CRs. I could believe that, if they use the 800 number routing features, that both numbers would get me to the same MCI PAD, so is it possible that the PAD itself got wedged somehow? I haven't yet tried to see if there is still a DRAFT (sounds like I'm insulating my house...). Did anyone else in the Boston area experience a service interruption about that time? Also, I suspect that MCI didn't want to sanction use of the BS or DEL keys because there are terminals which send some sort of "cursor left" or "delete character" code when such a key is struck; this would also be the case for "right arrow" keys. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Nov 83 17:39:11 PST From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: 800-9xy-9999 These numbers now all seem to give a recorded message about how they can't complete the call. No more Oklahoma City weather, no more WWV, no more Colorado directory assistance. ------------------------------ Date: 8-Nov-83 09:36:09-EST From: jmh@BNL The lack of RUB, is just one several problems with the MCI Mail editor. When editing lines (and they put this in as a "feature") you must enter 1) the line number 2) the old text 3) the new text. It seems they put these three requirements in, so that if you want to change one word, you can just enter the old word, and then the new word. I admit that this is useful, but what about if you want to change a phrase (5 words) wouldn't be easier just to type the whole line over? Or how about if you want to change the whole sentence? No provisions were made for longer editing... To change a line you have two options: 1) Use Change (and type in old line, and new line) 2) Delete the old line, and use insert to type in the new line. Either way you waste time, either typing in old text, or waiting for menus to scroll by. (unless you have ADVANCED services) The solution seems to be... just use your own editor, or word processor then upload the message to MCI. Quite a few people using MCI will be using Apples, and Ataris, and other lower priced computers which use ctrl-H, so it is unlikely MCI will do anything about the RUB key. I received a letter in my MCI Mailbox today (which I assume they sent out to everyone) It informed me that I should type HELP ADVANCED to find out about their new service. The first feature they will provide for $10/month is ** NO MENUS **. In an average session a user might see 6 or 7 menus (and 5 or 6 for each letter he types in). These menus are usually six 80 column lines. It only took me one day to learn the my options at each prompt, and now I must wade throguh menus. It seems like what they are doing by asking for $10/month is "blackmail." If we pay them, they won't FORCE us to see menus. All the other services listed under ADVANCED, were certainly worth it (e.g. storage, forwarding, multiple letterheads.) I, not using MCI Mail for business, have no use for any of those advanced features. I am also not willing to pay $10/month for the "feature" of aborting menus (which should be standard and expected.) The only thing one must consider is the fact that they are not charging for basic monthly service or on-line charges. If they were charging for on-line time, then abortable menus would be demanded by most users. I feel that if I send 10 letters a month using MCI Mail, that they should allow me to skip menus, without adding $120 to my bill each year. If you agree, PLEASE write them a letter (to MCIHELP) and tell them what you think. It will take quite a few of us to push them into a new po ------------------------------ Date: Mon 7 Nov 83 19:07:06-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: HELP ADVANCED Advanced MCI Mail will be available to users beginning the middle of November. The initial service charge is $10.00/month. If you'd like to submit your subscription request now, send an MCI Mail message TO: MCIHELP. Not sure why you might want to become an Advanced user? ***** "Command:" prompts instead of menus. As an Advanced user, you get the control and flexibility to enter commands and options when you want them, the way you want them. ***** Address a number of people at once with a mailing list. Create a mailing list with everyone's name on it -- and send your message TO: the listname. A single entry -- but everyone on the list gets the message. A list can have any number of electronic and postal addresses alike. ***** Avoid the multiple listing for similar names; create a personal "address book". If you always have to select your Joe Smith from the display of other Joe Smiths on the system -- create a mailing list just for Joe's name, and use it every time you need to address him. ***** Forward a message to someone else. When you want to pass along some information you've received, you can forward a copy of the message, including a "cover letter" from you with your own comments about what you're forwarding. ***** Choose a different "style" of correspondence. In addition to the business-letter style on MCI Mail, you can opt to send a more casual MEMO, where the paper copy looks just like the electronic copy, with the complete envelope including all TO and CC recipient names. ***** Use another letterhead, another signature. An Advanced user can register additional signature and letterhead graphics. Add the personal yet professional touch to your MEMOs and LETTERs using a logo and signature that reflect a formal or informal style. ***** A bigger Mailbox, with longer message retention. Advanced service allows up to 250 kilobytes of storage, as well as 5 days' storage for your messages and DRAFTS. If you need more storage, we'll increase your Mailbox by another 250 kilobytes at $10/month; there's no limit to the size Mailbox you may have. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 9-Nov-83 14:14:02-PST,3724;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 9 Nov 83 14:06:24-PST Date: 9 Nov 83 1407-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #96 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 10 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 96 Today's Topics: MCI Mail and the Delete key Restrictive telecom regulations in Germany dead numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Nov 1983 0451-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI Mail and the Delete key I've sent them a message complaining again about the behaviour of the delete key. I've told them that their reply shows that "we are still not communicating." What I'd like to tell them is that they don't know what they are talking about (BS=CTRL/H -- even though they say they tell users not to use BS, but to use CTRL/H). I've asked to speak to someone in charge when I get back from Europe next week. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1983 0509-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Restrictive telecom regulations in Germany By the way, since I just mentioned that I'm in Europe, I thought you folks would like to know that there are incredibly restrictive telecom regulations here. I could go on and on for ages about them, but here are just a few: Total Post Office monopoly on modems, and essentially EVERYTHING dealing with telecommunications. (About a year ago I sent a long article discussing this from the telephone user's viewpoint to the digest.) No computer may be used as a switching service between different services. What that means is that although I can "SET HOST" from within our office to a system within our private network, I can only do this when I am physically within our building. If I dial into this same local system via a modem from outside the building, I may neither set host nor use MAIL to communicate with anyone not on a node within the building. They do have a few neat things, though. All the major trains (which run hourly on the main lines) are equipped with payphones. You can call essentially any diallable point in the world (the rate is twice the normal rate due to the radio-telephone -- but that's actually about the same as from a hotel). (By the way, you can only make calls to diallable points from any pay phone; any other kind of call must be made from a private phone or Post Office. Credit card calls to the U.S. are not permitted from Germany, although if you go to a Post Office and make a collect call, the person accepting the call can give a credit card number.) All payphones are outgoing only, although they are beginning to introduce some public incoming only phones in a few key places -- I could, for example, call my PC and have it call me back at the incoming phone. They may be able to convert the existing outward only payphones to two-way service, but there seems to be a charge manipulation problem which they discovered when they tried it earlier this year. Regards/John ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1983 05:26-PST Subject: dead numbers From: Geoffrey C. Mulligan (AFDSC, The Pentagon) <GEOFFM@SRI-CSL> Reply-to: geoffm@SRI-CSL Does anyone know of any dead numbers, ie numbers that when dialed, answer but have no noise or tones? I am looking for a number local to the Washington DC area. geoff ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 10-Nov-83 15:35:28-PST,6491;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 10 Nov 83 15:26:50-PST Date: 10 Nov 83 1515-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #97 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 11 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 97 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #96 Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #96 Canada to US 800 Service Auto dialing modems that can detect dial tones More on Access Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Nov 1983 14:21-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #96 From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL Re: MCIMAIL, the DELETE key & speaking to someone in charge. I notice that William McGowan has an MCIMAIL ID, as does Vint Cerf. So if dealing with their Customer DisService fails to yield results, you might try the top-down approach. Geoff ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1983 15:06-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #96 From: SAC.ADR@USC-ISIE subj: dead numbers in wash dc area try 695-9944 or 9948. for what it's worth... 692-9947 and 9948 form a loop around. 9947 gives you a tone; 9948 is silent. if one person calls 9947 and another calls 9948, they will be bridged together. the tone on 9947 goes away immediately prior to the bridging. george rezac, sac.adr at usc-isie ------------------------------ From: pyuxbb!ggr%eagle@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 4 Nov 83 18:15:07 EST (Fri) From: Guy Riddle <decvax!pyuxbb!ggr@BRL-BMD.ARPA> Subject: Canada to US 800 Service Reply-to: prnews%whuxg.uucp@BRL-BMD.ARPA /***** whuxh:pr.presstp / mhwpd!prnews / 10:23 am Nov 2, 1983*/ AT&T PROPOSES TO SET UP CANADA-TO-U.S. 800 SERVICE, Wall Street Journal, 11/2, p.6. AT&T has filed a proposal with the FCC to establish toll-free 800 service to the U.S. from Canada. The proposal seeks greater flexibility for customers by allowing them to change routing destinations at their terminals. AT&T also asked the FCC to halve the 90-day waiting period beftween the filing and the effective date of the new service. A similar service, proposed by Telecom Canada for U.S. residents calling Canada, will begin Jan. 1. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 10 Nov 1983 07:09-PST Subject: Auto dialing modems that can detect dial tones From: norm@Rand-Unix (Norman_Shapiro) I'm looking for an autodialing modem that can detect and wait for dial tones. Actually, it needn't be a modem, any RS232C driven autodialer will do. I already know about the VOAD product. Thanks much, Norm Shapiro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 83 08:03:30 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> The following is an excerpt from a leaflet included in my latest bill from General Telephone: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Public Hearings on General Telephone's Rate Increase Application The California Public Utilities Commission will hold public hearings as listed here concerning the request of General Telphone Company of California (General) to increase its revenue by $318.7 million during 1984. Some of General's proposed rates are as follows: Present Proposed % rate rate change -------- -------- ------ Residential service -- Los Angeles Metropolitan Areas Flat Rate $ 7.75 $15.30 97.4% Measured Rate 2.80 (30) 3.75 (15) 33.9 Business Service -- Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Measured Rate 7.20 14.60 102.7 PBX 7.20 14.60 102.7 Semi-Public Coin 17.50 44.60 154.9 Residential Service -- Non-Metropolitan Areas Basic Flat Rate 7.75 15.30 97.4 Lifleline Flat Rate None 7.65 -- Business Service -- Non-Metropolitan Areas Basic Flat Rate 17.20 30.95 79.0 Basic PBX 25.95 47.00 81.1 Basic Semi-Public Coin 17.50 44.60 154.9 Operator Busy-Line Verification .25 .75 200 Coin Telephone -- Local Call .10 .25 150 Foreign Exchange and Private Line rates will also be affected. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The leaflet goes on to add that rates will also increse for Public and Semi-Public Coin Service (from 10 to 25 cents) Private Line and Foreign Exchange Service (amount unspecified) Service Connection Charge ($3 - 15 for residential and $3 - 25 for business) Business Terminal Equipment Services (6.5 %) Verification and Interrupt Services (25 to 75 cents) Usage Sensitive Service (beginning in late 1985 and "only in a few communities") Business Measured and Optional Residence Measured Service (to be expanded) Lifeline Service for Non-Measured Areas (to be made available in more areas) Other Services: Charges for directory assistance -- 25 cents each after 5 calls per mo. Increased rates for ORTS/OCMS (Optional Residential Telphone Service/ Optional Calling Measured Service), measured local service and ZUM (Zone usage measurement). The average increase appears to exceed 100%. Perhaps G. T. & E. will become a major growth stock? vail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 83 11:32:14 EST From: A B Cooper III <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: More on Access Charges The flap over possible action by Congress on access charges being levied by the BOCs is really heating up. What surprises me is that, as far as I can tell, no one has suggested that the long distance companies (ATT, MCI, SPRINT, et al) themselves should foot the bill for interconnection. After all, they are the ultimate beneficiaries of BOC access. They could recover this expense in the same manner as any other: figure it into the rates they charge. Brint ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 11-Nov-83 17:03:40-PST,6382;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 11 Nov 83 16:55:04-PST Date: 11 Nov 83 1641-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #98 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 12 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 98 Today's Topics: Re: More on Access Charges GenTel rate increase, etc. Auto dialing modems that can detect dial tones MCI-Mail charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Nov 1983 1936-PST From: Chris <Pace@USC-ECLC> Subject: Re: More on Access Charges Yes, that is interesting. It seems to me that it is a fairly logical, if not obvious alternative to interconnect charges to the BOC. Making the Long Distance Caller pay for the interconnect charges seems far more fair than nailing all those folks who rarely use long distance. Chris. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 10 Nov 1983 23:50-PST Subject: GenTel rate increase, etc. From: lauren@rand-unix GenTel's application is right in line with PacTel's recent application. There's an interesting aspect to this -- PacTel (soon to be called "Pacific*Bell") claims that much of their increase is needed due to the AT&T divestiture. However, GenTel has NOT undergone such divestiture, but the proposed rate structures are almost identical. This seems to imply that something is fishy in one or both companies... but we already all knew that, didn't we boys and girls? If GenTel follows PacTel's lead on FX service, they will propose approximately a quintupling of rates for in-place residential FX service, and attempt to not install any new residential FX services. Under the PacTel plan, in-place residential FX would end up costing MORE than business FX! --- The House just passed a bill preventing the activation of the interstate access charges. The related Senate bill will probably pass without difficulty. It is *not* clear to me at this time how this will affect the INTRAstate access charges that have been proposed in California. It should be noted that it most definitely HAS been proposed that the alternate carriers (MCI, Sprint, etc.) pay into the USF (Universal Service Fund) to help support residential telephone services -- this is where the money would come from INSTEAD of from the customer-based interstate access charges. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Nov 83 08:58 EST From: clark.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Auto dialing modems that can detect dial tones I think a Vadic VA212 can... --Ray Clark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Nov 83 09:17:44 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Apparently the tabs got lost in the message I send to telecom, issue 97. Here is a copy with the tabs expanded to blanks: The following is an excerpt from a leaflet included in my latest bill from General Telephone: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Public Hearings on General Telephone's Rate Increase Application The California Public Utilities Commission will hold public hearings as listed here concerning the request of General Telphone Company of California (General) to increase its revenue by $318.7 million during 1984. Some of General's proposed rates are as follows: Present Proposed Percent rate rate change -------- -------- ------ Residential service -- Los Angeles Metropolitan Areas Flat Rate $ 7.75 $15.30 97.4% Measured Rate 2.80 (30) 3.75 (15) 33.9 Business Service -- Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Measured Rate 7.20 14.60 102.7 PBX 7.20 14.60 102.7 Semi-Public Coin 17.50 44.60 154.9 Residential Service -- Non-Metropolitan Areas Basic Flat Rate 7.75 15.30 97.4 Lifleline Flat Rate None 7.65 -- Business Service -- Non-Metropolitan Areas Basic Flat Rate 17.20 30.95 79.0 Basic PBX 25.95 47.00 81.1 Basic Semi-Public Coin 17.50 44.60 154.9 Operator Busy-Line Verification .25 .75 200 Coin Telephone -- Local Call .10 .25 150 Foreign Exchange and Private Line rates will also be affected. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The leaflet goes on to add that rates will also increse for Public and Semi-Public Coin Service (from 10 to 25 cents) Private Line and Foreign Exchange Service (amount unspecified) Service Connection Charge ($3 - 15 for residential and $3 - 25 for business) Business Terminal Equipment Services (6.5 %) Verification and Interrupt Services (25 to 75 cents) Usage Sensitive Service (beginning in late 1985 and "only in a few communities") Business Measured and Optional Residence Measured Service (to be expanded) Lifeline Service for Non-Measured Areas (to be made available in more areas) Other Services: Charges for directory assistance -- 25 cents each after 5 calls per month. Increased rates for ORTS/OCMS (Optional Residential Telphone Service/ Optional Calling Measured Service), measured local service and ZUM (Zone usage measurement). The average increase appears to exceed 100%. Perhaps G. T. & E. will become a major growth stock? vail ------------------------------ Date: 11 November 1983 17:55 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: MCI-Mail charges One nice feature about the charging scheme for MCI Mail, is that there is no connect time charge for calling up to READ incoming mail. Thus, unlike systems such as Telemail, you don't pay anything for time spent reading junk mail. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 12-Nov-83 13:00:20-PST,11045;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 12 Nov 83 12:47:18-PST Date: 12 Nov 83 1236-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #99 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 13 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 99 Today's Topics: MCIMail Access charges Access charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 November 1983 20:45 EST From: Leigh L. Klotz <KLOTZ @ MIT-MC> Subject: MCIMail I just joined the crowd in complaining about the control character lossage (inability to redisplay lines after a control character is typed), and the lack of a suitable function for the RUBOUT key. I also complained that about having to pay $10/month if you want to get rid of the menus. The machine I was using this evening lost its net connection to wherever, and I lost the message I was mailing, but not the header! I'm reasonably satisfied with MCIMail, but I'd be interested in hearing from people who develop uploading software for editing on personal computers and mailing in a batch mode so you don't have to interact with their editor. Leigh. [Sigh, I don't even have my welcome package yet. I registered over 3 weeks ago! --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 12 November 1983 09:20 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: Access charges Okay, let's go over this one more time. Access charges are NOT charges for access to the long distance network; the name is a misnomer. Everyone who has telephone service has a wire that runs from his or her premises to the local central office. The cost to the phone company of installing and maintaining this wire does not depend on the number of calls you make over the wire -- in regulatory parlance it's called Non Traffic Sensitive (NTS) plant. This same wire is used for making both local and long distance calls. Question: how should you recover from the customer the annual cost of this wire (maintenance plus depreciation)? Since its cost doesn't depend at all on how much you use it, it seems reasonable to charge a fixed rate per month for NTS plant. Alternatively, if the average cost per customer of NTS plant is $25, and the average household makes 250 minutes of calls per month, you could tack $.10 per minute on all calls (on top of actual usage sensitive costs), and collect -- on average -- the right total amount. With this system, you'd under collect from people who made few calls, and you'd over collect from people who made a lot of calls. Now if I were one of the people who made a lot of calls, and I saw I was paying 3 or 4 times my share for NTS plant, I'd look around for some kind of substitute system where I wouldn't be paying to cover the NTS costs for some other guy who doesn't make a lot of calls. I might get a leased line which has a fixed cost no matter how many calls I make, or I might build my own microwave system or put up a satellite dish. If I do that, then the average number of minutes for all phones will go down -- say from 250 minutes to 200 minutes (since I as a big user was raising the average), and everybody else will end up having to pay $.125 per minute to collect enough to cover the NTS plant. Until recently, we've used a combination of both systems to recover the costs. The FCC has arbitrarily divided the NTS cost into two parts. One part--the so-called "local" part -- has been paid for by a fixed charge per month. The other part -- the so-called "long distance" part -- has been paid for by a per minute charge, but only on long distance calls. These latter funds were actually collected by the long distance company and handed over to the local company to cover the NTS plant. The FCC access charge decision took note of the fact that large users were opting out of the system. So they decided that the so-called "long distance" part would also be recovered by a flat charge per month. The result was supposed to be fairer rates -- frequent callers wouldn't end up paying 3 or 4 times their share of NTS costs -- and fewer big companies would opt out by building their own networks. Of course, once you collect for the NTS plant through a fixed monthly cost, you can lower the long distance rate by the $.10 per minute you were collecting. What the House just did in the legislation it passed is insist that we go back to the old system, at least in part. Large businesses will pay a flat rate per month for their NTS plant. But then ALL users, including large businesses, will pay a per minute charge on long distance to cover the NTS plant for residences and small businesses. You can see that the large business ends up paying twice, and the residence or small business that makes few long distance calls gets a free ride. As a result, long distance rates will not go down (they may go down a little because the flat payments being made by large businesses reduces the amount that has to be collected through long distance rates) and large businesses will still have an incentive to opt out of the system. The House recognized that these large businesses will want to opt out, so they put in the bill what amounts to a tax on anyone's private telecommunication system, the revenues from which go into the fund for paying NTS costs of telephone customers. In other words, if MIT has a private microwave link to it's observatory out in Groton, we'll have to pay a tax on it which goes to keep residential and small business telephone bills down. One of the problems the bill doesn't address is how you are going to compute the tax. Will it be so many dollars per kilohertz of bandwidth? per kilobit per second? per voice channel? what if I'm using it to send data? If I use the channel for packets is the tax based on a per packet basis? Or, if I have a 50 kbps CAPACITY packet channel do I get taxed for 50 kbps, even if I send very few packets? As soon as you start to think about it, you realize that the proposed tax is going to be pretty unworkable. There's a lot more detail to the story than I could go into here (for example, the so-called long distance NTS cost part is further divided into an interstate part and an intrastate part and the two parts may be handled quite differently as the rules for the former are determined by the FCC and the rules for the latter are determined by the state PUCs). Now it's true that one result of the FCC plan is that large businesses will end up paying less, and residences that make few long distance calls will end up paying more than under the current system. That's because, up to now, residences haven't been paying the full cost of the NTS plant they use; they've been subsidized by the long distance callers. The FCC has simply decided that the subsidy a) shouldn't be continued as a matter of fairness -- why should people in rural areas who make lots of long distance calls subsidze everyone, including rich suburbanites? and b)in the long run, with new technologies allowing large businesses to opt out altogether, the current system can't be maintained anyway. In short, I think, in the long run, we'll all be better off if the FCC's access charge decision is allowed to stand. Marvin Sirbu Research Program in Communications Policy M.I.T. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1983 1002-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: Access charges The other side of Marvin Sirbu's argument is that residence customers, faced with paying high prices for local service will be forced to do without telephones if they can't meet the cost, or don't think it is worth it. In short, it's big business vs. the little guy. I don't think that a law taxing private communications facilities will be unenforcable. The spirit of the law is to insure that the little guy keeps his phone service. The FCC and the PUCs will adhere to the spirit of the law when setting up rate structures and taxes for such things. (taxes could be evaluated as each new license is applied for, in the microwave model, private line services would be easily taxed). The justification for this is that the phone network is designed to work only one way, and if you opt for "other" services, you should subsidize this primary service. The following breakdown of services is my own opinion on what I think should happen, can anyone give a more accurate picture? First there is the cost of the two-wire connection between you and the central office. Who pays for this is being decided in Congress. Then there is the cost of the local CO switching. In my case, I'm hooked up to a number 1 ESS machine. If I make a call to someone else on the same switch, the call only uses the resources defined up to here. Part of this (the part which gives you dial tone, tells incoming calls your line is busy, rings your phone, accepts digits, decides where your call is going, connects you with interoffice trunks or lines on the same switch) is paid for by message units in a message rate environment. The rest of it (the part which provides battery to your phone, the parts which are unique to your line) would be paid for by basic service. In an unmeasured environment, all of this is paid for by basic service. Then there is the interoffice trunk. I'm referring here to local calls. We have two ESS machines in our central office, and there are the equivalent of interoffice trunks between them. There are also trunks from our central office to (theoretically) all other exchanges to which we are local (in practice this may not always be true. In a measured service environment, this is what is paid for with measured rates. In a flat rate (unmeasured environment), this is paid for by basic service. This is the basic local environment. Anything else described here is toll. Toll calls are always paid for by measured units. some Toll calls are inter-LATA (interstate for some), others are intra-LATA. Inter-LATA calls are carried by AT&T, SBS, MCI, Sprint, etc. Intra-LATA calls are carried by the local operating company. What I'm pointing out here is that the first thing I described, the two-wire loop between you and the central office is what is being given the largest political thrust. The basic argument that I tend to agree with is if I don't have a phone, not only can I not call you, but you can't call me either. If I get a phone and don't use it, the real reason I have the phone in the first place is so that I can be REACHED. "It's your dime" is the adage which applies here. -jon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 14-Nov-83 19:10:45-PST,3813;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 14 Nov 83 19:04:01-PST Date: 14 Nov 83 1859-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #100 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 15 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 100 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Location: EJ: (4 The whole matter is being handled in a manner which belies common sense. Why single out the two dollar amount and mandate it from a federal level in the first place? Why not just stop the subsidy from the long distance carriers (AT&T anyway) and let the local companies figure their own way to make it up. ? Another ironic thing is that this is precisely what is being down with the bulk of the subsidy from long distance to local service--resulting in the prediction of doubled and tripled local rates. One could say that there was a justified and an unjustified cost contribution from long distance revenues to local service. The justified amount was much smaller than the unjustified amount. The larger amount is being redistributed without extreme discussion, while people center on debating the mechanism for redistribution of the less significant amount. As for the tax on private communication service, why not just levy it where the private service forms a connection with the public service? Big businesses place plenty of calls that will be off of any network they are liable to be able to economically come up with. Let them economize where they can, and everyone will probably be the better for it. In short, the so called access charge was probably close to the right thing, but the idea of labeling at as a long distance access charge was absurd. Something like "urban/rural balancing component" seems more accurate. ------- 13-Nov-83 15:22:15-PST,3094;000000000000 Return-path: <SIRBU@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Sun 13 Nov 83 15:17:09-PST ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 15-Nov-83 19:50:24-PST,5348;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 15 Nov 83 19:43:01-PST Date: 15 Nov 83 1940-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #101 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 16 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: digestifier blew up again Dialling arrangements etc. phone ring-back ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Nov 1983 1512-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: digestifier blew up again I put a patch into the program I use to digestify the incoming TELECOM mail, but due to obvious lossage, I am forced to remove the patch. This will mean that I have to spend more time hand- formatting each message before sending it out. I was pleased that digestifying only took a mere 2 minutes total every night, now it's probably going to be around 15-30 minutes. Grr.. Enjoy, --Jon ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 83 12:55:44+0100 (Tue) From: ole@NTA-VAX (Ole Jorgen Jacobsen) Subject: Dialling arrangements etc. Hello friends in the telephone world, I only just subsrcibed to this list and while reading through the the archives I noticed a couple of questions relating to dialling arrangements which I will answer herein. First of all "Telegrafverket" is the old name for the Norwegian Telco, now called "Televerket". Don Lynns phone was made by EB which is Elektrisk Bureau an LM Ericsson sister company in Norway. The dial is the "Oslo" or "X" dial as explained below. EB now make our new fancy Tastafones which are "Touch Tone Compatible". On the subject of dials: There are (at least) 3 types of dials in used worldwide: o The "Z" dial is the most common (Internationally) and it looks like this: (4) (3) (5) (2) (6) (1) Pulses correspond to (7) digits (10 pulses for 0) (8) \\ (9) (0) o Next comes the peculiar "Oslo" or "X" dial: (Also used in New Zealand?) (6) (7) (5) (8) Still 10 pulses for 0 but (4) (9) the rest is inverted (3) (2) \\ (1) (0) The Oslo dial is only used within the city itself, we are 10 miles out of Oslo and have the Z dial, it is apparently too expensive to re-strap the old exchanges so we are stuck with the two incompatible phone types until it all dies and goes TT/digital. o Finally, in Sweden the shifted "Y" dial is used: (3) (2) (4) (1) (5) (0) Similar to the "Z", but (6) shifted so that 0 gives (7) \\ one pulse and 9 gives ten. (8) (9) I am not sure what the basis of all this is, but can only assume "Historical Reasons". Just before the new Tastafones went into production here a couple of years ago, it was decided to have the keypad layout DIFFERENT to your favorite Ma Bell. The reason is apparently that people familiar with calculators should not have to re- program their hands when shifting to the new phones, I guess it makes sense, but it is still a bit wierd. The keys still give the same MFs of course so that our phones would work on your system and vise versa. 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 1 2 3 7 8 9 0 * # * 0 # Our keypad Your keypad Enjoy International Standards! Ole J Jacobsen Norwegian Telecommunications Administration Research Establishment N-2007 Kjeller Norway +47 2 73 91 75 ole@NTA-VAX <OLE> <370> ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 1983 11:03:27-PST From: wa.HP-MARS@Rand-Relay Subject: phone ring-back Does anyone happen to know what the magic number is that can be dialed and will cause your own phone to automatically ring-back after you hang up? The number I will be calling from is (408)946-xxxx or (415)857-xxxx. Mail response to ashby.hplabs@rand-relay or ...!hplabs!ashby Thanks, Wayne Ashby ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 17-Nov-83 15:12:24-PST,2850;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 17 Nov 83 15:09:35-PST Date: 17 Nov 83 1509-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #102 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 18 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Phone Ring back costs of local service Keypad arrangements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Nov 1983 0549-PST From: Chris <Pace@USC-ECLC> Subject: Phone Ring back I would also be interested in phone-ring-back for (714)995 exchange, if anyone has it... Tnx in advance, Chris. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 83 15:55:47 EST (Tue) From: cbosgd!mark@Berkeley (Mark Horton) Subject: costs of local service Does anyone actually have some good ballpark figures on what it costs a local phone company (maintenence and depreciation) to keep your local loop, CO, and inter-CO trunk going, and what it "costs" to operate them on a usage-sensitive basis? I guess my problem is that I see local rates going up from $10/month to $20/month (wildly varying from place to place) plus an additional $2 to $8 for this "access charge". I don't see how part of the added cost is for your local loop and the other part is just increased local cost. Does TPC really spend $20/month on my local loop plus my share of the CO? It seems to me that most of the time my line just sits there underground and doesn't do anything - rarely they might have to send somebody out to repair some cable of which my wire is part. ------------------------------ Date: 17-Nov-1983 12:14 From: decwrl!rhea!castor!j_covert@Shasta Subject: Keypad arrangements The reason the keypad in most places is organised opposite from calculators is that Bell Laboratories (and I've also been told that the CCITT also) did studies to determine the error rate with several dial arrangements. The Bell Labs studies included the calculator dial, dials arranged circularly (so that the buttons would be in the same place as the holes in a regular dial), and a few other arrangements. The currently most common configuration was the one with the lowest error rate. However, it should be pointed out that these studies were done in the late 50s/early 60s, long before calculators were as common as they are now. I don't know how different the studies would have been if calculators had been more common. Even today, many more people use telephones often than use calculators often. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 17-Nov-83 16:27:55-PST,2850;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 17 Nov 83 16:21:16-PST Date: 17 Nov 83 1509-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #102 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 18 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Phone Ring back costs of local service Keypad arrangements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Nov 1983 0549-PST From: Chris <Pace@USC-ECLC> Subject: Phone Ring back I would also be interested in phone-ring-back for (714)995 exchange, if anyone has it... Tnx in advance, Chris. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 83 15:55:47 EST (Tue) From: cbosgd!mark@Berkeley (Mark Horton) Subject: costs of local service Does anyone actually have some good ballpark figures on what it costs a local phone company (maintenence and depreciation) to keep your local loop, CO, and inter-CO trunk going, and what it "costs" to operate them on a usage-sensitive basis? I guess my problem is that I see local rates going up from $10/month to $20/month (wildly varying from place to place) plus an additional $2 to $8 for this "access charge". I don't see how part of the added cost is for your local loop and the other part is just increased local cost. Does TPC really spend $20/month on my local loop plus my share of the CO? It seems to me that most of the time my line just sits there underground and doesn't do anything - rarely they might have to send somebody out to repair some cable of which my wire is part. ------------------------------ Date: 17-Nov-1983 12:14 From: decwrl!rhea!castor!j_covert@Shasta Subject: Keypad arrangements The reason the keypad in most places is organised opposite from calculators is that Bell Laboratories (and I've also been told that the CCITT also) did studies to determine the error rate with several dial arrangements. The Bell Labs studies included the calculator dial, dials arranged circularly (so that the buttons would be in the same place as the holes in a regular dial), and a few other arrangements. The currently most common configuration was the one with the lowest error rate. However, it should be pointed out that these studies were done in the late 50s/early 60s, long before calculators were as common as they are now. I don't know how different the studies would have been if calculators had been more common. Even today, many more people use telephones often than use calculators often. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 18-Nov-83 13:59:24-PST,5927;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 18 Nov 83 13:50:03-PST Date: 18 Nov 83 1348-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #103 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 19 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 103 Today's Topics: access charges actual costs. more 718 follies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 November 1983 00:16 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: access charges Jon is concerned that people might drop off the network if local rates go up. He is also concerned that CALLERS benefit if I have a phone, and might be willing to subsidize my basic cost so that I will decide to stay on the network and therefore can be reached. Let's look at these two arguments separately. The proposal in Congress attempts to keep local rates down by making long distance callers pay for basic NTS plant. This scheme ends ups subsidizing not only poor people, who might give up their phone service, but also rich people, who can well afford to pay the true cost of their NTS plant. In other words, because 5% or 10% of the subscribers might drop off the network if they had to pay the cost of their service up front, we're going to design a system that subsidizes 100% of the subscribers. This hardly seems like the most sensible approach. One could eliminate the access charge just for poor people, or just for the elderly, without eliminating it for everyone. One can also use a declining block rate. Consider electricity pricing. Just as with the telephone there's some fixed cost for running the wire to your house. That cost is recovered through usage charges. However, the usage charges decline with increasing number of killowatts consumed, so that large users aren't paying 3 or 4 times the actual cost of electricity. One could do the same thing with telephone charges. As to the problem of people staying on the network, the FCC access charge decision recommends that evey state PUC offer some form of "lifeline" service.(They can't require it because legally its up to the States.) Lifeline service has a very low fixed cost per month, but recovers NTS costs through usage charges on *all* calls, not just long distance. In other words, it's a form of local measured service. If you only need a phone so you can be *reached*, you can have it cheaply. If you don't make many local calls, clearly a lifeline rate won't cover the costs of your NTS plant. The shortfall will have to be made up by people who do make lots of calls. But one doesn't need to give people a low rate for unlimited calling just to get them to stay on the network; one can give them a low rate for limited calling. If you do the latter, people who really *can* afford to pay the full cost of their NTS plant will order unlimited service and pay the cost up front. The problem with saying "let business pay for it" is that ultimately, we consumers end up paying for it in the cost of the products and services business supplies. And I resent the idea that my long distance bill is subsidizing Jon's second phone that he uses only for local calls to a TAC. I see no public policy reason why he should be subsidized. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 18 November 1983 00:33 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: actual costs. The nationwide average cost for the Non Traffic Sensitive plant (your handset, inside wiring and the local loop from your house to the switch, and the line card on the switch) is $25 per month. In rural states such as Nevada or Montana it can average $50 per month. The typical $10-15 per month that most residences pay for minimal service falls far short of the true cost. The $25/month is not just for maintenance. The cost of installing Non Traffic Sensitive plant was probably about $1000. If you assume 20 year depreciation and a 12% interest rate, that works out to about $15 per month just to pay off the capital cost. That leaves $10 a month for maintenance and perhaps the cost of billing, since billing does not depend on usage. In Japan when you get phone service installed for the first time in a house you are required to loan the phone company the $1000 it costs to run the wire to your house: they make you buy phone company bonds. In Egypt you simply pay a $400 installation bill up front. Note that if you have electricity wires run to your house in the woods, you pay up front for the cost of your wiring. The phone company, however, has traditionally fronted the cost and recovered the investment through monthly charges. Until recently, installation costs in a new house were under $50. As for the usage sensitive plant -- local switches and inter-office trunks -- the average user probably accounts for about $5-10 per month worth. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1983 1024-EST (Friday) From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: more 718 follies As has been mentioned previously, there is a fair amount of opposition in New York to splitting the city into two area codes, 212 and 718. A consultant retained by the city now suggests that (a) 718 be used for "special purposes", such as computers and paging devices, and (b) that an 8-digit dialing plan be instituted in the rest of the city.... NY Telephone says that that option would cost $150,000,000 (as compared with $25,000,000 for their plan). I'm surprised it's that cheap. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 20-Nov-83 19:27:24-PST,3256;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 20 Nov 83 19:20:43-PST Date: 20 Nov 83 1917-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #104 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 21 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: Bozo is alive and well and living in NYC! Possible Access Charge Compromise complaint MCI Mail and Dow Jones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Saturday, 19 Nov 1983 03:19-PST Subject: Bozo is alive and well and living in NYC! From: lauren@rand-unix After New York City finishes with that "consultant" they hired regarding the 718/212 horrors, I know someone out here in L.A. who'd like to hire him to entertain at a children's birthday party. Does he bring his own balloons? --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1983 0702-PST From: SEGELBAUM%UCI@USC-ECL Subject: Possible Access Charge Compromise I got an idea about the Access Charge; can't understand why nobody else has thought of it. Or, perhaps it was thought of, and rejected for some reason. (If anyone knows any history on this, feedback would be appreciated.) Here is the idea: Why should not the Access Charge itself be made usage-sensitive? I.e., if you make NO l.d. calls in a given month, you pay NO access charge (this would seem to be elementary, and its implementation would certainly go a long way toward reducing the public outcry from people, and people speaking for people, who say "I never use my phone for long distance, why should I have to pay for people who do?"). Then, for each N minutes of l.d. use in a given month (or a given year, or some other given time period), the access charge grades up proportionately. I dont't see how anyone could complain about this, but I'm sure there must be some legitimate complaint. Let's hear it. Rob ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1983 1347-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: complaint The legitimate complaint about your suggestion is that ACCESS charges are not charges to provide long distance service, they are what the long distance company paid to the local company to provide you LOCAL service. I think this point is missed by a fairly large segment of the population. They all seem to THINK that Access implies "to long distance". It does not. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1983 2340-EST From: Clifford Neuman <BCN%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC> Subject: MCI Mail and Dow Jones Well, the welcome package does indeed include information on how to access Dow Jones through MCI Mail. I have not tried it yet, and intend not to until I have a better idea of what the charges are. A rate schedule was included, but when you find in small print at the bottom the statement that "the rates will be 2.0 times these when using 1200 baud instead of 300 baud", you begin to wonder. ~ Cliff ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Nov-83 16:39:48-PST,5106;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 22 Nov 83 16:29:09-PST Date: 22 Nov 83 1637-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #105 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 23 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: New York Split MCI Mail & Dow Jones "? Failure characteristics of leased telephone lines" Access charges 'Access' charges another area 900 tel. no. Random queries ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Nov 1983 0009-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: New York Split It is a myth that the NY area code split needs to be on geographical boundaries or that it need have anything to do with rates. A numbering plan, in the types of machines within the local calling area of NYC, is purely software. I think it is totally reasonable to put certain classes of telephone numbers into the new area code. All mobile service, pagers, govern- ment offices, and other clearly definable items makes more sense than to use geographic boundaries the people calling from a distance are not aware of. Eight digit numbering is clearly less desirable, since it more drastically changes the human interface to the telephone system. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Nov 83 08:08:36 pst From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: MCI Mail & Dow Jones When I tried to give the "dowjones" command 2 weeks ago, it said "this command not implemented yet". Has this changed since then? ------------------------------ Date: Mon 21 Nov 83 01:26:53-EST From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <RALPHW@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: "? Failure characteristics of leased telephone lines" A friend of mine is interested in obtaining information on problems associated with telephone lines in general. He's trying to do reliable data communication at 4800 BAUD with a leased line. Any information would be appreciated. Thank you, - Ralph Hyre (RALPHW@MIT-XX.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Nov 83 11:59 EST From: Marshall.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Access charges I am against any access charge or any other charges designed to spread costs. I feel thast the phone company (and other companies) should charge exactly enough to recover costs (plus a profit). If you feel that this is unfair for social reasons then you should set up a program like welfare (or have the government set up the program) to make adjustment payments. Then you will know exactly what your largess costs and the free enterprise system will minimize costs rather than search for loopholes in the regulations. --Sidney Marshall ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 1983 2259-PST Subject: 'Access' charges From: Ian H. Merritt <SWG.MERRITT@USC-ISIB> The problem with the so-called access charge (sometimes even called a 'Long-distance Access charge', probably the reason for the popular misunderstanding) is that there really is no good reason for segregating that charge from the basic monthly service charge. This segregation has had the primary effect of confusing many people, and perhaps multiplying the controversy. There should be NO 'Access charge' at all. If the companies need to recover some costs, this should be included in their basic rate increase applications. <>IHM<> [Amen --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Nov 83 14:01:02 EST From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: another area 900 tel. no. Last night, I heard of a certain cheese recall in which the following toll-free number was provided for info: 900-200-4500 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 83 15:06:01 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Random queries A couple of questions that have been brewing for a while... 800 routing: It's apparent that something keeps a local table of all valid 800 *numbers*. You can dial 800-some_valid_number and change *one* digit, and get a local recording. Is this indeed the case? Does anyone know just how such a table is stored, and even better how they update it when a new 800 number is defined? It also seems that each number has routing info tacked on, since two 800 numbers with the same ''exchange'' can go entirely different places. Sprint cards: What is a Sprint credit card? I was under the impression that you were given a switch access code. Is there some way to use the credit card to place Sprint calls from [or to?] areas that aren't served by Sprint? _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Nov-83 19:53:25-PST,9616;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Nov 83 19:45:04-PST Date: 24 Nov 83 1942-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #106 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 25 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Can the operator ring a phone that's off the hook? sprint credit cards Access Charge Clarification ! 800 routing. General Tel brings you their version of MCCS More on 900 numbers telco routing databases new national standard rental rates for phones Query: what service is the phone company committed to provide ?? French phone company experiments ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Nov 83 17:32:57 PST (Tuesday) From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Subject: Can the operator ring a phone that's off the hook? Is there any way for an operator to cause my phone to ring while it is off the hook? /Ron ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1983 05:15-PST Subject: sprint credit cards From: SAC.ADR@USC-ISIE Sprint has a travel card feature. They give you a list of Sprint access numbers in all the cities where SPC has a switch. You dial the access, enter your account number, enter a code telling the machine you're not calling from your home switch, and then enter the number you're calling. Travel calls show separately on the bill, cost the same as regular calls. SPC doesn't charge extra for the service like MCI does. You can call from any place with a Sprint switch, and to any place Sprint normally allows you to call. A useful application of the travel card is opening one Sprint account, and giving your account number to <trusted> people -- family? business associates? -- in several parts of the country. Naturally, everyone has to keep track of which calls they made, and this method assumes everyone's honesty. George Rezac, SAC.ADR ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1983 13:14 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Access Charge Clarification ! I am sorry, I don't agree with Jon's message. It is clearly understood that if the access charges were not utilized, the long distance common carriers "CAN" bypass economically the local access transport areas (LATA's) which are controlled by respective local phone companies. Thus, the local phone companies, who maintain the dial tone service, will be hurt - the quality of local lines may be hurt - therefore, may be harmful to innocent non-long distane users. Without such Access Charge theory, the long distance common carriers can bypass via various means; microwaves, computer networks, private phone equipment systems, etc. It is my clear understanding that Judge Greene thought of such "Access Charge" idea to prevent innocent local phone companies from being crushed out for at least another ten years. However, I am against such charges just because they are not fair to those customers (regardless of residential or business usage) who may never need the long distance carriers features. Can you suggest any better solution to make three parties: customers, local operating companies, and long distance common carriers be reasonable satisfied on their wants and economic needs? Happy Thanksgiving! <LJ> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Nov 83 11:38:37 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: 800 routing. It was mentioned by AT&T at one of the UNIX meetings that every 800 call placed gets processed by two UNIX machines for routing. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1983 2031-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: General Tel brings you their version of MCCS Like AT&T's version of MCCS, GTE's accepts a DTMF dialed calling card after a 0+ call. Also like AT&T's version, sequence calls can be made if the called party doesn't answer or after they've hung up. Pressing "#" allows a new telephone number to be entered. AT&T accepts another domestic (0+number or just number, but not 1+) or international (01+country+number but not 011+country+number). This emphasizes the fact that additional calls are still at the calling card rate. Both of these work on GTE; however, GTE seems to have implemented this by simply ignoring the leading 0. This means that if someone dials 1 612 333 1234 on AT&T he gets an error, because he should really have dialed a 0 or no access code. On GTE, he is likely to reach a number in Sydney, Australia. And find $9.45 on his bill. ------------------------------ Date: 24 November 1983 04:11 est From: Lauer.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: More on 900 numbers If you dial information for the 900 exchange (900-555-1212), you will get a recording that reads the 900 "phone book" to you. Needless to say, it is quite short. /Hugh Lauer ------------------------------ Date: 24 November 1983 09:51 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: telco routing databases AT&T has been offering for about a year a service in which you dial a single 800 number, but the call gets routed to different actual numbers (locations) depending upon where you are calling from or the time of day. Does anyone know anything about how the routing tables for this service are organized? Is there one copy of the database that every switch accesses over the CCIS network? Are there multiple copies one at every switch? Is the database partitioned, perhaps by the exchange number? Any pointers to written references would also be appreciated. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Thu 24 Nov 83 10:30:50-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: new national standard rental rates for phones BELL PHONE RENTAL RATES SET TO NATIONAL STANDARD ===================================================== ( New York Times Service ) NEW YORK - The Federal Communications Commission set standard national rental rates for millions of Bell System telephones Wednesday, and ruled that after a two-year transitional period starting Jan 1, phone rentals and sales would no longer be subject to regulations. The commission decision, which affects an estimated 120 million telephones rented by consumers and businesses, clears up one of the last major uncertainties facing users in connection with the coming breakup of the ATT company. It will allow customers to make more informed choices about wether to continue renting their phones or to buy them. Most telephones are rented from the local Bell companies at rates set by state commissions. These rates vary from state to state. Because the rates announced Wednesday will be national in scope, they will bring down some rental charges and raise others. In addition, starting Jan 1, state commissions will no longer have jurisdiction over phone rental rates. When the Bell System is broken up Jan 1, ..., ownership of the phones will shift from the local companies to AT&T under the approved divestiture plan.... ... The new national rate ceilings will range from $1.50 a month for a standard rotary-dial phone to $4.60 a month for a Trimline Touchtone telephone. ... After Jan 1, 86, ATT would be able to charge whatever it wants .... or even stop renting them ...... ...... ------------------------------ Date: Thu 24 Nov 83 10:46:00-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Query: what service is the phone company committed to provide Subject: ?? Thinking about digital interlacing of phone communications, I wondered if the phone company is committed to provide a communications channel of a certain band-width to me. and from there I realized, that I never got a contract from the phone company, spelling out what service they are giving me for my money. So .... Given that I develop some nifty black box which uses the analog channel (voice-grade) to do a certain job, when the next thing I notice, the phone company goes to digital communications via a satellite, and my nifty communications network falls apart due to timing problems and limitations of the digital communication (well, lets say, before I was able to transmit at 2400 Baud, and now I can't anymore). What recourse do I have? And what exactly is the service that I have a right to by paying my monthly dues? And, for good measure, what's the max Baud rate which anyone has achieved over public voice-grade phones ??? Cheers, ( very small ones, when I think of the coming phone rates ) ---Werner ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1983 12:22 EST (Wed) From: Kimberle Koile <KK@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: French phone company experiments I am looking for a reference describing the French phone company's experiments to put computer terminals in customers' homes in place of paper phone books. Any leads would be appreciated. Thank you, Kimberle Koile ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Nov-83 09:21:54-PST,6430;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Nov 83 09:14:14-PST Date: 27 Nov 83 0913-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #107 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 28 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: French PTT's home computer access TELECOM Digest V3 #106 Cross directory assistance Social Impacts Graduate Program at UC-Irvine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Nov 1983 1117-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: French PTT's home computer access I believe this has long passed the experimental stage and is now a reality in many cities in France. Free terminals (small screens and keyboards -- I saw several of them at Telecom 83 in Geneva) to anyone who will give up access to phone books. You might be able to get more information by calling the New York City number for Telecom France (the U.S. subsidiary of the French PTT). ------------------------------ Date: 25 November 1983 14:50 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #106 It's not Judge Greene but the FCC which has proposed access charges. Judge Greene is actually opposed, but he has no jurisdiction over the issue. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1983 1554-PST From: Ted Shapin <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL> Subject: Cross directory assistance I am told that in the Chicago area, you can dial (312)796-9600, are asked "Number please?" and if you furnish a local number be told the name and address to which that number belongs. Does anyone know of a similar service in the (213) (714) areas? Ted. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1983 1414-PST From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI@USC-ECL> Subject: Social Impacts Graduate Program at UC-Irvine CORPS ------- A Graduate Program on Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society at the University of California, Irvine This interdisciplinary program at the University of California, Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting which supports reflective and sustained inquiry. The primary educational opportunities are a PhD programs in the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and PhD programs in the Graduate School of Management (GSM). Students in each program can specialize in studying the social dimensions of computing. Several students have recieved graduate degrees from ICS and GSM for studying topics in the CORPS program. The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's. The faculty and students in the CORPS program have approached them with methods drawn from the social sciences. The CORPS program focuses upon four related areas of inquiry: 1. Examining the social consequences of different kinds of computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger society. 2. Examining the social dimensions of the work and industrial worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed, disseminated, deployed, and sustained. 3. Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the deployment and use of computer-based technologies. 4. Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the development and use of computing in pro-social ways. Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems, expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated command and control systems, and computing at home. The questions vary from study to study. They have included questions about the effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them, the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences, and their social carrying costs. The CORPS program at Irvine has a distinctive orientation - (i) in focussing on both public and private sectors, (ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within organizations, (iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in vivo" in ordinary settings, and (iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences. Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS The primary faculty in the CORPS program hold appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and the Graduate School of Management. Additional faculty in the School of Social Sciences, and the Program on Social Ecology, have collaborated in research or have taught key courses for students in the CORPS program. Research is administered through an interdisciplinary research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the Public Policy Research Organization. Students who wish additional information about the CORPS program should write to: Professor Rob Kling (Kling.uci-20b@rand-relay) Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine Irvine, Ca. 92717 or to: Professor Kenneth Kraemer Graduate School of Management University of California, Irvine Irvine, Ca. 92717 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 28-Nov-83 17:44:28-PST,8406;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 28 Nov 83 17:33:47-PST Date: 28 Nov 83 1731-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #108 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 29 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: Customer Name/Address French PTT's disemanation of home terminals (not "computers") Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #106 Customer Name and Address (CNA) Dow Jones via MCI Mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 83 10:56:49 PST From: jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley (AJ76) Subject: Customer Name/Address The service mentioned in Telecom 3/107 where one can dial and get a name for a given telephone number is a bureau of the telephone company called customer name/address, or CN/A. It is normally used when somebody calls the business office wanting to know about some long distance call they don't think they made, and want to know who belongs to that number (i.e., maybe they did make it, they just don't remember the number). CN/A is not supposed to be for the customer's use, and something tells me that Ma Bell won't be too thrilled that any numbers have gotten out. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 1983 1207-PST From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI@USC-ECL> Subject: French PTT's disemanation of home terminals (not "computers") I know a little bit about the French effort through experiences in a recent visit to France and through some French academic colleagues who are studying different aspects of the telephone /terminal program. First and foremost, the program was based on an effort of the French PTT to find new work for a large software staff and also in the hopes of stimulating a French based terminal industry. The strategy reflects centralized French styles of activity and also an attempt for the PTT to maintain substantial control over resulting developments. For example, the current system is "closed" in that it is difficult to connect a terminal of a random brand to the system. I don't know the terminal standard, but it does not seem to be widely in use outside the phone setup. This is different than the "open" strategy adopted by IBM in marketing its PC and thereby stimulating a vast market of 3rd party suppliers for associated hardware, software, and even copycat ("clone") machines. It does not appear that the PTT's terminals can be easily employed for use with other systems for database inquiries. The terminals can not be expanded into a PC, for example, by having a household purchase add-on boxes and software (e.g., operating system applications). _ Consequently, the chances that the home terminals will stimulate home computer use, as have say, Apple's in the US, is much reduced. I do not know about the quality of actual phone service through the terminals. The French PTT ran an electronic mail system at IFIP'83 (Teletel) in Paris this last September. Many people tried the mail system (all registrants were given mail id s.) Few could log in; fewer still actually sent mail. The mail system stimulated alot of conversation and "communication." -- in front of the terminals where small clusters of conference participants were trying to figure it out. All the system commands and documentation were in French - at an International Conference. (After all, French is THE international language. In Paris.) The PTT specified keyboards for Teletel come in two varieties: Dvorak and a linear alphabet (A.B.C.D.E......) for hunt and peck typists. There is no QWERTY model. This, in itself, is an interesting move. The costs of trying to de-institutionalize QWERTY may well be to make the system unattractive for people who have learned to type or who must type at high speed on any other system. (This is the keyboard for promoting their new electronic mail system. I'm not sure whether the same keyboard layouts are used for the home telephone directory systems.) Teletel is NOT the directory system. However, since the PTT was showcasing Teletel at IFIP'83, I suspect that some high level official thought it was worthy of prominent display. French phone service has improved dramatically in the last 5 years. Perhaps 60% - 70% of French households have telephones. In 1970, the fraction was closer to 25-30%. (These numbers are very rough and not accurate.) Pay phones are rare compared with, say, Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach or University Avenue in Palo Alto. If you walk along a comparable commercial street in, say, Dijon, you will have trouble finding a pay phone. Usually there are a few pay phones in the downtown areas of medium sized French towns. Phone service in France is somewhat less accessable than in the US, and the French efforts are very different than what ATT would do. It is worth tracking the French efforts. While "households are getting terminals," this is not quite "the computerization of society." These French efforts provide a rich case in which central policies which spread some elements of computerization to households are deeply intertwined with cultural approaches, the attempts of a central government to stimulate segments of an internationally competitive computer industry, and the political economy of the French PTT. An interesting saga is unfolding. Most of the useful materials about these efforts are written in French. Rob Kling (Kling.uci-20b@rand-relay) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 1983 1543-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #106 From: Ian H. Merritt <SWG.MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Marvin: The telco routing databases you asked about are described in considerable detain in the following articles: Sheinbein, D. and R. P. Weber, "800 Service Using SPC Network Capability", BSTJ Vol. 61, No. 7, Part 3, P 1737, Special issue "Stored Program Controlled Network", September 1982. Haas, C. W. et al, "800 Service Using SPC Network Capability-- Network Implementation and Administrative Functions", BSTJ Vol. 61, No. 7, Part 3, P 1745, Special issue "Stored Program Controlled Network", September 1982. Other interesting articles on related items are also found in this issue. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 1983 0819-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Customer Name and Address (CNA) CNA numbers exist everywhere (sometimes one number for a multi-state region or several numbers for a multi-operating company state). The Chicago area is the only area I know of where the number is public knowledge. In other areas the number is a closely guarded secret. Private directory companies used to produce a reverse listing of this type; some may still (check your library for the city directory), but the company in this area stopped about three years ago. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Nov 83 08:51:54 pst From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: Dow Jones via MCI Mail This service now works. One thing which you should know is that the logout word on Dow Jones is "disc"--if you got a Dow Jones account in a more usual way, you'd have this info, but with one of these subsidiary accounts, that might be a problem. Fortunately, as long as you are in //intro, you are not being charged connect time, so hanging up the phone isn't that bad. (For some reason, Mike Cane, in his "Computer Phone Book" did not give this info, and how I log out is usually the first piece of info I want to know when I use a system, especially one which costs.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 29-Nov-83 16:44:43-PST,5715;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 29 Nov 83 16:36:12-PST Date: 29 Nov 83 1637-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #109 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 30 Nov 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: French Terminals another cordboard retired New phones and calling cards And MCI responds... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 1983 0123-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: French Terminals Most of the French terminals I have seen use the French AZERTY keyboard, since the QWERTY keyboard has never been used in France. One would expect the instructions on how to use a French system would be in French, especially at an international conference in Paris. Just as most Americans expect people who come to this country to speak English, the French expect visitors to have a knowledge of French. I know French just well enough to get myself in trouble... but I've found that making that effort breaks the ice, and the French are willing to meet me half way. The French are very proud of their language and its relationship to their culture, and are usually much colder to someone who speaks none. My experiences in Germany are somewhat different. I speak German completely fluently -- but I have to lay down the law -- no English at all -- otherwise many of my friends and co-workers (and fellow students when I was in high school there) would use me as an opportunity to improve their English. Keyboards in Germany are also not QWERTY; they are QWERTZ. The Z and the Y are reversed, since Z is a very common letter in the German language, it would be a serious problem for it to appear in the worst position on the keyboard. Y, however, appears only in words of foreign origin. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 83 8:27:00 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: another cordboard retired Philadelphia Inquirer, Saturday 26 Nov., page 3A had short article with photo about one of the last old "cord board" telephone switchboards to be replaced shortly at Live Oak, Fla. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1983 1335-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: New phones and calling cards In case you were wondering whether your next calling card would come from AT&T or your local operating company -- the following information appeared on an AT&T news line. I called New England telephone to ask them what was happening, and they said that the calling card which they issued would also be valid until 1985, which is how long they plan to act as a billing agent for AT&T. Though AT&T says their card is valid from any telephone in the United States, I wonder about calls within the LATA. And whether the new AT&T phones can be used for calls within the LATA. I suppose AT&T can connect with the local operating company for completion of the intra LATA call. The operating companies will be getting the existing Charge-a-call phones, since they are connected to operating company exchanges and can definitely be used for intra-LATA calls or for calls on carriers other than AT&T. By the way, there are phones in a few places in Europe where you insert a card which you have purchased at the local operating authority. As the call proceeds, the card is used up. The AT&T article follows: -------------------------------------------------- AT&T has introduced its new charge card and a first of its kind public phone that will allow the customer to charge calls by inserting the card into the computerized phone. The AT&T card customer will be able to charge calls from any telephone in the United States and from approximately 150 foreign countries. The company plans to mail 47,000,000 cards to its existing telephone company calling card customers in early January. The card caller phones will be accessible in a variety of public places such as airports, major convention centers, and hotel lobbies. The first are scheduled to go into service in the Greater Cincinnati airport on January 1. While customers will be able to use the AT&T card to charge calls from any phone, only the new card caller phones are designed to read billing information directly from a magnetic strip attached to the back of the AT&T charge card. Callers will also be able to make collect calls and third party billing calls from these phones. The new phones will not accept coins. AT&T is also investiging the possibility of enabling the card caller phone to accept major credit cards. The AT&T card caller phones will be equipped with video display screens to give step-by-step instructions for using the phones. Initially these instructions will print in English. Eventually customers will be able to select from a number of languages. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1983 1630-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: And MCI responds... MCI also plans to put in their own phones -- the first ones at Washington's National Airport next week. They will accept Visa and Mastercard and will place calls for anyone whether an MCI subscriber or not, at rates lower than AT&Ts. Their own subscribers will get lower rates than non-subscribers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 30-Nov-83 18:26:12-PST,7547;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 30 Nov 83 18:15:49-PST Date: 30 Nov 83 1819-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #110 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 1 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: Re: French Terminals MCI makes progress in plans to provide dial service to Europe Rates for long-distance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Nov 1983 2335-PST From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI@USC-ECL> Subject: Re: French Terminals Thanks for your note. I checked my Teletel brochure and find that one keyborad option is AZERTY. I was wrong in identifying it as Dvorak. [An aside: I have found the French I've met in Paris and provincial cities extremely courteous and helpful. They often appreciate my attempts to speak elementary French. Stories of "arrogant Parisians" who expect impecable French can probably be matched by stories of arrogant New Yorkers who won't tolerate poor English. I have met arrogant French, but they are much the exception as are arrogant Bostonians, etc.] French once was THE international langauge, and I have found that some French technologists and public officials emphasize French as an official language. English, for example, is the official publication language for IFIP. French is not. At the IFIP'83 Congress, all sessions were translated into French (the host language) and English. It is in this context that I thought the French-only instructions for Teletel "uncompromising." The main problems with the Teletel system were not the French instructions. First, the system often registered as "busy" after one probed through several levels of menuing and at times that it appeared lightly loaded. The IFIP Congress actually drew about 50% of the expected attendence, and Teletel was the only medium for sharing messages with colleagues. No "official" bulliten boards - Teletel. If it was actually "busy" as often as indicated, the PTT installed a significantly undersized system. Second, the system's responses were often cryptic & it appeared to be nearly impossible to send messages during the first day or two of the Congress when one did get a set of system prompts which indicated that it was "working." These experiences lead me to wonder about the conditions under which Teletel (and other PTT sponsored systems) are designed and deployed. There is little competition. Competition alone does not insure good human factors. (It is difficult to believe that UNIX has come so far and still remains sensitive to the case of commands!) However, there are some virtues to many-party competitive markets, and that is not likely in the short run in France re. these products. I suspect that the PTT was trying to showcase Teletel and they installed an unworkable package. I interpreted their French-only instructions as a sign that conference iparticipants would have to deal with Teletel on terms set by its designers and the PTT. No compromises. This is, perhaps, a misreading of the rationale for French only documentation. It is not the first time in history of computing that a product is clumsy or unworkable. However, back to the main point: This limited exposure to Teletel does not encourage me to expect that users of the PTT provided telephone terminal system have an easy time using it. Perhaps some readers of Telecom have had direct experience with the Fench terinal directory systems in a household setting. Rob Kling ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1983 2250-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI makes progress in plans to provide dial service to Europe MCI announced that they have received permission to conduct engineering trials of directly dialed calls into Belgium and Greece. MCI has had difficulty connecting with the European operating authorities, who are quite concerned about the break-up of AT&T's monopoly. Currently European countries are only willing to connect with AT&T for voice service. They are quite fed up with the situation they face in the telex, teletex, and data communications marketplace, where they have to interconnect with multiple IRCs. Facing the same situation in voice communications, including a requirement to permit their subscribers to choose a carrier when calling a party in the U.S. (as they must with record communications), is causing increasing concern. Though MCI emphasizes they do not have any operating agreements with any European countries, this is the first indication that they are making progress at all. The Federal Government recently struck down AT&T's monopoly on international voice communications, permitting MCI to begin service to and from Canada. MCI is also working on an agreement to provide service to and from Australia. [Note that there is really no reason for calls to Europe to cost three or four times more than calls to Hawaii. We may see some interesting changes in telephone rates. Of course there is not necessarily any requirement that, for example, the German Post Office, even if they do permit calls to be placed from Germany on MCI circuits, would offer rates lower than the current rates, which are approximately $4/minute. AT&T's rates from the U.S. to Continental Europe are 1.33, 1.00, and .80 per minute depending on the time of day. They might also, then decide not to permit their subscribers to choose the carrier, but rather simply do some form of load balancing on each carrier's circuits.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Nov 83 12:03:18 EST From: Will Martin (DRXAL-FD) <wmartin@brl-bmd> Subject: Rates for long-distance Will any of these new long-distance alternatives and/or mechanisms eliminate the disparity between the rate charged for a call from your home phone and one placed from another phone TO your home phone? It has long irritated me that, when I travel, I cannot make a call FROM a pay or hotel phone TO my home at the same rate as my wife can make the call FROM my home phone TO me at the remote location. Even with no operator assistance, using an automated calling card entry system, there is still an add-on calling-card-use charge, at least in the locations I have called from. Also, are not the rates different when calling from within different BOC areas? I've never understood the charge for calling-card use; I would think that it costs the electronic billing system the same to pick the bill-to codes off the identification of the calling line, as is done when you call from your own phone, or to enter the bill-to data from a calling-card data entry process. So why the surcharge? (Of course, to gouge the ratepayers if they can get away with it -- but why does any Public Service Commission (or equivalent) allow it?) I suppose using one of the alternative services (MCI, SPRINT, etc.) may get the same rate for the call, no matter which direction it goes, but I don't have one of these yet, not having Touch-Tone. Will any of the new procedures or methodologies eliminate the disparity? Will Martin (WMartin@Office-3) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 1-Dec-83 14:41:28-PST,11798;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 1 Dec 83 14:30:11-PST Date: 1 Dec 83 1435-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #111 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 2 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 111 Today's Topics: Add-on charges for special billing needing touchtone for MCI/Sprint etc.. Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Nov 1983 2337-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Add-on charges for special billing Back in the "good ol' days" when there was only one rate for calls, whether direct-dial, operator-assisted, coin, non-coin, credit-card, collect, bill-to-third-number, etc. the cost of each kind of service was cross-subsidized by others. The first lower rates were introduced for direct-dial. All operator assisted rates were still the same. Even those lower rates included a portion to subsidize operator-assisted calls charged at the direct-dial rate (either from or to places without direct-dial). In an attempt to compete with other carriers, AT&T offered to reduce the credit-card rate to 50 cents over and above DDD. The competitors cried "foul" -- the increase in third party, collect, etc. is being used to subsidize credit card in order to unfairly compete with us. The FCC agreed and ordered the higher charge. When I talked to them they said they would consider a lower rate whenever AT&T could demonstrate that most calls were made without an operator. Even after all the additional manpower costs are removed -- i.e. calling card works everywhere, there is still an administrative cost -- the system handling calling cards still costs money. It still costs money to have the additional equipment (or special phones) to accept the billing information. It still costs money to issue the special billing cards and/or security codes. And it still costs money for the Revenue Accounting Office in Seattle to notify the RAO in Tampa that a charge should be assessed to the local billing address. So it's for the same reason that many gas stations charge more for using a gas credit card. In fact, on a twenty gallon fillup, it's just about the same surcharge as for using your AT&T card. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Nov 83 23:55:40 EST From: Margot <Flowers@YALE.ARPA> Subject: needing touchtone for MCI/Sprint etc.. I suppose using one of the alternative services (MCI, SPRINT, etc.) may get the same rate for the call, no matter which direction it goes, ... Will any of the new procedures or methodologies eliminate the disparity? Sprint and MCI both specify their rates by distance, so direction of call (assuming they're in the same time-rate period) doesn't matter. Except that MCI is apparently already instituting differential charges based on how a call is placed at their airport locations, depending on if the user is a member or not (prior digests). ... but I don't have one of these yet, not having Touch-Tone. I guess it's not always clear that you don't need to have touch tone service to use MCI, Sprint, etc. You can use normal rotary service to call them and then all you need is some sort of touch tone generation to communicate with their computers once you connect. Sprint will "install" (unscrew one mouthpiece and screw on another) a little touch tone generator on your dial phone if you want. However, I prefer buying a portable touch tone generator. These are little boxes with number buttons on them and a speaker on the back that the sound comes out of, which you hold up to the mouthpiece of whatever phone you're at. (They resemble calculators without displays, which mystifies people who can't figure out what they really are.) Expensive ones with memory are advertised to the high-tech crowd in magazines and in catalogs like Sharper Image, JSA, etc. However, I got one with no memory from Radio Shack for about $20. The advantage of a portable one is that, besides using it at home, it allows you to place Sprint/MCI calls wherever you might be. For example, my office has a dial phone, so without the tone generator, I could not use my Sprint account from my office. [Since normal long distance calls can't be placed from my office, I would have NO access to long distance for my own calls if I didn't use Sprint and the tone generator.] When I travel, I often still cannot find a touch tone phone to use (pay-phone or in my room) so without it I would have quite high long distance bills when I travel. Besides, a year of touch tone service from the phone company costs at least that. (Sometimes you discover that touch tone works for normal dialing even though supposedly the phone has only rotary service). [By the way, it seems to me that Sprint's big advantage over MCI is that you've always been able to use it while traveling from any of their locations at no extra charge. Every quarter you get a page that folds to wallet size of all their current phone numbers around the country. I've never figured out why they don't point out that advantage in their ads. Until recently, MCI only allowed you to used it from your home site, now they charge extra for the capability and allow it only in some subset of their locations (according to a salesperson a few weeks ago).] ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 1 Dec 1983 10:00-PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #110 From: willis@Rand-Unix (Willis_Ware) One reason that the tariff from home-remote and remote-home is so different is that the recordkeeping processes to capture the billing information are very different. I once investigated the billing process of Charge-Card calls because I was interested in the privacy aspects of that particular body of personal information. Telephone billing records are protected in some states by law and are therefore, not "public information". For example, in California, the phone company must be subpoened for such information; and unless the authorities establish that a criminal investigation is in process, the individual in question is notified and has standing to quash the subpoena. This means that casual access here to phone billing records via the administrative subpoena no longer works. I don't recall whether this arrangement is by law or whether it was worked out administratively between the phone companies and the PUC. In any event, billing information relative to residential calls is captured by automatic equipment in the local phone company equipment, or in the interface equipment to the long-haul carrier. The latter reports costs back to the local company who collects the money and "forwards" it in an accouting transaction to AT&T. Alternatively, the local company can do all the cost calculation because it knows the tariffs and obviously times the call. So the data capture process is all automated and under the control of local phone companies. From the privacy point of view, this also means that it is nearly impossible (at least without wire taps) to capture a record of all incoming LD calls to a given party. Outgoing of course is easy but at least the law enforcement community does not have it all gravvy; for example, a group who wishes to communicate but uses only incoming calls to a central hub number are practically invisible in the records unless wiretaps are used. Call-Card charges, however, are handled very differently. All such charges, no matter where originated, flow to a central place somewhere in the mid-West; I recall it being in Illinois and it's run by AT&T. From there the charges flow out to local companies, who collect the money, and return it to AT&T. Presumably the flow is automated and involved passing of tapes, although it could be data communications. I haven't inquired in that particular detail. Thus, the process does involve more data handling and presumably this was the basis for the argument that it ought to be tarriffed differently. Not all parts of the country have automated entry of the Card number so on some occasions, an operator must intervene to manually key in the number as the caller recites it. Admittedly, the tariffing of Call-Cards is many years old and it might well get reviewed in the light of the AT&T restructuring, but it might not either. If the independent long-haul carriers were to get into some kind of charge-card arrangement, such an action might force a review of the AT&T tariff, especially if the charge card were "universal" in the sense that it could work for any carrier. The source of the information about the Illinois center was a VP of Bell Labs, and it is several years old. He was not familiar with the privacy and security arrangements for it. It does raise a fascinating privacy issue because the Center contains information that (in principle) concerns people in every state (and therefore, a national issue); but the legal protection for the information that the Center holds is probably whatever the State of Illinois provides. The same situation of course arises with Bank-Card authorization centers, and with Tele-Credit which is the friendly company that watches over the check-passing habits of the U.S. citizen. In the latter regard, by the way, the California Department of Motor Vehicles supplies Tele-Credit with a complete roster of driver license numbers together with a coded form of the birth date. Such is why one is asked to show his license and give his birthdate when cashing a check; it would seem to do little however for a stolen license which (in California) contains the birthdate in plain text, but not the SSN which is the case in some states. It would however probably intercept a forged license. While I'm at this, let's talk about hotel charges. A long distance call processed through a hotel switchboard is commonly billed at the LD costs plus a surcharge levied by the hotel. In some cases, it's a flat fee like 50 cents but in other cases, it's a percentage; in one hotel I was charged 140% of actual costs. It mistakenly gave me the actual charge slips with my bill so I had all the data needed for the calculation. However, many hotels provide direct dialing of LD and if the fone is a touchtone, one can use a calling card for the call. In many hotels, no surcharge is levied by the hotel for such calls, but in one case 55 cents was charged even though the whole process was completely automated. Presumably hotels are taking this route to recover the costs of their owned phone systems and whatever connect charges they pay for having access to LD trunks. I haven't tried using one of the alternate carriers from a hotel, but presumably one would be billed only for the local call to the access number. The whole topic of recordkeeping processes, its influence on people, the details of how it's done, etc. is an ongoing research and professional interest for me. I would be glad for other datapoints on the topics above or related ones. It would all add to my research database. Willis H. Ware Rand Corporation willis @ Rand-Unix ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 4-Dec-83 19:05:36-PST,4443;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 4 Dec 83 19:00:48-PST Date: 4 Dec 83 1857-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #112 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 5 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: South Central Bell announces new bill format Cordless telephone info request Apologies to John Donne Hotel telephone call surcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 02-Dec-1983 0050 From: John Covert <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: South Central Bell announces new bill format The following notice appeared in my bill from South Central Bell: You will notice some changes in this telephone bill. They are being made because South Central Bell is preparing for its coming separation from AT&T. After the companies split on January 1, 1984, some of your long distance service will be provided by AT&T and other companies. However, South Central Bell will continue to bill you under tariff for AT&T calls and possibly for calls handled by other carriers. Because of these changes, we have altered the format of your bill to make it more like the bill you will get after the companies separate. The main difference in your bill is that long distance calls are put on separate pages, depending on the carrier. There have been no changes in rates. What is interesting is that the one call on this month's bill is a calling card call from East Boston (Logan Airport) to Maynard. Though the carrier is New England Telephone (or at least it will be after Jan 1 -- it might be AT&T now), it is listed with South Central Bell as the carrier. Actually, today that's sort of true, since they are sort of one company. What will be interesting is to see whether it will correctly show the carriers for each LATA after 1 Jan. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Dec 83 16:32:36 est From: cbosgd!djb@Berkeley (David J. Bryant) Subject: Cordless telephone info request I am looking for information on cordless phones, particularly reviews of particular models or brand names. I have shopped around (sales people are generally useless when it comes to hard technical questions) and have most of the features figured out, although the two-way paging and security arrangements still are somewhat confusing. I'd appreciate any clarification on these features/issues (particularly since security seems to be an important concern). Also, I have noticed a great resemblence between UNIDEN phones and AT&T's Nomad line. The cases and feature sets are identical (as far as I can tell) but there is no indication that one manufacturer is responsible for both. David Bryant Bell Labs Columbus, OH (614) 860-4516 (cbosgd!djb@Berkeley.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Dec 83 5:20:14 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> Subject: Apologies to John Donne Ask not for whom the bell tolls, and you will pay only the station-to-station rate. - 4.2 BSD "fortune" program. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 1983 1202-PST Subject: Hotel telephone call surcharges From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Since the subject was brought up, I thought I'd mention one hotel I stayed at this year (the Hilton in Rochester, NY), which charged 30 cents "local call" charges for the intra-hotel romm-to-room calls our party made. When we noticed them on our bills and complained at check-out, they dropped them without comment. I figured either their charging system was broken, and registering a "local call" every time you picked up the receiver (because I think I had one on a day I was called, but didn't call anyone), or they purposely programmed it that way to increase revenue. After all, if you were making local calls, you would not be likely to recall exactly how many you made each day. 30 c here and 30 c there adds up to a tidy sum over a year... Will Martin PS Is it a sign of the inflationary times that there is an ASCII "$" dollar symbol, but no "cents" symbol? Hmmm... WM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 5-Dec-83 16:18:56-PST,4111;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 5 Dec 83 16:13:12-PST Date: 5 Dec 83 1611-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #113 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 6 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 113 Today's Topics: Hotel Charges Porta-with-headset query One final gripe... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Dec 1983 0118-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Hotel Charges I believe I pointed this out to the readers of the digest about a year ago: Last time I stayed in the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, they claimed to be charging the phone company rate +$1. In fact, this was not true, they were charging significantly more. I complained to the hotel's Comptroller, who said that he would contact the company which did their billing system (which simply times the call beginning some 20 seconds after you finish dialling until you hang up, regardless of when the called party answers and then computes some absurd rate, totally unrelated to any telephone company rate) and get back to me. He never did, though I called him several times. If the average guest was overcharged $3/call (as I was and as it appeared the average was from the other DECUS attendees I talked to) and the average guest made three calls a week (pretty low, actually) in a hotel with 1000 rooms, they would be pulling in almost $10,000 a week in phone overcharges. Not bad. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 83 23:03:07 PST (Sunday) Subject: Porta-with-headset query From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I'm looking for a portable with belt clip and headset, hopefully well under $100. DAK (sort of like JS&A) is selling one for $99, but it doesn't have switchable pulse AND tone dialing, or auto redial. I require (at least) those two features. Thanks for any info. (Why is ANYBODY making ANY phone that doesn't have switchable pulse AND tone, given that (a) not everybody wants to pay for (or even has available) tone, but (b) all the alternate long-distance services REQUIRE tone!?) Portables: ultimately, you shouldn't even need the hand unit. I can't think of any good reason why you can't put a calculator-watch style keypad and associated controls on the earpiece of the headset. More generally, WHY ARE PHONES SO PRIMITIVE AND EXPENSIVE, compared to calculators and watches? WHEN IS THE WORLD GOING TO GET SMART AND DEMAND HEADSETS??? I could trivially design a head set that could also be used as a handset for 2-second conversations or dyed-in-the-wool antiquarians, and I'm not even a designer. It boggles the mind to REALLY stop and think how people accept primitive, uncomfortable technologies because of "tradition". Like, why is anyone still buying upright "safety" bicycles, when recumbents are so much safer, comfortable, and efficient? Because Huffy, Schwinn, etc. won't get off their collective rumps and try to promote anything different... Flamed out for now, --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 83 23:08:22 PST (Sunday) Subject: One final gripe... From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA ...and by the way, who are the clowns who designed the GTE flip-phone series, with NO LETTERS on the keys??? I mean, it's bad enough that GTE designers seem to be a bunch of elves who build half-width keys even into their pay-phones, but it really freaks me out that they don't seem to read, listen to radio, or watch TV, where you're constantly bombarded with ads that ONLY give phone numbers of the form "dial 1-800-YOU-JERK" or similar mnemonic cutesiness. --Bruce ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Dec-83 16:11:48-PST,9021;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 7 Dec 83 15:59:15-PST Date: 7 Dec 83 1600-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #114 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 8 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 114 Today's Topics: Hawaii & long-distance charges. Dial-It Article. rotary vs. pushbutton ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 83 23:49:21 pst From: cunningh@Nosc (Robert P. Cunningham) Subject: Hawaii & long-distance charges. Recently, in John Covert's note on MCI service to Europe he remarked that there's no reason why phone charges to Europe should cost 4 times or so the cost of a call to Hawaii. Actually, long distance charges to Hawaii may be overpriced, due to historical reasons. Until several years ago, under then-prevailing FCC tariffs, AT&T could still charge 'international' rates between Hawaii and the mainland US, despite the fact that Hawaii's been a state since 1959 (almost 25 years now). Those of you familiar with the now-historical way in which long-distance charges were shared with local operating companies probably realize that this also benefitted the local Hawaiian Telephone Company (incidently, a GTE subsidiary). It finally took Congressional action to 'rationalize' the long distance charges, which, up to deregulation, took the form of freezing long-distance rates to and from Hawaii until eventual domestic long-distance rates on the mainland rose to the point where the charges roughly 'equalized'. This scheme has, of course, gone out the window with deregulation, and it's anybody's guess as to what Hawaii-mainland charges will be in a year or so. For those curious, here's a sampling of what we here in Hawaii pay to call various places, including only the lowest night per-minute charges (daytime rates are 2x to 3x higher): $.22 US west coast via AT&T .16 ditto via Sprint (MCI not available yet in Hawaii) .24 central US via AT&T .25 east coast via AT&T .12 to an outer island from Honolulu .90 to Alaska .70 to western Canada 1.09 to Europe .92 to Japan, Korea, etc. .92 to Samoa, Australia, New Zealand & Guam 2.92 to China 2.92 to Micronesia 1.00 to South America 3.60 to India I don't have the WATS rates handy, but they're high. Few '800' numbers extend to Hawaii. A leased line (via satellite) to the mainland runs about $1000 per month. Bob Cunningham Oceanography Dept., University of Hawaii ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 1983 21:44-PST Subject: Dial-It Article. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> n044 1136 25 Nov 83 BC-TELCO (BizDay) c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - When ABC's nightly news show Nightline polled viewers for their opinions on last month's American invasion of Grenada, President Reagan wasn't the only one pleased with the response.The results of the unscientific, phone-in survey backed American involvement by a margin of 502,358 to 63,812, providing a boost to the White House. But the poll also gave a nice lift to the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. - the phone company took in 50 cents per vote on the poll, or more than $250,000 for the night. This poll is just one of many that are being conducted over the three-year-old Dial-It 900 Service, a rapidly expanding part of AT&T's Long Lines Division. After overcoming some public confusion between toll-free 800 numbers and the 50-cent 900 numbers, the service has finally come into its own. AT&T reports that the number of calls placed to 900 numbers is up 40 percent over this time last year. Company officials, however, say the do not disclose figures such as total volume and revenue that the service generates. Nevertheless, it is clearly a nice piece of business for the phone company, especially since it apparently covers its own costs by charging an ''establishment'' fee to clients using the service. ''The cost of actually setting up the poll or information lines is covered with the sponsor's establishment charge,'' explains an AT&T spokesman. '' For the 50 cent per call charge, I think that what you have to consider is the capital investment. We are also doing much more than tallying calls. There is a long distance call in addition to the technology and capital investment involved.'' According to documents filed with the FCC, a total of 10.9 million calls were logged to 900 numbers in 1981, their first full year of operation. Last year there were 15.8 million calls. The breakdown was 9.5 million calls to the taped information lines and 6.3 million to the poll lines. If AT&T is accurate in saying that service is up 40 percent this year, then over 20 million calls should be placed to 900 numbers. The potential profit is sufficient to convince AT&T's main long distance phone service competitor, MCI, to try to set up its own 900 service. ''The 900 service, like the toll-free 800 service, is an extremely profitable one for AT&T,'' said an MCI spokesman. ''We would like to enter both of these areas as soon as possible,'' he said. ''We should have a toll-free service operating by September 1984. It is technically more difficult to offer a 900-type service, but we are studying ways to do it. The profitability and marketability of the service have made it very attractive.'' There are two separate uses of 900 service; it can be utilized to set up a poll or to provide a taped information message. The cost to the caller is 50 cents per vote on the polling service, and 50 cents for the first minute of an information message, with 35 cents for each additional minute. The polling service, first used to record public opinion after the Carter-Reagan debate in October 1980, has been used by nearly 150 companies this year. The music video television audience, dominated by young viewers, has become an especially lucrative market. The video-of-the-week vote on NBC's Friday Night Videos, for example, regularly records around 150,000 calls. More than one million calls were logged on the 900 phone lines that NASA set up for two space shuttle missions last year so that the public could listen to conversations between the astronauts and ground control. Although the 50-cent charge for a minute-long call is greater than the comparable cost for all long distance toll calls under evening and night rates, AT&T has found that the cost does not deter people from calling 900 numbers. In fact, company officials see the service's success resulting in part from customers being charged a standard flat rate for the calls. ''People view making a 900 call favorably,'' noted AT&T marketing supervisor Robert Futcher. ''At least they know how much they're paying for the call. They don't see an area code and wonder how much it will cost them.'' Sponsors say the are attracted to the service by its low cost. The information service costs $250 per day, provided a minimum of 2000 calls come in. It costs just $25 a day for a poll line, with a minimum of 500 calls a day. The shortfall in either case costs the sponsor 25 cents per call. One such group, the U.S. League of Savings Association - whose membership includes 4,000 savings institutions across the country - has used a 900 number since January to provide daily updates on legislative and regulatory news from Washington. The recording also gives banks quick access to the interest rates established at treasury auctions. ''The banks are pleased and we are very pleased with the service,'' says league spokesman Katherine B. Ulman. ''In addition to saving us a lot of money over the toll-free service that we had, the line is able to take in more calls at once. I am told that we can now receive several thousand calls at the same time. On 800, there were not enough lines. We got several complaints.'' ''We are very pleased with the market's growth,'' says the AT&T spokesman. '' Part of the successful growth of 900 numbers is their wide visibility. When it is used on ABC's Nightline, it doesn't take more than 10 minutes for every broadcaster in the country to see what they're doing. nyt-11-25-83 1430est *************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Dec 83 8:44:06 EST From: cmoore@brl-bmd Subject: rotary vs. pushbutton Can the difference between rotary & pushbutton phones be detected on the phone lines? (I.e., if you unplugged one & plugged in the other.) In any event, why does pushbutton cost more? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Dec-83 16:46:55-PST,16001;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 8 Dec 83 16:30:11-PST Date: 8 Dec 83 1631-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #115 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 9 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: rotary vs. pushbutton the 900 ripoff Hawaii Rates Telex and MCI Mail 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 83 17:37:59 pst From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: rotary vs. pushbutton Re cmoore's question--I'm using a tone phone on a "rotary" line, right now. Occassionally, I find a call won't go through on the first try, but this is rare. However, the phone company is, of course, under no obligation to provide me with a working tone line, and, under current tariffs, they could even put a filter on my line to filter out touch tones. I think you'll find that in cities and inner suburbs, almost everyone has touch tone capacity as long as they have a tone phone. You could buy a switchable phone just to be safe. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 83 05:51:52 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: the 900 ripoff It seems to me grossly unfair that the people of this country must be forced to shell out half a buck to express their opinion. After all, this government is ostensibly designed to bend to public opinion, which should be freely asked for and supplied. Someone is making fat profits from Joe Luser who is only trying to express his opinion. Now, granted, they are perfectly aware that they are paying for the ''vote'', but does he have a choice? Do they think Joe Luser will sit there watching Nightline and say to himself ''Gee, I feel strongly about this issue, I think I'll punt the 900 vote and write to my Congressman.'' ?!? Well, foo. Personally I never call *any* of those silly 900 numbers; with the exception of the shuttle rebroadcasts, they aren't worth a damn. _H* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Dec 83 09:20:27 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> The California Public Utilities Commission is challenging the Federal Communications Commission planned telephone "access charge" in Federal Court. Here is most of an article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times today (Thursday, December 8, 1983): SAN FRANCISCO - California consumers Wednesday got their first glimpse of how telephone costs will rise after the January 1 Bell System breakup as the California Public Utilities Commission approved a $446 million rate increase for Pacific Telephone to take effect next month. The action, commissioners stressed repeatedly, represents only the first step in adjusting telephone rates to the new financial realities stemming from the settlement nearly two years ago of the federal government's antitrust lawsuit against American Telephone & Telegraph Company. "This is round one", said Commissioner Priscilla Grew, who supervised the PUC staff's analysis of Pacific's complex rate case. Wednesday's action was intended only to update Pacific's financial picture on the eve of divestiture. Round two, Grew said, will come in May, when the commissioners decide how much to allow Pacific of another $400 million that the company claims is the local cost of breaking up Ma Bell. With the new year, the old Bell System will be transformed into a smaller AT&T and seven independent regional operating companies. Pacific Telephone becomes Pacific-Telesis Group, which will provide local telephone service in California through the Pacific Bell subsidiary. AT&T will retain all toll operations except in local service areas. The increase means that the basic monthly rate will rise to $7.74 from $7.47 at present. The so-called Life Line rate for minimum residential service is unchanged at $2.67 monthly. In addition, the commission approved a 10.36% surcharge on long-distance calls within California. Pacific had asked for $14.57 for basic service, plus a $1.00 charge for access to long distance lines, and a Life Line rate of $5.21. A preliminary estimate by Pacific Telephone was that the monthly bill of the typical residential customer will rise $1.64, including the long-distance surcharge. Customer groups and Pacific Telephone said the PUC decision was fair. The commissions' rate boost is about half the $838 million the phone company had requested. In a related action that may hold great long-term significance, the PUC also rejected a Pacific proposal to charge residential customers $1 a month per telephone line and business customers $3 a line to help replace nearly $1.3 billion in intrastate toll revenues that it will lose on January 1. Local telephone rates, analysts say, have been subsidized by revenues from lucrative long distance tolls. Instead the Commission ruled that these so-called "access charges" should be collected solely from long-distance telephone companies such as AT&T, GTE Sprint, and MCI Communications Corp. -- for use of Pacific's Network in originating and completing toll calls within California. The PUC intends to apply the same principle to Santa Monica- based General Telephone Company of California and other local telephone companies. In placing the access charge solely on long-distance telephone companies, the PUC parted company with the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates toll calling between states. The FCC plans to add $2 a month to local customer's bills in April and $4 and in 1965 in an effort to replace interstate toll revenue that AT&T now shares with local telephone companies. The PUC has challenged the FCC's authority to levy these charges directly on local customers and, in a case pending in Federal Appeals Court in Washington, seeks to have them levied against long-distance companies, as the PUC did. Legislation pending in Congress would kill the FCC proposal. The rate boost of $446 million comes in the form of a split surcharge -- a 3.7% surcharge to the basic $7.47 monthly rate and a 10.36% surcharge to intrastate toll charges on each Pacific customer's bill. The split surcharge is likely to last only until May when the PUC expects to replace it with a schedule of specific tariffs covering telephone services within the state. At that time, the cost a of a pay-phone call will probably be increased to a quarter from a dime. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Dec 83 09:59:38 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> The University of California has recently requested bids for a private communications network connecting all of the UC campuses and other installations in California. I will send details on this to telecom, shortly. The "back-bone" of this system would connect Los Angeles to the Bay area. With the exception of a possible bid by AT&T that would use a buried fiber-optics system, all bidders are expected to propose either a satellite link or else use a microwave system based on FCC licenses obtained by the UC system for a series of "hops" of around 40 miles each, between mountain peaks connecting the two areas. UC hopes to obtain substantial savings over the present system (using lines leased from AT&T). This raises the following economic question: All, but the AT&T possibility, depend upon the use of what I believe is a national resource which should benefit everyone: The "spectrum". Presently the spectrum is allocated by the FCC primarily on a "type-of- usage" then "first-come, first-serve" basis. This has led (and continues to lead) to great inequities. One need only use a scanner in a large city to note that vast parts of the UHF spectrum are barely used -- they are reserved for various industries, etc.; while others are terribly crowded -- the frequencies used for car telephones, the taxicab frequencies, the police and public safety frequencies etc. And of course, there are only four frequencies available for local wireless telephones; as a result, there is always unpleasant interference when using them. In large cities, especially New York, the microwave frequencies are so crowded that it is now extremely difficult to obtain a microwave license. How many of the current users are making effective use of the part of the spectrum that they have reserved? In some cases, such as allocation of TV frequencies, the present policy has lead to really major financial windfalls to the recipients of the spectrum. Has anyone considered what would happen if spectrum users had to bid for their use of the spectrum, with the Federal Government holding the auction (much as Secretary Watt had proposed doing for off-shore oil leases -- of course the pollution problems here are different and presumably much less) and receiving the income (hopefully used to reduce taxes, support welfare projects for hackers, etc.)? Taking the largest cases first, what if TV stations such as KNXT-TV (the extremely profitable CBS affiliate in Los Angeles) were required every five years to bid for their exclusive use of the television spectrum. Would this make cable-TV (which doesn't use the public spectrum and therefore wouldn't have to bid) more viable and profitable. What if MCI and Sprint had to bid against AT&T for use of microwave frequencies? Would they be able to undercut it so much? Would the industries that now tie up most of the UHF spectrum, but barely use it, continue to do so, if they had to bid against its use by those who want to use it for mobile telephones, etc.? The impact of such a policy, even if inaugurated gradually and gently, would be tremendous. What do telecom readers think would happen? vail ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 1983 1415-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Hawaii Rates Hawaii is due to be FULLY integrated into the U.S. rate system very soon. In fact, it would have happened on the first of January, if the FCC had not delayed introduction of AT&T's new rates. This full integration means the elimination of WATS band 6 and the inclusion of Hawaii and Alaska in band 5 -- meaning that a large additional number of 800 numbers in the U.S. suddenly become reachable from Hawaii and Alaska, and that Band 5 outwats users can suddenly call to Alaska and Hawaii. On the MTS side of things, there are two new rate zones above the existing ones (and only slightly more expensive than the top one). The Alaska and Hawaii rates will then be simply mileage rates like everywhere else. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 1983 1547-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Telex and MCI Mail MCI just announced their Telex service. Port: 8. Please enter your user name: jrc Connection initiated. . . Opened. Welcome to MCI Mail! MCI Mail Version 1.13 You may enter: ... Command: help telex The nation's new postal system becomes worldwide after the new year. Through an agreement with MCI International (MCII), MCI Mail users will be able to send and receive MCI Mail messages to and from all telex addresses worldwide. How will it work? You, and every other MCI Mail subscriber, will have a telex number. Telex messages sent to this number will be placed in your MCI Mailbox along with your Instant Letters. When you send MCI Mail messages, you will be able to include telex addresses just as you now enter postal addresses. These messages will be delivered by MCII through the telex networks. How will you know your telex number? When the MCI Mail Telex Service becomes available, your telex number will be 650 followed by your MCI ID. (For example, if your MCI ID is 1060184, your telex number will be 6501060184.) How much will it cost? MCI Mail Telex Service will be offered at competitive telex rates. As with other MCI Mail services, you will be charged only when you send messages -- you will never be charged to receive telex messages. If you have additional questions, send them TO: MCIHELP. Command: cr CREATE LETTER TO: (MCI Mail Customer Support MCI DISC WASHINGTON DC) Subject: Telex Service Text: (Type / on a line by itself to end) Can you please tell me what answerback will be received by incoming Telex calls. Telex subscribers usually check an answerback to veri- fy that their call has reached the correct destination. Value added telex services provide this feature on an automatic basis. / Your message was posted: Thu Dec 08, 1983 3:05 pm EST Command: ex Signing off from MCI Mail. What I really want to know is when they'll do Teletex -- which is much nicer than Telex -- 1200 to 2400 bps transmission (instead of 50) and a MUCH larger character set, including upper/lower case and the special characters of many foreign languages. (There's a gateway between Telex and Teletex, but it's always in the Teletex side of the call, so the international portion always runs at 50 bps unless you are Teletex to Telex.) ------------------------------ Date: 8 December 1983 00:14 EST From: Minh N. Hoang <MINH @ MIT-MC> There's no (shouldn't be) real electrical differences between the rotary and push-button phones when they're on-hook or off-hook and not dialing. They both have to meet the same FCC part 68 requirements. I think the additional charges capitalize on the convenience factor and the support equipment overhead. Before the advent of switched capacitor filter and CMOS VLSI it was pretty hairy to design a good DTMF decoder. Now that both tone encoders and decoders are rather cheap, I think the telco should slowly phase out rotary phones - say, by reversing the order: charging rotary lines extra - and use the pulse for other features like the switch hook 'flash' on the Rolm CBX. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 83 03:39:58 PST (Thu) From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? As I watched "The Day After" and its "commercials" which mentioned that they would "ask you what you thought of it", a 900 number immediately came to mind. I bet if they offerred the choice "Would you spend 50c to register a protest against nuclear war?" they'd get many million calls. [Plus give Bell a few million dollars.] Upon further reflection I decided it would be a horrible idea, since it would set a precedent of taking a "major poll" of US citizens just after showing an hour's worth of heavy emotionally loaded footage. I could see the politicians and the TV networks latching right on to the idea -- we could elect a President that way, right? Can anyone describe the technology used to answer thousands of calls to a 900 (or otherwise) recording or polltaker? For polls it's pretty easy since you really only want a summary anyway -- as soon as the call reaches an "in the know" node in the phone hierarchy it can just add one to a counter and be done, forwarding the counters every few seconds to whoever's watching the totals. They could use digital speech for the recordings (giving trivial random access and cheap playback thru a codec) -- is this it? They could also reduce the degree of random access by not answering on the first ring; wait til a few dozen people are ringing, then give them all the same message. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Dec-83 17:00:49-PST,16001;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 8 Dec 83 16:44:23-PST Date: 8 Dec 83 1631-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #115 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 9 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: rotary vs. pushbutton the 900 ripoff Hawaii Rates Telex and MCI Mail 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 83 17:37:59 pst From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: rotary vs. pushbutton Re cmoore's question--I'm using a tone phone on a "rotary" line, right now. Occassionally, I find a call won't go through on the first try, but this is rare. However, the phone company is, of course, under no obligation to provide me with a working tone line, and, under current tariffs, they could even put a filter on my line to filter out touch tones. I think you'll find that in cities and inner suburbs, almost everyone has touch tone capacity as long as they have a tone phone. You could buy a switchable phone just to be safe. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 83 05:51:52 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: the 900 ripoff It seems to me grossly unfair that the people of this country must be forced to shell out half a buck to express their opinion. After all, this government is ostensibly designed to bend to public opinion, which should be freely asked for and supplied. Someone is making fat profits from Joe Luser who is only trying to express his opinion. Now, granted, they are perfectly aware that they are paying for the ''vote'', but does he have a choice? Do they think Joe Luser will sit there watching Nightline and say to himself ''Gee, I feel strongly about this issue, I think I'll punt the 900 vote and write to my Congressman.'' ?!? Well, foo. Personally I never call *any* of those silly 900 numbers; with the exception of the shuttle rebroadcasts, they aren't worth a damn. _H* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Dec 83 09:20:27 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> The California Public Utilities Commission is challenging the Federal Communications Commission planned telephone "access charge" in Federal Court. Here is most of an article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times today (Thursday, December 8, 1983): SAN FRANCISCO - California consumers Wednesday got their first glimpse of how telephone costs will rise after the January 1 Bell System breakup as the California Public Utilities Commission approved a $446 million rate increase for Pacific Telephone to take effect next month. The action, commissioners stressed repeatedly, represents only the first step in adjusting telephone rates to the new financial realities stemming from the settlement nearly two years ago of the federal government's antitrust lawsuit against American Telephone & Telegraph Company. "This is round one", said Commissioner Priscilla Grew, who supervised the PUC staff's analysis of Pacific's complex rate case. Wednesday's action was intended only to update Pacific's financial picture on the eve of divestiture. Round two, Grew said, will come in May, when the commissioners decide how much to allow Pacific of another $400 million that the company claims is the local cost of breaking up Ma Bell. With the new year, the old Bell System will be transformed into a smaller AT&T and seven independent regional operating companies. Pacific Telephone becomes Pacific-Telesis Group, which will provide local telephone service in California through the Pacific Bell subsidiary. AT&T will retain all toll operations except in local service areas. The increase means that the basic monthly rate will rise to $7.74 from $7.47 at present. The so-called Life Line rate for minimum residential service is unchanged at $2.67 monthly. In addition, the commission approved a 10.36% surcharge on long-distance calls within California. Pacific had asked for $14.57 for basic service, plus a $1.00 charge for access to long distance lines, and a Life Line rate of $5.21. A preliminary estimate by Pacific Telephone was that the monthly bill of the typical residential customer will rise $1.64, including the long-distance surcharge. Customer groups and Pacific Telephone said the PUC decision was fair. The commissions' rate boost is about half the $838 million the phone company had requested. In a related action that may hold great long-term significance, the PUC also rejected a Pacific proposal to charge residential customers $1 a month per telephone line and business customers $3 a line to help replace nearly $1.3 billion in intrastate toll revenues that it will lose on January 1. Local telephone rates, analysts say, have been subsidized by revenues from lucrative long distance tolls. Instead the Commission ruled that these so-called "access charges" should be collected solely from long-distance telephone companies such as AT&T, GTE Sprint, and MCI Communications Corp. -- for use of Pacific's Network in originating and completing toll calls within California. The PUC intends to apply the same principle to Santa Monica- based General Telephone Company of California and other local telephone companies. In placing the access charge solely on long-distance telephone companies, the PUC parted company with the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates toll calling between states. The FCC plans to add $2 a month to local customer's bills in April and $4 and in 1965 in an effort to replace interstate toll revenue that AT&T now shares with local telephone companies. The PUC has challenged the FCC's authority to levy these charges directly on local customers and, in a case pending in Federal Appeals Court in Washington, seeks to have them levied against long-distance companies, as the PUC did. Legislation pending in Congress would kill the FCC proposal. The rate boost of $446 million comes in the form of a split surcharge -- a 3.7% surcharge to the basic $7.47 monthly rate and a 10.36% surcharge to intrastate toll charges on each Pacific customer's bill. The split surcharge is likely to last only until May when the PUC expects to replace it with a schedule of specific tariffs covering telephone services within the state. At that time, the cost a of a pay-phone call will probably be increased to a quarter from a dime. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Dec 83 09:59:38 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> The University of California has recently requested bids for a private communications network connecting all of the UC campuses and other installations in California. I will send details on this to telecom, shortly. The "back-bone" of this system would connect Los Angeles to the Bay area. With the exception of a possible bid by AT&T that would use a buried fiber-optics system, all bidders are expected to propose either a satellite link or else use a microwave system based on FCC licenses obtained by the UC system for a series of "hops" of around 40 miles each, between mountain peaks connecting the two areas. UC hopes to obtain substantial savings over the present system (using lines leased from AT&T). This raises the following economic question: All, but the AT&T possibility, depend upon the use of what I believe is a national resource which should benefit everyone: The "spectrum". Presently the spectrum is allocated by the FCC primarily on a "type-of- usage" then "first-come, first-serve" basis. This has led (and continues to lead) to great inequities. One need only use a scanner in a large city to note that vast parts of the UHF spectrum are barely used -- they are reserved for various industries, etc.; while others are terribly crowded -- the frequencies used for car telephones, the taxicab frequencies, the police and public safety frequencies etc. And of course, there are only four frequencies available for local wireless telephones; as a result, there is always unpleasant interference when using them. In large cities, especially New York, the microwave frequencies are so crowded that it is now extremely difficult to obtain a microwave license. How many of the current users are making effective use of the part of the spectrum that they have reserved? In some cases, such as allocation of TV frequencies, the present policy has lead to really major financial windfalls to the recipients of the spectrum. Has anyone considered what would happen if spectrum users had to bid for their use of the spectrum, with the Federal Government holding the auction (much as Secretary Watt had proposed doing for off-shore oil leases -- of course the pollution problems here are different and presumably much less) and receiving the income (hopefully used to reduce taxes, support welfare projects for hackers, etc.)? Taking the largest cases first, what if TV stations such as KNXT-TV (the extremely profitable CBS affiliate in Los Angeles) were required every five years to bid for their exclusive use of the television spectrum. Would this make cable-TV (which doesn't use the public spectrum and therefore wouldn't have to bid) more viable and profitable. What if MCI and Sprint had to bid against AT&T for use of microwave frequencies? Would they be able to undercut it so much? Would the industries that now tie up most of the UHF spectrum, but barely use it, continue to do so, if they had to bid against its use by those who want to use it for mobile telephones, etc.? The impact of such a policy, even if inaugurated gradually and gently, would be tremendous. What do telecom readers think would happen? vail ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 1983 1415-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Hawaii Rates Hawaii is due to be FULLY integrated into the U.S. rate system very soon. In fact, it would have happened on the first of January, if the FCC had not delayed introduction of AT&T's new rates. This full integration means the elimination of WATS band 6 and the inclusion of Hawaii and Alaska in band 5 -- meaning that a large additional number of 800 numbers in the U.S. suddenly become reachable from Hawaii and Alaska, and that Band 5 outwats users can suddenly call to Alaska and Hawaii. On the MTS side of things, there are two new rate zones above the existing ones (and only slightly more expensive than the top one). The Alaska and Hawaii rates will then be simply mileage rates like everywhere else. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 1983 1547-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Telex and MCI Mail MCI just announced their Telex service. Port: 8. Please enter your user name: jrc Connection initiated. . . Opened. Welcome to MCI Mail! MCI Mail Version 1.13 You may enter: ... Command: help telex The nation's new postal system becomes worldwide after the new year. Through an agreement with MCI International (MCII), MCI Mail users will be able to send and receive MCI Mail messages to and from all telex addresses worldwide. How will it work? You, and every other MCI Mail subscriber, will have a telex number. Telex messages sent to this number will be placed in your MCI Mailbox along with your Instant Letters. When you send MCI Mail messages, you will be able to include telex addresses just as you now enter postal addresses. These messages will be delivered by MCII through the telex networks. How will you know your telex number? When the MCI Mail Telex Service becomes available, your telex number will be 650 followed by your MCI ID. (For example, if your MCI ID is 1060184, your telex number will be 6501060184.) How much will it cost? MCI Mail Telex Service will be offered at competitive telex rates. As with other MCI Mail services, you will be charged only when you send messages -- you will never be charged to receive telex messages. If you have additional questions, send them TO: MCIHELP. Command: cr CREATE LETTER TO: (MCI Mail Customer Support MCI DISC WASHINGTON DC) Subject: Telex Service Text: (Type / on a line by itself to end) Can you please tell me what answerback will be received by incoming Telex calls. Telex subscribers usually check an answerback to veri- fy that their call has reached the correct destination. Value added telex services provide this feature on an automatic basis. / Your message was posted: Thu Dec 08, 1983 3:05 pm EST Command: ex Signing off from MCI Mail. What I really want to know is when they'll do Teletex -- which is much nicer than Telex -- 1200 to 2400 bps transmission (instead of 50) and a MUCH larger character set, including upper/lower case and the special characters of many foreign languages. (There's a gateway between Telex and Teletex, but it's always in the Teletex side of the call, so the international portion always runs at 50 bps unless you are Teletex to Telex.) ------------------------------ Date: 8 December 1983 00:14 EST From: Minh N. Hoang <MINH @ MIT-MC> There's no (shouldn't be) real electrical differences between the rotary and push-button phones when they're on-hook or off-hook and not dialing. They both have to meet the same FCC part 68 requirements. I think the additional charges capitalize on the convenience factor and the support equipment overhead. Before the advent of switched capacitor filter and CMOS VLSI it was pretty hairy to design a good DTMF decoder. Now that both tone encoders and decoders are rather cheap, I think the telco should slowly phase out rotary phones - say, by reversing the order: charging rotary lines extra - and use the pulse for other features like the switch hook 'flash' on the Rolm CBX. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 83 03:39:58 PST (Thu) From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? As I watched "The Day After" and its "commercials" which mentioned that they would "ask you what you thought of it", a 900 number immediately came to mind. I bet if they offerred the choice "Would you spend 50c to register a protest against nuclear war?" they'd get many million calls. [Plus give Bell a few million dollars.] Upon further reflection I decided it would be a horrible idea, since it would set a precedent of taking a "major poll" of US citizens just after showing an hour's worth of heavy emotionally loaded footage. I could see the politicians and the TV networks latching right on to the idea -- we could elect a President that way, right? Can anyone describe the technology used to answer thousands of calls to a 900 (or otherwise) recording or polltaker? For polls it's pretty easy since you really only want a summary anyway -- as soon as the call reaches an "in the know" node in the phone hierarchy it can just add one to a counter and be done, forwarding the counters every few seconds to whoever's watching the totals. They could use digital speech for the recordings (giving trivial random access and cheap playback thru a codec) -- is this it? They could also reduce the degree of random access by not answering on the first ring; wait til a few dozen people are ringing, then give them all the same message. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 9-Dec-83 15:28:53-PST,8986;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 9 Dec 83 15:17:28-PST Date: 9 Dec 83 1514-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #116 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 10 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: DIAL-IT (900) numbers and misc. MCI & Hawaii Re: 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? California PUC; spectrum auction porn phone taping phone conversations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Thursday, 8-Dec-83 19:18:10-PST Subject: DIAL-IT (900) numbers and misc. The DIAL-IT (900) network was fully described in an issue of BSTJ (Bell System Technical Journal) within the last couple of years. I'd point to the exact issue, but my collection isn't handy, unfortunately. Essentially, the 900 network operates through regional concentrators tied into the ESS/CCIS network, which prevents large numbers of calls from simultaneously saturating the "primary" DDD network. In fact, the poll numbers are usually even easier to handle than the more elaborate taped messages -- most polls terminate in a very short recording that simply tells you that your vote was counted, and that's all. Holding time for such calls is very short. I see no reason why people shouldn't pay to have their vote registered via such systems, but frankly, I also consider such polls to be useless or perhaps even dangerous. They are useless, of course, since there is no control over the sample, and this renders the poll statistically meaningless. Who bothers to call? People with 50 cents to toss away? Who calls more than once? Are there organized "flood the poll" campaigns? The polls can be dangerous if people in "power" believe them. So far most of these dialin polls have exhibited distinct conservative trends, often showing figures totally opposite to more scientific, statistically valid polls taken at approximately the same time. If people BELIEVE the "instant" polls and make decisions based on their inaccurate data, we could have some real problems on our hands. --- The concept of bidding for spectrum space has been raised many times before. It has some definite validity, but could well result in very unbalanced spectrum usage -- even worse than we see today. Instead of certain parts of the spectrum happening to be unused as we have now, would we see large organizations buy up large segments of spectrum and then CONTINUE to keep them unused -- thus locking out potential new uses for that space? I'm sure there are many entities which would like to have a nice chunk of spectrum tucked away for a "rainy day". Another problem -- would you REALLY like to see, say, the Public Broadcasting Service bidding against the religious mania networks? The latter have BIG BUCKS -- it's truly amazing -- and I'm sure that many local television stations would be vulnerable to outbidding by special interest groups out to "save" the masses. These are just a couple of simple examples -- the actual situation is very complex. I'm not saying that bidding wouldn't work in certain segments of spectrum allocation, but extreme care would have to be used. Frankly, given the current behavior pattern of the Commission, the last thing I'd expect to see is "extreme care". --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Dec 83 00:40:43 pst From: cunningh@Nosc (Robert P. Cunningham) Subject: MCI & Hawaii I spoke too soon by when I said that MCI is not available here in Hawaii. This evening I went to a shopping center...and saw an MCI booth, offering a free phone call to the mainland there and then to everyone who signed up with MCI on the spot. They're here. Bob Cunningham, Dept. of Oceanography, Univ. of Hawaii ------------------------------ Date: 09 Dec 83 00:01:55 PST (Fri) Subject: Re: 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet%UCI@USC-ECL> I don't see how one could use such a scheme for voting unless there were some mechanisms installed to insure "one person, one vote" -- and it is unclear to me how one could do that without incurring a Big Brother syndrome. Because of this problem (not to mention the "instantaneous emotional register" problem), it should be clear that the error margin for polls conducted with the 900 number is potentially rather large as the public becomes more sophisticated in use of the technology. --Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 9 December 1983 09:22 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: California PUC; spectrum auction There is a connection between the two stories sent to the last digest by Ted Vail regarding developments in California. It is precisely the 10% tax on long distance which provides the incentive for large organizations like UC to bypass the regular phone system and set up a private network. That's why access charges have been proposed as an alternative to the tax. ******* Regarding auctioning spectrum: the idea has been raised many times. A revision to the Communications Act proposed in 1978 by Congressman Van Deerlin would have levied "spectrum fees" on all users of spectrum; the bill never got out of committee. Other writings on the subject include a paper by Douglas Webbink put out by the FCC's Office of Plans and Policies in 1980, a PhD dissertation by Charles Jackson of MIT in 1974, and a book by a professor at Hofstra called "The Invisible Resource" published in the early 70's. Simply allowing holders of spectrum licenses to sell them to the highest bidder -- even for different uses -- would eliminate the problem of some bands being highly congested and others being little used, although the windfall would be reaped by the original license holder rather than by the Treasury. Recently the Commission has been moving towards easing restrictions on license sales, and less subdivision of the spectrum based on uses. To give evyeryone an equal chance at capturing that windfall, the Congress recently authorized some spectrum licenses to be awarded by lottery rather than by the FCC trying to decide who was the "better" applicant. The technique will be used for allocating cellular mobile licenses in the smaller cities. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Fri 9 Dec 83 09:48:52-EST From: Marvin Sirbu <SIRBU@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: porn phone According to an article in this morning's Globe (p.5 ): " The telephone sex provisions in the new law authorize the FCC to impose civil fines, and the attorney general to seek criminal penalties against any person or firm operating a phone service judged to be `obscene or indecent' if it is available to anyone under 18 years of age. Operators of such a commercial service would face penalties of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. The provision, written primarily by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley (R-Va.), resulted from a dispute over a phone sex service operated by the New York publisher of High Society, a magazine that features pictures of nude women." So much for one of New York Telephone's biggest 900 money makers. This is the first instance of a restriction of a type previously applied only to publishers being applied to a common carrier. ------------------------------ Date: 9 December 1983 09:53 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: taping phone conversations For years it has been illegal under FCC imposed tariffs for either party to tape a telephone conversation without having a "beeper" on the line which signals the other party that the conversation is being taped. Of course the wide availability of microphones that facilitate recording off the phone from an ordinary tape recorder have made the rule unenforceable. In a recent action the FCC has proposed to do away with the rule altogether. Better, they argue, to put people on notice that they will not be warned if their conversation is being taped than to lull them into a false sense of security by having an unenforceable rule. Commentary: I think the rule should be retained. Maybe it is unenforceable, but I think the FCC should be on record as saying that they believe that taping without mutual consent is a violoation of privacy. There is a moral suasion value in having the rule on the books which would be lost if the rule is dropped. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 9-Dec-83 17:22:20-PST,8986;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 9 Dec 83 17:12:07-PST Date: 9 Dec 83 1514-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #116 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 10 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: DIAL-IT (900) numbers and misc. MCI & Hawaii Re: 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? California PUC; spectrum auction porn phone taping phone conversations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Thursday, 8-Dec-83 19:18:10-PST Subject: DIAL-IT (900) numbers and misc. The DIAL-IT (900) network was fully described in an issue of BSTJ (Bell System Technical Journal) within the last couple of years. I'd point to the exact issue, but my collection isn't handy, unfortunately. Essentially, the 900 network operates through regional concentrators tied into the ESS/CCIS network, which prevents large numbers of calls from simultaneously saturating the "primary" DDD network. In fact, the poll numbers are usually even easier to handle than the more elaborate taped messages -- most polls terminate in a very short recording that simply tells you that your vote was counted, and that's all. Holding time for such calls is very short. I see no reason why people shouldn't pay to have their vote registered via such systems, but frankly, I also consider such polls to be useless or perhaps even dangerous. They are useless, of course, since there is no control over the sample, and this renders the poll statistically meaningless. Who bothers to call? People with 50 cents to toss away? Who calls more than once? Are there organized "flood the poll" campaigns? The polls can be dangerous if people in "power" believe them. So far most of these dialin polls have exhibited distinct conservative trends, often showing figures totally opposite to more scientific, statistically valid polls taken at approximately the same time. If people BELIEVE the "instant" polls and make decisions based on their inaccurate data, we could have some real problems on our hands. --- The concept of bidding for spectrum space has been raised many times before. It has some definite validity, but could well result in very unbalanced spectrum usage -- even worse than we see today. Instead of certain parts of the spectrum happening to be unused as we have now, would we see large organizations buy up large segments of spectrum and then CONTINUE to keep them unused -- thus locking out potential new uses for that space? I'm sure there are many entities which would like to have a nice chunk of spectrum tucked away for a "rainy day". Another problem -- would you REALLY like to see, say, the Public Broadcasting Service bidding against the religious mania networks? The latter have BIG BUCKS -- it's truly amazing -- and I'm sure that many local television stations would be vulnerable to outbidding by special interest groups out to "save" the masses. These are just a couple of simple examples -- the actual situation is very complex. I'm not saying that bidding wouldn't work in certain segments of spectrum allocation, but extreme care would have to be used. Frankly, given the current behavior pattern of the Commission, the last thing I'd expect to see is "extreme care". --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Dec 83 00:40:43 pst From: cunningh@Nosc (Robert P. Cunningham) Subject: MCI & Hawaii I spoke too soon by when I said that MCI is not available here in Hawaii. This evening I went to a shopping center...and saw an MCI booth, offering a free phone call to the mainland there and then to everyone who signed up with MCI on the spot. They're here. Bob Cunningham, Dept. of Oceanography, Univ. of Hawaii ------------------------------ Date: 09 Dec 83 00:01:55 PST (Fri) Subject: Re: 900 numbers -- political uses / technology used? From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet%UCI@USC-ECL> I don't see how one could use such a scheme for voting unless there were some mechanisms installed to insure "one person, one vote" -- and it is unclear to me how one could do that without incurring a Big Brother syndrome. Because of this problem (not to mention the "instantaneous emotional register" problem), it should be clear that the error margin for polls conducted with the 900 number is potentially rather large as the public becomes more sophisticated in use of the technology. --Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 9 December 1983 09:22 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: California PUC; spectrum auction There is a connection between the two stories sent to the last digest by Ted Vail regarding developments in California. It is precisely the 10% tax on long distance which provides the incentive for large organizations like UC to bypass the regular phone system and set up a private network. That's why access charges have been proposed as an alternative to the tax. ******* Regarding auctioning spectrum: the idea has been raised many times. A revision to the Communications Act proposed in 1978 by Congressman Van Deerlin would have levied "spectrum fees" on all users of spectrum; the bill never got out of committee. Other writings on the subject include a paper by Douglas Webbink put out by the FCC's Office of Plans and Policies in 1980, a PhD dissertation by Charles Jackson of MIT in 1974, and a book by a professor at Hofstra called "The Invisible Resource" published in the early 70's. Simply allowing holders of spectrum licenses to sell them to the highest bidder -- even for different uses -- would eliminate the problem of some bands being highly congested and others being little used, although the windfall would be reaped by the original license holder rather than by the Treasury. Recently the Commission has been moving towards easing restrictions on license sales, and less subdivision of the spectrum based on uses. To give evyeryone an equal chance at capturing that windfall, the Congress recently authorized some spectrum licenses to be awarded by lottery rather than by the FCC trying to decide who was the "better" applicant. The technique will be used for allocating cellular mobile licenses in the smaller cities. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Fri 9 Dec 83 09:48:52-EST From: Marvin Sirbu <SIRBU@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: porn phone According to an article in this morning's Globe (p.5 ): " The telephone sex provisions in the new law authorize the FCC to impose civil fines, and the attorney general to seek criminal penalties against any person or firm operating a phone service judged to be `obscene or indecent' if it is available to anyone under 18 years of age. Operators of such a commercial service would face penalties of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. The provision, written primarily by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley (R-Va.), resulted from a dispute over a phone sex service operated by the New York publisher of High Society, a magazine that features pictures of nude women." So much for one of New York Telephone's biggest 900 money makers. This is the first instance of a restriction of a type previously applied only to publishers being applied to a common carrier. ------------------------------ Date: 9 December 1983 09:53 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: taping phone conversations For years it has been illegal under FCC imposed tariffs for either party to tape a telephone conversation without having a "beeper" on the line which signals the other party that the conversation is being taped. Of course the wide availability of microphones that facilitate recording off the phone from an ordinary tape recorder have made the rule unenforceable. In a recent action the FCC has proposed to do away with the rule altogether. Better, they argue, to put people on notice that they will not be warned if their conversation is being taped than to lull them into a false sense of security by having an unenforceable rule. Commentary: I think the rule should be retained. Maybe it is unenforceable, but I think the FCC should be on record as saying that they believe that taping without mutual consent is a violoation of privacy. There is a moral suasion value in having the rule on the books which would be lost if the rule is dropped. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 12-Dec-83 16:55:17-PST,14540;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 12 Dec 83 16:40:40-PST Date: 12 Dec 83 1640-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #117 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 13 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 117 Today's Topics: taping phone conversations More on 900 numbers Push-pulse phones and Bell's mistake News from the SW: 2 ACCESS CHARGES ???? News from the SW: $650+ million rate hike recommended ... news from the SW: "...not enough information to support cost figures" SWB-news: $653 MILLION INTERIM INCREASE APPROVED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 December 1983 14:02 EST From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH @ MIT-MC> Subject: taping phone conversations It is my impression (though G.o.k. that I'm fallible) that the rule had been changed to "as long as one party to the conversation knows that the conversation is being taped" a beeper is no longer needed. I seem to remember that I heard this about 1970-72. I have been following that dictum ever since. Can anyone provide a cite? ------------------------------ Date: 10 December 1983 17:43 EST From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH @ MIT-MC> Subject: More on 900 numbers Does this mean that they will charge their 50c for the call? ------------------------------ From: allegra!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley Date: Sat Dec 10 15:33:19 1983 Subject: Push-pulse phones and Bell's mistake Recently, I have been quiet annoyed to find that most manufacturers of telephones are making them with what they call the "universal dial" system, which means that they have buttons, but they actually send out dial pulses and it takes a long time. I am glad they advertise this because it warns me not to buy these phones when what I want is touch-tone service. But, sad to say, these phones are proliferating, and that has nasty implications. Manufacturers make these phones so they only have to make one model. Customers buy them because they can pretend they are getting push-button convenience without paying the Bell touch-tone fee, which here is about $3 per month. Now the silly thing is, Bell wants to convert everything to tones eventually, because it costs less to have pure touch tone service than to have pulses or the combination. But, because of tarriff regs, they have to charge more for it until the service is universal. Sadly, the widespread use of these cheap phones throws a spanner in the works, for Bell will now be forced to support pulse calling for many years to come. I suspect if they decided to scrap pulse dialing arbitrarily and give touch-tone phones to everybody who rents from them, the public uproar would be so immense that they would never get away with it. ..... Brad Templeton. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 00:52:36-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: News from the SW: 2 ACCESS CHARGES ???? Southwestern Interim Bell Increase Denied by Utility Panel ========================================================== (Austin American Statesman, Nov 24, 83) Texas telephone customers won, at least, a 4-month postponement, Wednesday, from paying a new "access charge" on monthly bills for in-state long-distance telephone service. Southwestern Bell telephone company (SWB) asked the State Public Utility Commision (PUC) last week to approve temporary access charges of $1.25 a month for residential customers and $2.35 a month for businesses, pending the outcome of its $1.3 billion rate increase case, in which a ruling is expected in April 84. Bell wanted the charges, which it has renamed "common line charges," to start Jan 1, when it seperates from ATT. The charges would have continued until the commission settled the permanent rate case. But Mary McDonald, a commission hearing examiner, issued an order Wednesday that blocks the imposition of access charges on residential and business customers, unitl the entire Bell rate case is decided by the commission next spring. McDonald outlined a plan that places all access charges on long-distance companies, such as ATT and MCI, until final action is taken by the PUC. Access charges, which do not now exist, are supposed to reimburse Bell and other local telephone companies for long-distance revenues they will lose when ATT is broken up Jan 1. Such charges would be paid by long-distance companies and local residential and business customers, regardless of wether they made long-distance calls. They are supposed to reflect the cost of providing the customer with access to the long-distance network. The FCC plans to impose an access-charge starting April 3 to recover lost inter-state long-distance revenues. The Texas PUC is considering an access-charge for lost intra-state long-distance business. In asking Nov 18 for $977 million interim rate-increase, Bell said, $776.4 million of it should be paid by access charges on the long-distance companies such as ATT which handles more than 90% of the long-distance business, and MCI. Another $98.2 million, Bell said, should come from access charges on local residential and business customers. McDonald's order, unless it is rejected by the 3-member commission, dictates that all access charges, whatever their amount, be paid by long-distance companies. Her decision, however, will not, neccessarily, spare Texas customers of Bell from all the effects of the proposed $977 million interim rate increase. The interim request includes an increase of $1.35 per month on standard residential service as well as a $48 million increase on certain instate long-distance calls. Jacqueline Holms, a commission administrative law-judge handling the BEll-rate case, is expected to rule next week on proposed interim rates. McDonald's decision also does not rule out the possibility of access charges once the $1.3 billion rate case is decided next year. In that case, Bell has asked for monthly residential access charge of $2 and a business access charge of $5.10. Dale Johnson, the district staff manager for news and employee information, said, Bell was pleased with the ruling except for the decision not to include access charges on residential and business customers. Bell will not appeal, he said. Mill Peterson, division manager for regulatory relations for ATT, said, his company felt that local telephone customers should help pay the cost for providing long-distance service but that ATT might be able to live with McDonald's order because it is only a temporary solution. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 00:55:57-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: News from the SW: $650+ million rate hike recommended ... BELL INTERIM RATE BOOST RECEIVES PARTIAL SUPPORT -------------------------------------------------- (Austin American Statesman, Nov 30) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) deserves $645 million of the $976.9 million temporary rate increase it seeks, but not from higher bills from local customers, the staff of the Texas PUC recommended Tuesday. Bell asked for $976.9 million interim increase - including a $2.60 boost in monthly residential bills - from Jan 1 until the PUC rules in April on the full $1.3 billion rate increase request. The PUC-staff said all of the $645 million increase should come from other long-distance telephone companies, including $546 million from ATT which will no longer own Bell as of Jan 1. Dale Johnson, a Bell official said, the staff recommendation was "clearly inadequate." The company contends that its seperation from ATT will cost so much, about $830 million a year, that it must have interim rate increases to keep it financially healthy until the commission rules in April. BEll has said for years that long-distance profits subsidize local service. Jacqueline Holms, the administrative law judge handling the Bell case for the commission is expected to rule on the interim rate next week. ATT told the commission that approval of the Bell request would force it ask for its own interim increase of more than $200 million on intra-state long-distance calls. US Telephone Inc., a long-distance company, protested that interim rates would boost its long-distance bill from $12.8 million a year to $149.7 million a year, an increase of 1070%. US Telephone charged that the Bell proposal is patently anti-competitive and most not be tolerated by this commission because it favored ATT. Most of the $976 million proposed increase - $776.4 million - would fall on ATT and other long-distance companies such as MCI. But Bell also sought $175.3 million in new and higher monthly charges to local residential and business customers and $25 million more for certain instate long-distance calls. Bell sought a $2.60 monthly increase for residential customers including $1.35 to cover increases in local costs and a new $1.25 "access charge" to reflect the cost of providing long-distance service, even if the customer makes no long-distance calls. A commission hearing examiner, in a seperate but related proceeding last week, made an interim ruling on access charges, cut the proposed $1.25 charge for residential customers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 01:40:22-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: news from the SW: "...not enough information to support cost Subject: figures" BELL plays down reduction in $1 billion rate request ===================================================== (Associated Press - Wednesday, Dec 7, 83) A decision by Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. to give up on $43 million of its rate increase request will have almost no effect on the $1 billion-plus rate increase being sought, a company official said Tuesday. Dale Johnson said the company has decided it does not have enough information to support a request for more money to cover the cost of centralized services to be provided to the SWB and six other regional companies that become independent Jan. 1. The $43 million drop leaves the SW rate increase request in Texas at $1.32 billion. The initial request, filed June, was for $1.7 billion, but the company has made several reductions. The company expected to have calculated the cost of centralized services in time for the rate hearing in progress before the PUC, but cost figures are unavailable, Johnson said. The $43 million reduction has "very minimal effect to ratepayers," he said. ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 01:42:16-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: SWB-news: $653 MILLION INTERIM INCREASE APPROVED $653.3 MILLION INTERIM INCREASE GIVEN APPROVAL ============================================= ( Austin American Statesman, Dec 10) SWB won approval from a Texas PUC official to, temporarily, enact new charges of $653.3 million a year Friday, but the Consumer Attorney for the State, immediately, said he would appeal. $600 million would be paid by long-distance companies while the remaining $53 million represent higher charges for what little long-distance business Bell will retain - non-local calls made within regional areas called "local access," and "transport areas." A Bell official said, that Bell would, probably, appeal the reduction of its $977 million request. ATT has previously indicated, that in result, it might be forced to seek its own $200 million interim rate increase to pay for the long-distance connection to Bell. Monthly residential and business bills for local service will not go up .... Bell had requested a $2.60 monthly increase for residential customers. .... Jim Boyle, state consumer lawyer for utility matters, said Holmes (the approving administrative law judge) was "to be commended that the rates for basic service are not going to increase," but that he was going to appeal her decision to the 3 PUC commissioners. Paul Roth, a Bell VP, said the interim order was "keenly disappointing" and that $653 million "simply is not enough" to replace the long-distance revenues it will lose starting Jan 1 ... and complained that this [ reduced increased ] "sends a negative signal precisely at the time that the investment community is carefully evaluating SWB's newly issued stock." SWB had asked for $977 million interim increase, pending the ruling of the PUC, expected in April, on its request for a permanent increase of $1.3 million in rate and service charges. [ Friends, if someone had invented this sad commedy of how the public is being set up to be milked, I (nobody) would believe it ] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 14-Dec-83 14:48:57-PST,7747;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 14 Dec 83 14:41:31-PST Date: 14 Dec 83 1433-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #118 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 15 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: Universal Dial Polls and 900 numbers ADams office, 214 area Another CNA Goes Public Disposable Phones Public "charge" phones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Dec 83 2043 EST (Monday) From: Michael.Fryd@CMU-CS-A (X435MF0E) Subject: Universal Dial There is no need to worry about so called Universal-Dial systems forcing operating companies to support pulse dialing forever. Most of the phones that I have seen on the market look like they will only last a few years. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 1983 2144-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL> Subject: Polls and 900 numbers Aw, c'mon guys! Who does it hurt when "Entertainment Tonight" or "Friday Night Video" uses 900 numbers to take an informal poll? Not me! (Besides, "Friday Night Video" won't take votes from the West Coast anyway...) --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Dec 83 8:30:11 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: ADams office, 214 area June 1959 Scientific American, page 10, has ADams 5-2323 at Richardson, Texas (suburb of Dallas). (Someone was wondering if AD stood for Addison, which is near Richardson. Most place names which were retained for central office names in dial system are in NYC area.) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1983 05:55-PST Subject: Another CNA Goes Public From: SAC.ADR@USC-ISIE Article from TeleNews, Nebraska Edition, Vol 2, No 11 (Dec 83): Ever need the name and address that goes with a number? Now there's a service that can give it to you. Current (rather than Customer?) Name and Address Service (CNA) is available as of Nov 1. With the service, you can obtain the name and address for any telephone listed in the five states served by Northwestern Bell. You cannot receive information on non-published numbers. There's a 50-cent charge, and you can get two listings per call. Call a CNA operator any time during the day or night. When calling from within the 402 area code, call 1-580-2255 (Omaha customers need also dial *1* first). Outside the 402 area code, call 1-402-580-2255. Normal long distance charges apply for calls outside Omaha. **NOTE: Omaha has no 580 'exchange' George Rezac ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 83 15:43 EST From: Denber.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Disposable Phones Speaking of cheap phones, last week a local lumber and building supply company here in Rochester had one-piece "push-pulse" phones on sale for $4.88. (That's right - for the price of popcorn and a movie, you can get a phone). They have square keys with a reasonably long travel, last number redial, mute, and ringer off/on. I was about to say that that price is even lower than for pocket calculators, except that someone just walked in showing me the solar calculator that a vendor gave him free at the end of his pitch. Amazing. - Michel ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1983 09:22:40-EST From: prindle at NADC Subject: Public "charge" phones Well, there I am wandering aimlessly about Washington National airport while waiting for my flight last night, when what to my wondering eyes did appear, a pair of distinctly unique public phones - "charge" phones. No, AT&T had not created this marvel, it was MCI. The instructions accompanying these phones did not spell out the rates, just promised me that it would cost me less (than what?) to call if I charged the call to my VISA or MASTER CARD; so I decided to try it: 1. You pick up the phone and get a dial tone. At this point I think you are simply tied into a local Bell private line, but the tone pad is for the most part non-functional. 2. You point the magnetic stripe in the right direction and slide your VISA or MASTER CARD card through a slot on the right side of the phone. 3. The phone dials a local number by itself (an MCI access port, I suppose). A new dial tone (MCI's local tone) appears. 4. The phone then dials a seemingly endless sequence of tones. I suspect that it starts out with a special MCI access code which identifies the call as a charge call, possibly identifies the phone itself, then transmits your card type, number, expiration date, etc. 5. After a brief delay, a somewhat weaker dial tone appears (the MCI network itself I guess), and the card on the phone says to now dial an area code and number anywhere in the U.S.A. I dialed my favorite "always busy" number here in PA, and sure enough, within a few seconds I was greeted with the friendly, but not particularly loud, busy signal. (I hung up quickly because I know MCI starts charging based on time, not supervision). If this catches on (and it certainly seems like it will if the charges are really less than an equivalent AT&T call made with user entered calling card number), it will surely result in Bell system (or whatever they will be called after 1 Jan) public phones dying a quick death. This will not be a happy result, unfortunately, since many people either do not own one of those two credit cards, or cannot comprehend the complexity of placing a call this way. It also raises several questions: Does MCI "eat" the cost of the local private line and/or the local calls, or is this factored in to the price of each call placed by a user of the phone? Does MCI verify the entered credit card number via online access to the credit card authorization center prior to completing the call (normally, obtaining an authorization requires that the amount of the charge be know in advance)? Since the tones used to establish the local connection and to enter the access code and credit card info are audible, what does MCI do to prevent fraudulent use of the service? Someone could tape the sequence of tones, analyze them, and determine how to place such a call from any phone substituting someone else's credit card number. Perhaps the receiving end will not accept the tones if entered slowly by hand. Perhaps the credit card info is encrypted. Perhaps, they haven't even addressed the problem. It is also doubtful that a user's calls will show up itemized on his credit card statement, so how does he keep MCI honest, or check for errors (I hear there are lots of billing errors on MCI)? If such phones largely replaced the standard variety in public places, wouldn't MCI be required to make the phones capable of reaching emergency numbers without a credit card? In any case, it looks like the Bell companies had better jump on the technology bandwagon or find a place to bury their public phone systems. Frank Prindle Prindle@NADC ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 15-Dec-83 21:28:11-PST,15987;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 15 Dec 83 21:11:00-PST Date: 15 Dec 83 2110-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #119 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 16 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: MCI phone at DCA terminal AP story on MCI charge phones. CNA Service for Northwestern Bell cheap telephones FCC moves to regulate telephone `sex-services'. Rates from the MCI phone at DCA terminal Guess who reads the Digest? Telephones killed by radio contest. MCI Rates... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Dec 1983 1816-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI phone at DCA terminal This was announced a few weeks ago in the digest... AT&T also plans to introduce this service once they are separated on 1 Jan. The point brought up about emergency numbers is interesting, but this is of course a state-by-state issue. I remember something about it only being required on outdoor phones. The PUC should be contacted, though. MCI should be glad to provide this service as a measure of public good will. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1983 16:20-PST Subject: AP story on MCI charge phones. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> a011 2217 28 Nov 83 PM-Credit Card Calls,420 Card Caller Telephones For AT&T, MCI By NORMAN BLACK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and MCI Communications have selected the next battlefield in their war for long-distance phone calls - the nation's airports, bus stations, convention centers and hotel lobbies. AT&T announced Monday it would soon start installing special ''Card Caller'' telephones and distributing new credit cards that would allow travelers to dispense with the hassle of punching in special codes or using an operator. More than 47 million of the new cards will be mailed free-of-charge in January to customers who now have a Bell System calling card, AT&T said. The heavy plastic cards will be specially encoded, allowing customers to simply insert the card in the new phones to automatically bill their local number. MCI, which operates the nation's second-largest long-distance network, immediately responded with an announcement of its own - it will begin installing special ''card-reading'' telephones next week tied to the MCI network that will accept MasterCard and Visa. ''There are about 120 million holders of MasterCard and Visa and they'll be able to call anywhere in the continental United States and Hawaii from these phones using those cards,'' said MCI spokesman Gary Tobin. ''They won't have to be MCI subscribers.'' Both companies said they had been moving toward credit-card phones for some time and claimed the other was merely an imitator. Both agreed, however, they would now have to fight for ''shelf space'' for their new phones. Of the two systems, AT&T's is the most advanced from an equipment standpoint. Its new ''Card Caller'' phone features a small, built-in computer and a video screen to display instructions and the number that's being dialed. While AT&T executives refused to discuss such possibilities Monday, they agreed their new phones have the capability for more futuristic uses, such as displaying ''electronic mail'' or directory information. The AT&T phone can also be used regardless of whether a traveler is placing a local call or a long-distance call because AT&T will be paying the Bell companies to handle billing services. MCI's phones, on the other hand, won't feature any type of display screen and can be used only when placing an interstate long-distance call. But they will have an attached ''card reader'' that will scan a MasterCard or Visa just as AT&T's phone will ''read'' its card. The immediate object of both systems is to make it easier for travelers to place a phone call when they're away from home, in the process fighting for an estimated $2 billion a year in long-distance, pay-phone business. ap-ny-11-29 0116EDT *************** I wondered many of the same things that prindle@NADC did with respect the credit card verification and security against fraud and such. However, its MY opinion that MCI and AT&T are wasting their time and money with respect to these new fangled public pay phones. Why? Because with cellular radio coming to a town near you in the next year or so, why should you want to waste your time lining up to use or find a pay phone when you have the convenience of placing your call as you stroll thru the airport or the like. If I were a MCI stock holder, I'd sell short! Geoff P.S. It would be interesting for someone to actually place one or more successful calls on MCI public phones and see how their "appear" on their VISA or MasterCharge bill (i.e. does each call get a `separate' charge or do they get bunched? if bunched, daily, weekly, monthly, ???). ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1983 1929-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: CNA Service for Northwestern Bell Now we have two places with public CNA -- all of Northwestern Bell, plus Chicago. The Northwestern Bell Service is particularly interesting in the way it is priced. People in Omaha have to pay 50 cents to use it. But anyone outside the Omaha area only has to pay the current LD charge for calling it -- i.e. whatever it costs to call Omaha by whatever carrier you choose to use. If I call it on a Band 5 WATS from Massachusetts at night, it may cost as little as 5 cents if the interchange of information between me and the operator is fast enough, say 20-25 seconds. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Dec 83 17:21:18 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: cheap telephones Denber writes of telephones for $4.88 (the price of popcorn and a movie). There are numerous stores around here (West Los Angeles and Santa Monica) selling telephones for around that price and I have seen receive-only telephones (no buttons or dial) for only 99 cents. But where can you see a movie and buy popcorn for only $4.88? vail ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1983 17:18-PST Subject: FCC moves to regulate telephone `sex-services'. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> a238 1609 14 Dec 83 AM-Telephone Sex,650 FCC Moves To Regulate ''Dial-A-Porn'' By NORMAN BLACK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission, with some trepidation, moved Wednesday toward regulating ''Dial-A-Porn'' telephone sex services. By a unanimous vote, the agency solicited public comment on how it might enforce a new law signed by President Reagan last week that declares any commercial service using ''obscene or indecent'' language illegal if it is available to persons under 18 years of age. Since the law gives the agency only 180 days to establish regulations, the FCC said it was setting a deadline of Jan. 23 for comments. The commission's action came just one day after Car-Bon Publishers Inc., a New York firm that publishes High Society magazine and whose call-in sex line prompted the new law, went to federal court in Manhattan with a suit aimed at overturning the statute as unconstitutional. High Society, a magazine that features pictures of nude women, began offering its telephone sex service last spring as a promotional gimmick. The service allows individuals to call a special phone circuit in New York City and listen to tape recordings of women - supposedly those in the latest issue of the magazine - simulating sex. There is no special charge for the service in New York, because much of the city is on measured service and thus local phone calls are billed separately or counted toward an allowance. Persons outside New York who dial the number must pay the normal long-distance charges. While originally designed as a promotional gimmick, the service has proven highly lucrative for High Society because of the huge number of people who have been calling. The magazine pockets two cents for each call, and the service has attracted up to 500,000 calls a day. The callers, to the chagrin of state and federal governments, have included public employees listening in during work hours. Several state governments - Virginia, for one - have received unexpectedly high long-distance bills because of calls to High Society's number. On Wednesday, the Pentagon acknowledged it had discovered that 136 such calls had been made from the Defense Intelligence Agency in February, March and April. The agency's phones have now been equipped with a special ''electronic block'' to prevent such calls in the future, the Pentagon said. Under the law signed by Reagan Dec. 8, the FCC is authorized to impose civil fines, and the attorney general to seek criminal penalties, against any person or firm operating a phone service judged to be ''obscene or indecent'' if available to minors. Operators of such a commercial service face maximum penalties of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for six months. The law specifically directs the F@8 vedop standards for determining when a phone sex service has taken reasonable steps to ensure that minors can't call it and thus is immune from prosecution. It was that provision that attracted commission scrutiny Wednesday, with FCC General Counsel Bruce Fein stating he was not sure how the agency should comply with the directive. The FCC offered several possibilities for public comment, such as restricting the services to ''those hours when a majority of parents can be expected to be home and therefore responsible for their children's behavior;'' for example, from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. The agency also noted any service requiring credit card information might be acceptable, while acknowledging that would have no effect on High Society's service. ''Comments are sought, however, on whether some automated variation of a screening device might be feasible, such as an access code that requires no operator assistance,'' the FCC said. The agency also noted it might consider limiting advertisements of such phone numbers to the inside pages of magazines available only to persons over 18, but at the same time questioned whether it had authority ''to impose restrictions on advertising.'' In a related development, the author of the new law asked the FCC Wednesday to levy fines totaling $15.8 million on High Society. Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, R-Va., argued the FCC should levy the maximum penalty of $50,000 a day dating back to Feb. 1, when the service first began. Bliley contends the phone sex service was illegal even before the new law was enacted and that it is ''time the FCC got off the dime ... and put these guys out of business.'' ap-ny-12-14 1909EST ***********(* With 1984 just two weeks away, I find the `Owellan' implications of this proposed law worthy of considerable note: Who declares/decides if a given dial-up service is obscene or indecent? Would the law have certain words (the like George Carlin magic 7) which are not allowed? The text of the story seems to revolve around "voice sex services", but what about computer based bbs systems, such as the MRC BBS in Mtn.View? And just HOW does one propose to PREVENT the under 18ers from accessing such voice or computer based systems electronically? When you walk into your local ol' sex shoppe, they can ask for your ID or Drivers License....but how would the equivalent of being `carded' be done over a phone connx? Lastly, anyone know how/why High Society goes about accumulating 2 cents per call made to their porn number? I would be interested in having the same accumulation technique/service put on my home and office phone lines. Geoff ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1983 2051-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Rates from the MCI phone at DCA terminal I just called MCI Customer Service (800 MCI-MCI0) to find out what the rates are for non-MCI customers who use the phone and charge to their VISA/MC accounts. They insisted that there was no higher charge (even though the news article quoted an MCI spokesman stating that non-customers would pay a higher rate). So DCA to Boston would cost 25 cents a minute. The AT&T rate is 26 cents a minute (with the first minute being 9 cents more when direct dialled -- but an additional $1.05 for using the AT&T card). MCI customer service told me that if I was charged any additional charge for using my VISA/MC, I should call customer service and have it taken off, since customer service had told me that there was no charge. [I'd check again right before using one of those phones... and get the name of the customer service rep to whom you spoke...] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Dec 83 22:54:12 EST From: A B Cooper III <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: Guess who reads the Digest? By his own admission, the President (I believe) of MCI Digital Information Services Corporation--those folks who bring you MCI Mail, reads this Digest every weekend from home. His name escapes me, but he was the keynote speaker at the Computer Networking Symposium sponsored by IEEE and NBS in Silver Spring, Maryland early this week. I say welcome and wonder if any AT&T or Sprint execs are "read-in" as well. This truly is a wonderful forum. Imagine the speed of the feedback channel!. Brint [Well! TELECOM really does have an impressive audience! Distribution goes out over USENET, so all the AT&T Companies get copies. My presonal regards to the President of MCI Information Services Corporation! --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Dec 83 21:46:19 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Telephones killed by radio contest. About a month ago telephone service in NW Washington, D.C. was totally disrupted because a local radio station was having some phenomenal call-in contest. People in the area just picked up their phones and got no dial tone. Just wait until the ATT long distance goes belly up when MTV decides to give away a rock star to the one hundredth caller at 1-900-.... -Ron [Most large cities have had mass calling prefixes, which restrict the number of connections from outside exchanges to 2 or 3 per exchange. Boston: 931, Los Angeles: 520, New York: 955. Radio stations are all connected to that exchange. If everybody in your exchange dials the station number, they will get circuit jam signals before you run out of resources. 1-900 numbers are all CCIS. The network won't connect your line to a long distance trunk without first checking to see if the line at the other end is busy. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1983 1437-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI Rates... More on MCI rates from the pay phones at DCA terminal. Today, I was quoted a daytime rate of 42 cents per minute (the same as the AT&T rate) and was told that there is a 15 cent connect charge. ??? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 16-Dec-83 14:35:37-PST,7608;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 16 Dec 83 14:26:19-PST Date: 16 Dec 83 1427-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #120 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 17 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: Dial-Up Sex Services MCI Charge-a-call phones Portable TouchTone generators airport phones vs celluar Rumors... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Dec 1983 0745-PST From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Dial-Up Sex Services I am somewhat mystified by all this recent hoopla regarding the High Society magazine dial-up audio sex line. For many years there have been hundreds of dial-up services advertised in the tiny ads in the back of the "men's magazines", wherein you dial, give a MC or Visa number, and get n minutes of supposedly stimulating conversation with a person of the female persuasion. Is the only difference with this one the implication that it is free (aside from the cost of the call itself)? If so, I guess the poor peoples' organizations should cite this as another example of the administration's "anti-poor-people" attitude they keep complaining about... The best comment I ever saw on this sort of thing was a cartoon in one of the magazines carrying such ads. It showed the woman on the other end of the line -- a frowzy housewife in her kitchen with a kid on a highchair, reading all this salacious stuff off a gravy-splattered script... Some local massage parlor used to have a similar service here; until they opened up around noon or so, if you dialled their number, you got one of several (seemingly random choice) recordings of a sultry female voice talking of sexual matters. It was interesting that they were very careful to not use any slang or common obscenities or terms; always very clinically proper in their terminology. Anyway, there was no fuss about this that I recall, but the number was changed a day or so after it became common knowledge. This doesn't seem to exist here anymore, but most of the massage parlors have been repressed recently. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1983 0806-PST From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: MCI Charge-a-call phones I note the description in one of the messages about the new MCI chargecard phones that they are good only for INTERSTATE calls. I thought that these alternative services were now claiming that you could call "any" other phone and there was no restriction on intrastate calls. Is there some special restriction on the numbers diallable (or reachable) from these particular MCI phones? (I guess this would have to be tested somewhere else than the Washington National example cited, as just about everything is interstate from there.) While I am on my usual intrastate vs. interstate pet peeve, was anyone else offended by that mention that the California PUC allowed intrastate LD charges to rise by 10+ percent? Intrastate charges, at least here in Missouri, are far higher than the same distance called interstate, and there is absolutely no excuse for this, except the relative powers of the local telco and the state PUC (or equivalent) as opposed to the FCC! If the powers-that-be who have decreed the breakup and restructuring mainly to allow cheaper long distance calling (I can't see any other benefit) believe in this cause so strongly, why not also federally mandate that no intrastate call can be charged at a higher rate than the same-distance call made interstate? After all, isn't a cheaper intrastate LD call just as important as a cheaper interstate LD call? For the nonce, freezing all intrastate LD charges would seem to be the correct interim procedure. I expect someone is going to say that the federal agencies have no authority to so control a state matter, but that argument doesn't hold much water around here, at least, where we have federal judges setting local property tax rates and overriding local election results regarding taxation, due to a school desegregation case. It seems that any federal agency can really do just about anything it wants if it wants to badly enough... Growl... Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1983 0830-PST From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Portable TouchTone generators Recently, one of the list contributors recommended the use of the little portable TouchTone generators for accessing alternative LD services from non-TouchTone phones. I just wonder if the common use of such devices will lead to more use of "Blue Boxes", probably housed in the same nondescript Radio Shack tone generator boxes? After all, a few years ago when we were hearing about "blue box" LD service theft fairly often in the news media, there were very few legitimate uses for such external tone generators. The MCI/Sprint services were not common yet, and, aside from some answering machine control units, there was no justifiable reason for sending funny tones into the telephone mouthpiece with a mysterious box. Now, with such things common enough for Radio Shack to sell them, I would think that it would be harder to restrain their use. By the way, since we don't hear about "blue box" arrests anymore, has the system been changed so that they don't work any more? An hypothetical question: I note that Radio Shack sells one of these tone generators to control appliances, lamps, etc. via dial-up. If you built your own system to do this, or run a phone answering machine, or some such legitimate use, but used the particular tone patterns that the "blue box" people use to muck about in the innards of the phone system, would your device be "illegal" or confiscatable by telco security? That is, it would work as a "blue box", but also function in the exact same manner to perform a perfectly legitimate and legal purpose. By the way, are "blue boxes" in and of themselves outlawed by any statute, or is it just their use for an illegal purpose (theft of service) that is illegal (and they being thereby confiscated as "tools of the crime" or some such)? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 83 1441 EST From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A Subject: airport phones vs celluar I am always amazed at how slow people change. You add better features to existing systems but people rarely hop on the band wagon to use a new "system" like walking down an airport corridor and talking on your celluar telephone. The current trend at least in Pittsburgh seems to be "car phone" sales tactic....not "portable or belt phone". I expect the celluar phone to take several years to get in almost everyone's car and then a few more years to get outside the car. Therefore MCI and AT&T are doing the right thing. Lots of money is made in a few years..... -Rudy ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1983 1628-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Rumors... Heard a rumor today that there was a major nationwide (i.e. multi-site) PhonePhreak bust. Seems the FBI was busy. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 19-Dec-83 21:38:01-PST,14261;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 19 Dec 83 21:21:09-PST Date: 19 Dec 83 2122-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #121 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 20 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: Cellular vs. public phones SPRINT drops monthly service fee. Airport Pay phones Blue boxes Cordless phones and stupidity... July 1983 Chicago call guide Re: MCI Charge-a-call phones voice-grade service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 16 Dec 1983 13:19:05-PST From: decwrl!rhea!donjon!goldstein@Shasta Subject: Cellular vs. public phones MCI and AT&T may be having a nice time with public phones, but I'd hate to discount them just because cellular is coming out. Cellular means we'll have lots of new channels available in cities like NY and Chicago, which long ago ran out of IMTS slots. But in return, radios are even more expensive, about three grand apiece. And the hand-helds aren't in real production yet (lots of battery drain to worry about!). Then you pay about a quarter a minute for channel time, plus tolls. And it'll be a few years before the small markets & boonies are on cellular systems. So I'll just hang on to my dimes (in Mass., you outlanders pay more, I realize) and make my calls on the cheap. Heck, up here in the home of the Bean & the Cod, there's no waiting list for cheap, old-fashioned IMTS, and Cellular isn't even running yet. Admittedly it's hard to do decent hand-held at 150 MHz, full duplex (my Yaesu handheld does great hdx, tho), but only someone whose middle name is Croesus will use Cellular when coin is available! Fred ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1983 14:51-PST Subject: SPRINT drops monthly service fee. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> n012 0711 16 Dec 83 BC-SPRINT (BizDay) (ART TO LASER 2 CLIENTS) By STEVEN J. MARCUS c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service New York - The GTE Corp. announced Thursday that it would drop the monthly service fee it charges users of its long-distance Sprint service on Jan. 1 and offer its discount long-distance phone service to any city in the United States. The policy change is Sprint's attempt to increase its market share quickly as competition for lucrative long-distance calling increases with the breakup of the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. ''We will be offering a single type of service at low rates with no monthly fee,'' said Dale F. Pilz, president of GTE Sprint. This will enable the company ''to compete directly for all customers who spend over $5 a month on long distance,'' he said. The current long-distance market is worth about $50 billion a year, according to Harry Edelson, an analyst with the First Boston Corp. in New York. The market is dominated by the American Telephone and Telegraph Co., with an estimated 94 percent share of the business. The MCI Communications Corp., Edelson estimates, is second with 3 percent, and Sprint is third with 1.5 percent. Given the great gap between the front-runner and the rest, most analysts, as well as Sprint itself, say that the major target of the runners-up is AT&T. Each is trying to erode its huge customer base, with special emphasis on grabbing business customers who spend far more than residences on long-distance calls. Even with their small overall market shares, MCI's revenues in 1983 will be about $1.8 billion and Sprint's will approach $1 billion, Edelson said. ''We view our competitor to be AT&T,'' said Tom Bestor, a spokesman for GTE Sprint. ''Pricewise, we're about equal with MCI, with average savings of 10 to 25 percent on a total bill'' compared with AT&T. ''And by eliminating the monthly fee and start-up costs, we expect to increase affordability even further.'' Gary Tobin, a spokesman for MCI, said his company was ''mystified'' as to why Sprint was cutting rates now when access charges are not yet settled. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have yet to agree on the access charges that long-distance carriers will pay local phone companies for access to their systems. And Tobin said that Sprint's strategy might backfire if it had to increase its rates once those new charges were set. Beginning Jan. 1, all customers in Sprint network cities will be able to call any city in the United States, whether it is in the network or not, at rates that vary only with mileage and the time of day. Customers with bills of more than $25 will receive a discount on all calls, with the discount increasing as the volume goes up, and Home Sprint and Business Sprint will be combined in a single service. But analysts say that Sprint's elimination of a start-up charge and monthly service fee - there will be a minimum use charge of $5 a month - will have the greatest impact. Sprint now has a service charge of $5 a month for home users and a minimum of $25 a month for businesses. ''This makes an enormous difference'' to the many low-volume users across the country, said Edward M. Greenberg, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. ''By eliminating the $5 charge, Sprint is broadening the market it appeals to.'' But Edelson also expressed some surprise that GTE Sprint would cut its prices now, before the access charge question is settled. He said the new charges would likely require Sprint and its competitors to revise their rates. Still, ''they are cutting their rates now,'' Edelson said, ''so that when customers get to choose'' the long-distance carrier they wish to use in conjunction with their local phone service, the hope is they will choose Sprint. ''GTE has enough cash to do a loss-leader now and make it up later on,'' he said. nyt-12-16-83 1001est *************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Dec 83 11:01 EST From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay> Subject: Airport Pay phones When I was last at Homdel, the folks doing pay phones were very worried about MCI's intention to enter the airport pay phone business. It turns out that Airport pay phones are the only net income source in the pay phone business, the rest of the pay phones are losers. Collection costs are the worst part of it. They were looking into magnetic strip cards and "smart cards" (those with the chip inside them). But since they expected to still have to provide those that collected the change, they were worried by this move. (oh yes, they have elaborate histogram and statictics that tell them how often to visit each phone to pick up the money). - steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Dec 83 22:16:26 pst From: The tty of Phil Lapsley <jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley> Subject: Blue boxes I personally wouldn't think that the proliferation of Radio Shack Touch-Tone generators would lead to many more blue boxes being used. After all, most people who would use a blue box would not use it in a public place. Perhaps having more people with portable Touch-Tone generators might let people with blue boxes use them with a bit less secrecy, but I don't really think that will add to the number of people using blue boxes. Around here (Bay Area), the blue box situation is quite neatly sewn up by Pac Tel. The equipment is set up in such a way that any call made with a blue box drops a trouble card or triggers a printer somewhere, so they have the time the call was made, as well as the number it was made from, and the number it was made to. While this certainly doesn't stop the call from being made, it effectively limits what a person can do with a blue box -- that is, he cannot call anyone, since they will simply get a call the next day from the Security division, and of course, he must call from a pay telephone. To me, this seems a very good solution to the problem. As far as actual laws refering to blue boxes, you might check California Penal Code 502.7. It does not actually make the posession of a blue box illegal, but it does make doing anything with it a misdemeanor. I quote: 502.7(b) "A person who ... sells, gives, or otherwise transfers to another, or offers, or advertises, plans or instructions for making or assembling an instrument, apparatus, or device described [above, which mentions the actual intent to avoid a charge with the device] with knowledge ... that they may be used to make or assemble such an instrument ... is guilty of a misdemeanor." Next comes 502.7(g) "An instrument, apparatus, device, plans, instructions, or written publications described in subdivision (b) or (c) of this section may be seized under warrant or incident to a lawful arrest, and, upon the conviction of a person for a violation of [the above laws], such instrument [etc] may be destroyed as contraband by the sheriff of the county..." They don't say what happens if they don't get a conviction. But in any case, with the advent of CCIS and the ESS, blue boxes should be rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Phil (jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 1983 1325-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Cordless phones and stupidity... An article in the Boston Globe tells of some people in Woonsocket, Rhode Island who were stupid enough to discuss illegal activities over a cordless phone for an extended period of time (six weeks after they were discovered by the police who taped some 100 hours of conversations). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Dec 83 8:50:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: July 1983 Chicago call guide On Friday night, I looked it up on microfiche at U of Del library. Pages 32 & 33 list 312-area prefixes, and even though 1+ was implemented for out-of-area calls from 312, I find no N0X or N1X. Area code map points out 212 & 718 in NYC, but area code list shows only 212 for NYC. No mention in either of 818 (to be split from 213). I could not find CNA number on p. 2, which lists phone-co. numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Dec 83 9:02:19 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: MCI Charge-a-call phones I don't understand your comment about "just about everything is interstate" from Washington National Airport. The airport is in Virginia, not DC. It can be reached using area 202 (which is good for all except outermost Md. & Va. suburbs), but I understand that intrastate rates would apply if you are calling long-distance between Va. suburbs and other parts of Virginia. 202-936 was or is the weather report from (or based on info from) Washington National, but Richmond, in 703 area until 703/804 split in June 1973, also had a 936 for the weather. ------------------------------ Date: 19 December 1983 23:47 EST From: Minh N. Hoang <MINH @ MIT-MC> Subject: voice-grade service This is in response to a question that was raised in the Telecom Digest a while ago. I joined recently and didn't see too many responses to it in the later digests. The typical phone channel has about 3 Khz bandwidth (.5 - 3 Khz). Most analog signals within the band will be passed except for a few special signalling frequencies (like 2600 Hz), subject to the usual channel distortions. The phone companies do have a basic specification for their connections but this seems pretty much self-imposed on the local level. I don't know whether the FCC specs minmum channel performance on interstate circuits. But the international lines are specified by CCITT in terms of noise, nonlinear distortions etc... Going digital actually improves the phone's performance. As long as an analog signal is sampled at least twice as fast as its highest freq (Nyquist criteria), it can be reconstructed exactly. The tel. lines are sampled at 8 Khz and as long as the bits don't get screwed, the signal gets through w/ less distortion (some quantizing noise and freq. shift) after the digital-to-analog conversion at the local central office. Also digital signals are easier to switch and can be transmitted w/o the additive noise effect like their analog counter parts. Further more, once the analog signal is in digital format, it can be put through fancy signal processing schemes which bring us the $300 1200-baud modem in 3 chips. The fastest rate for dial line, full-duplex is 2400 bps, the 224 modems. The fastest rate for dial line, one way is 9600 bps. (The real state-of-the-art modem coming in 1 or 2 yrs is dial line, full-duplex 9600 bps each way, conforming to the recently adopted CCITT Rec. V.39. By the way, Bell 212 is equiv. to CCITT Rec. V.22; the 224's conforms to CCITT Rec. V.22 Bis. Modem's handshaking protocols have to be set before anybody make them.) Anyhow, for leased line, the fastest advertised speed if 19.2 Kbps. But the real working speed is around 14.4 Kbps. Needlessly said here, these modems cost bundles (A dollar a bps). You can do a lot in 3 Khz... On the other hand, say the phone company is digitizing our signal into 8-bit samples at 8 Khz. That means in the system, the nominal rate is 64 Kbps. If the telcos can just extend their lines to those who are sending digital data, the modems can be eliminated w/ much improvement in service and little extra switching cost. Direct digital service.... And then I'm still using a 300-baud modem... *Sigh* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 20-Dec-83 16:50:34-PST,16318;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 20 Dec 83 16:32:47-PST Date: 20 Dec 83 1611-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #122 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 21 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: "Blue Boxes" Bell 212s and CCITT V.22 Cellular mobile phone direct digital service Wiretap loophole concerns. Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #121 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 20 Dec 83 00:32:09-MST From: Spencer W. Thomas <THOMAS@UTAH-20.ARPA> Subject: "Blue Boxes" My understanding of "blue boxes" is that the LD switching tones are different from the standard Touch-Tone(R) frequencies. Thus, having one of these Radio Shack Touch-Tone generators won't let you do illegal LD dialing, anyway. Besides, on almost all circuits now, the switching tones are on a different path from the voice (I never hear them beep in the background anymore), so a "blue box" isn't supposed to work. Maybe someone who works in this area can comment further. =Spencer ------------------------------ Date: 20 Dec 1983 0832-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Bell 212s and CCITT V.22 Though the modulation technique of the Bell 212 is essentially equivalent to the CCITT Recommendation V.22, there are unfortunately enough differences that 212s and V.22s are not fully compatible. Recommendation V.22 specifies different handshaking practices and the presence of a pilot tone. The result is that many (but not all) 212 modems can originate calls to V.22 modems, but V.22 modems can not originate calls to 212s. The major differences in the handshaking are a different answer tone (the 2225 Hz answer tone of Bell 212s is close enough to the 2280 Hz AC9 signalling frequency that telephone connections in the U.K. will be disconnected upon answer) and the fact that V.22 provides a different procedure for dealing with a lower speed (neither the 103 technique which is not used at all in Europe nor the similar V.21). Since most European countries require that all telecommunications equipment adhere strictly to CCITT recommendations (even in those very few countries which permit privately owned modems) this severely limits the use of 212s. On a product I have been working on it will be interesting to see which countries are willing to permit it to be used in originate-only mode or between two cooperating versions of the product. Holland is the only one so far. In most other countries we expect to have to remove the 212 chips from the device, leaving only V.23 mode 2, which is 1200 in one direction and 75 in the other. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Dec 1983 0708-PST Subject: Cellular mobile phone From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Question: What will happen with the current mobile phone system and equipment when the new cellular systems are installed? I would think that they would both operate in parallel for at least some time, but is that planned to continue indefinitely? Or are there industries clamoring for the current mobile phone frequency assignments already? Will the current system continue in less-dense areas, with the cellular systems for highly-developed urban areas only? In that case, will the operating companies have to maintain operators and equipment to service the non-local old-style mobile phone usesrs who come into the urban areas from time to time? (Can you use your existing mobile phone in many different operating company areas if you drive across the country? How does billing work in that case?) Will Martin PS: Apologies for my poor geography; I forgot Washington National was in VA, not in DC. A slip of the cerebrum... WM ------------------------------ Date: 20 December 1983 12:07 EST From: Jeffrey R. Del Papa <DP @ MIT-ML> Subject: direct digital service Actualy the quantizing rate is 56kbs. they steal a low order bit from the 8 bit data, for syncronizatation purposes. It is supposed to happen to only one line per t1 bank (1.4mhz carries 24 calls), so there is no gaurantee that you get all 8 bits. In fact to save money in some of the older local trunk equip., they just sent 7 bits on all lines. to add to the screw, many of the digital trunking schemes have a set of duty cycle requirements. min of ~3% so you cna tell the line is alive, and syncronize, and a max of ~65% (depending) to keep from frying your microwave transmitter, or diode laser (I am not sure of the upper limit, but I know there is one) Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 20 Dec 1983 11:01-PST Subject: Wiretap loophole concerns. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> n089 1907 18 Dec 83 BC-TAP 2takes (EXCLUSIVE: 10 p.m. EST Embargo) A Loophole Raises Concern About Privacy in Computer Age By DAVID BURNHAM c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service WASHINGTON - Telecommunications experts are expressing concern that the federal wiretap law does not make it a crime for anyone, whether private citizen, law enforcement officer or foreign spy, to intercept the millions of messages transmitted around the United States each day by computer. The experts, who are in Congress, the American Telephone and Telegraph Co., and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the importance of the loophole in the 1968 law has been greatly magnified in recent years with the increasing use of computers for storing and transmitting personal, business, and government information. Three congressional panels are considering whether the law should be rewritten to reflect the computer age. A major concern, both in Congress and among the experts, is whether the loophole gives local, state, and federal law enforcement officers an opportunity to conduct computerized electronic surveillance without the court approval required for wiretaps. There is no evidence of widespread exploitation of the law by officers. But John Shattock, director of the national office of the civil liberties union, said: ''The issue here is the privacy of communications against secret government surveillance. The threat here truly is Big Brother, not a group of little kids.'' Some fear that any change in the current law, unless it is done carefully, could inadvertently increase or decrease the power of law enforcement officers. The wiretap law forbids the monitoring of conversations except for law enforcement officers who have obtained a warrant from a judge. In the age of the computer, however, more and more messages, including those expressed by the human voice, are broken down into ''digital bits'' in their transmission. But because of the way the 1968 law is written, the interception of these bits is not a crime and the police are free to intercept them without warrants. Most electronic surveillance is passive, making it impossible to measure how much the loophole is being exploited, whether by the authorities, by industrial spies, by organized crime figures trying to make a killing in the stock market, by international spies seeking government data, or by curious individuals with a personal computer. But in recent months a number of computerized data banks in government and industry have become the targets of long-distance telephone attacks by amateur computer experts working from their home computers. In addition, indictments have charged foreign computer concerns with attempting to purchase sensitive details about the products of American companies. More seriously, perhaps, several years ago the Carter administration announced that it believed the Soviet Union was using antennas believed to have been set up on its grounds in Washington, New York, and San Francisco to intercept digital information being transmitted in microwaves by businesses and government agencies. The Carter administration took limited technical steps to prevent the Russians from obtaining sensitive government data and ordered the National Security Agency to help private corporations improve their security. But it never took any formal legal action against the Russians or formally asked Congress to amend the law. H.W. William Caming oversees privacy and corporate security matters at AT&T. ''As we enter the year made famous by George Orwell's book, 'Nineteen-Eighty-four,' computer crime is on the rise and may well constitute a major crime threat of the 1980s,'' he said in a recent interview. ''We therefore are encouraged by and vigorously support current efforts in Congress and the states to enact suitable legislation concerning computer crime. We believe that such legislation should include provisions making it a crime to secretly intercept non-voice communications.'' AT&T is not the only company concerned about the wiretap law. In response to an inquiry, Satellite Business Systems, a major new data communications company jointly owned by International Business Machines, the Aetna Life and Casualty Co., and Comsat, agreed that some experts believed there was a ''potential loophole'' in current law and that, to the extent this was so, ''legislation to make clear that such unauthorized interception is prohibited would be useful.'' The 1968 wiretap law makes it a federal felony for a third party to intercept the conversations of others by placing an electronic listening device, or a ''bug,'' in a telephone or other place such as an office. The only exception is that federal, state, and local law enforcement officers may use wiretaps in the investigation of certain crimes but only with the approval of the senior prosecutor of a particular jurisdiction and a special warrant from a judge. The law does not apply to computer tapping because Congress defined the word ''intercept'' as the ''aural acquisition'' of information. In the opinion of a federal appeals court, the General Accounting Office, and privacy experts such as Alan F. Westin of Columbia University, this wording means that the wiretap law does not prohibit the interception of computer transmissions because no sounds are involved. ''Advancing telecommunications technologies which involve non-aural interception techniques are being used more and more,'' the GAO said in a report to the Senate in 1980. ''Therefore, modern telecommunications are becoming less likely to be protected against unauthorized interception by current statutory provisions.'' In an age when more than a third of the nation's households are hooked into cable television systems, when millions of people are doing their banking by computerized tellers and their mailing electronically as well, the limitations of the current law have become increasingly obvious. David Watters, a telecommunications engineer who has served as a consultant in both government and private industry, said the changing technology may mean it is also not a crime to record certain telephone calls secretly. ''There hasn't been a test case brought to court on this question yet,'' he said, ''but increasing numbers of telephone calls are being transmitted from point to point in the digital language of computers, and the logic of the 1968 law would suggest that such calls could be intercepted without penalty.'' Two House Judiciary subcommittees, one headed by Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif., the other by Rep. Robert W. Kastenmeier, D-Wis., and a Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr., R-Md., are considering the possibility of rewriting the wiretap law. Kastenmeier, whose subcommittee on courts, civil liberties, and the administration of justice is to hold hearings on the question next month, said such matters as how much statutes should protect against actions like the unauthorized interception of electronic mail take on great importance in this modern technological age. ''The implications of the ability of the new technology to go beyond such definitions in terms of invading personal privacy make consideration of this important issue by the subcommittee most urgent,'' he said. Drafting a new law to close the gap in the old one, however, presents complex legal and philosophical problems. In the past, when Congress has sought to limit the access of law enforcement to banking and medical records, the Justice Department has fought for the widest possible access. A congressional change in the law to require a warrant from a judge for interception of computerized information, would represent a diminution of officers' independent authority. In 1979 the Supreme Court ruled that local authorities in Maryland did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Michael Lee Smith, a Maryland resident, when they did not obtain a search warrant before placing a device on his telephone to record the numbers he dialed. A majority of the Supreme Court held that such information could be collected by the police without a warrant because Smith could not have a reasonable expectation that the numbers he dialed were private. But three justices dissented, arguing that the numbers were just as deserving of legal protection as the substance of what Smith said. Electronic mail systems offer similar opportunity to gain information about a person's dealings with others, according to testimony before a House subcommittee in October by Willis H. Ware, a member of the Rand Corp. and a leading privacy expert. As opposed to traditional mail, electronic mail systems, ''in addition to the message content,'' he said, contain ''information relating the addressee to the sender. In principle, such information could be used to establish relationships among people, such as organized groups or circles of acquaintance. Obviously, such information could be of high interest to the law enforcement community, but the legal umbrella of protection over such information is confused and probably incomplete.'' Experts agree that, depending on how Congress revised the wiretap law, it could lead to significant broadening in the mandate of federal law enforcement agencies and possible changes in the expectation of confidentiality in such broad areas of concern as medical records. ''The privacy questions raised by the new telecommunication age represent the single most important issue facing Congress today,'' said Shattuck. ''Because computers are now essential to the operations of hospitals, of law firms, and even of newspapers, a sloppily drafted law could give the federal government greater search powers that it ever has had in our history.'' John Keeney, the deputy attorney general in the Justice Department's Criminal Division, said Justice Department officials believed changing the wiretap law was not the way to attack computer crime. ''Our current feeling is that the 1968 wiretap law should not be changed, that there would be simpler ways to take on computer crime,'' he said. He added that study groups in the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services currently were working on drafting a law to control computer crime. nyt-12-18-83 2245est *************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Dec 83 13:26:15 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #121 Sorry Carl, but Washington National Airport is defined to be in Washington D.C. even though it is on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. Think of it like West Berlin being in the middle of East Germany. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 21-Dec-83 20:52:51-PST,5043;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 21 Dec 83 20:46:50-PST Date: 21 Dec 83 1609-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #123 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 22 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: National Airport more on Va. pay phones Location of Wash Natl Airport Pay phones in the Pentagon, at Dulles, and at BWI [Today's digest is being distributed using an experimental mailer.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Dec 1983 2105-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: National Airport Sorry Ron, but National Airport really is in Virginia. Some time ago it was defined to be part of the federal establishment so that they could serve liquor by the drink, but that's no different than Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. The other public phones are all in exchanges which have a place name of Arlington, Virginia, and from which Intrastate rates apply on calls to points within Virginia. There's a more interesting concept here, though. An MCI customer who lives in Arlington and calls an MCI access number inside the District will be making an interstate call as far as MCI is concerned even if he calls Richmond. MCI, under the current access arrangement, has no way of knowing whether the customer is actually in Virginia, Maryland, or the District when they get the call. The same situation exists if a customer calls an access number in Memphis, Tennessee from West Memphis, Arkansas and then calls Little Rock. With the new access arrangement where MCI gets the number of the phone making the call, or from these coin phones which certainly identify themselves, MCI knows exactly what is going on. This is not the same as the situation with offering calls from Orlando to Miami and claiming that they are interstate because the call goes through Atlanta. I don't know how that one finally got resolved. Someone should simply call the Virginia Corporation Commission and ask them what the tariff is for intrastate calls provided by MCI. (By the way, the West Berlin analogy may have implied something which is not true. West Berlin is not a part of West Germany; it is still an occupied city, controlled by the U.S., the U.K., and France. This is bizarre, but then most of the postwar arrangements between Stalin and the U.S. are. Lufthansa, the German airline, does not fly to Berlin -- only Pan Am, Air France, British Airways, and Dan-Air (another British airline) fly there.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Dec 83 8:19:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: more on Va. pay phones I did have pay phones in mind when I wrote about National Airport. I take it I would find Va. phone #'s in use on pay phones in the Pentagon, where the office phones (prefixes 69x), although located in Virginia, can only be reached with area code 202. I have been at Dulles airport and have seen pay phones on the 661 exchange (was or is beyond DC calling area) and on 471 exchange to provide DC metro service. I believe 471 is a pseudo- foreign exchange (place name Vienna, actually Herndon at Vienna rates), which I don't normally expect to find on a pay phone. (E.g. Aberdeen, Md. has prefixes 301-272, 273, 278 and, for Balt. metro, 575, and it's 272-9xxx you'll find on pay phones there.) ------------------------------ Date: 21 December 1983 09:11 est From: LSchwarz.Activate at RESTON Subject: Location of Wash Natl Airport Sorry, Ron... I have doublechecked with the Airport Adminstrative Office and they say the airport is located inside the Virginia border line. Only Potomac River between Washington DC lines north and south are under the jurisdication of the DC government. Also, I have triplechecked by looking on the map and it shows the same answer. <LJ> ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 1983 1532-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Pay phones in the Pentagon, at Dulles, and at BWI Yes, pay phones in the Pentagon would be in the Arlington exchange. The Pentagon is part of the Defense Department's phone system, which was in place long before the Defense Department moved across the river. The main location is still on the DC side of the river; the phones in the Pentagon are all stations at an alternate location. The main number for the Defense Department has been LIberty 5-6700 for ages -- even before there was any direct inward dialing. The DC Metro Pay Phones at Dulles are paid for by the airport as a convenience to the passengers. Likewise the DC Metro phones at BWI. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Dec-83 18:24:14-PST,4693;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 22 Dec 83 18:18:27-PST Date: 22 Dec 83 1820-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #124 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 22 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Expanded local calling area Portable tone generators vs. "blue boxes" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 1983 1201-PST Subject: Expanded local calling area From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) In many small towns relatively close to major metropolitan areas, telephone customers have the option of paying a higher rate and having their local calling area expanded to include the metropolitan area, so they can call there without paying LD charges. I believe that this can be of two forms -- one-way, where the small-town phone can call the metropolitan exchanges as if they were local, but a call from that area TO that phone is still Long Distance, and two-way, where the small-town phone is treated just like a metropolitan area telephone, and can call and is callable as if local. What are the correct terms to describe this situation in telco jargon? Are either of these configurations the same as a "tie-line" or "FX" service? (If not, how are those terms defined?) Can this situation be reversed for a phone in the metropolitan area? That is, can a link to a specific small town be bought for a surcharge to the regular local-service billing of a metropolitan-area telephone, if that small town is within the LATA of the local operating telco? Or is this sort of thing only obtainable by leasing a private line to that small town (and therefore be uneconomic for ordinary people using the phone for non-business purposes)? I ask this because 90% of my LD billing is calls from my wife to her relatives in a small town only 60 miles away. Actually it is all to only one number. I would think that I could either buy some enhancement to my own phone service to make calls to that exchange or that number "local" in effect, or give her relative a present of a service enhancement that I would pay for, which would make that phone the equivalent of "local" to us. I'd like to have the right terminology in mind before I start talking to the telco business office about this, especially now, when everybody there is confused about what will happen with the divestiture. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 1983 1254-PST Subject: Portable tone generators vs. "blue boxes" From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Right -- the "blue box" uses different tones than the standard TouchTone dialpad generates. The point with the Radio Shack (and other) portable tone generators I was making is that it's now relatively common and legitimate to be seen using a device to send tones into the mouthpiece of a payphone. If the "blue-boxer" types rip a Radio Shack tone generator apart and build in the innards of a "blue box", there isn't any distinguishing feature to keep the "blue boxer" from using his device freely. Of course, as at least one contributor mentioned, the telcos may now have their systems so set up so as to make "blue box" use by phone phreaks and students unrewarding, as they get caught right away. However, I thought that such use was NOT the main problem, nor the main abuse or theft of service that the telcos were concerned about. Have not many mobsters, drug traffickers, Mafia types, etc., acquired "blue boxes" and use them for their calls, which are mostly payphone-to-payphone? Such calls, if noted after the fact, still cannot be charged to anyone. So what I contend is that the common legitimate use of portable tone generators will mask the continued criminal use of "blue box" techniques and actually make it easier for the crooks. What I have read about the way "blue boxes" work is that the user calls an 800 number, sends a special tone before it answers, and then can use other tones to make connections and do things to the phone network. If the system now can detect this call, and record the calling and called numbers, it still has a payphone on one end and an 800 number on the other. Does the system reord the whole transaction, and all the stages of tone commands entered, so the actual numbers reached can be determined? Will Martin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 23-Dec-83 22:43:46-PST,16683;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 23 Dec 83 22:27:08-PST Date: 23 Dec 83 2223-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #125 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 24 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: Uselessness of Blue-Boxing Expanded local calling area Portable tone generators vs. "blue boxes" Re: Expanded local calling area Blue Box Called Number Detection Cheap semi-local service examples of expanded local area !! You can't expect 1200-Baud quality in a dial-up line !! RING Back numbers in NYU Area ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 1983 2141-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Uselessness of Blue-Boxing The scenario you have just described is not only possible, but it is also a felony to describe it. [Please, no more felonies on TELECOM, thanks. --JSol] But the impact of Blue-boxing on the phone company has not only been reduced by the enhanced detection schemes, it has also been more significantly reduced by the drastic reduction in the number of circuits using in-band signalling. This has been done in two ways: 1. Many circuits which still use in-band signalling for the address information no longer use in-band signalling for the supervisory information, i.e. even though the MF tones are still used on the trunk to dial the call, there's no tone which will clear down the call. 2. Many circuits a fully CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signalling). In this system, there are data links between what are known as STPs (Signal Transfer Points?) independent from the Trunks between Switching Offices. This separate signalling network helps in call setup, in alternate routing, etc. It is possible for the entire path and circuit availability to be constructed before the circuits are even set up. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Dec 83 19:17:54 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Will Martin asks if he can buy an "enhancement to [his] phone service to make calls to [an] exchange or number 'local' in effect, or give ... a present of a service enhancement that I would pay for, which would make that phone the equivalent of 'local' to us." General Telephone and Pacific Telephone provide a service, for residential customers only, called "Optional Residential Telephone Service" (ORTS). Until recently, (at least the General Telephone version) allowed one to, among other things, purchase an "exchange", within 30 miles, for a price ranging from about $3.75 to about $5.25 per month. This flat rate permitted unlimited toll-free calling to the chosen exchange. At most 4 exchanges could be so purchased. There were several other options and limitations. Now, without changing the name ORTS, they "still" allow one to purchase an "exchange" but, instead of unlimited toll-free calling, you get a specified number of minutes to that exchange, and after those minutes are used, a reduced toll-rate is provided. You can also purchase a foreign exchange (FX) line. General Telephone currently charges a mileage charge of $3.50 per quarter mile per month (measured from the telephone to the boundary of the exchange from where the service emanates). My FX (so that I can use a modem to call in to UCLA) costs, all told about $48.00 per month. It also enables people in the vicinity of UCLA to call me, free, when my modem isn't tying up the line. General wants to raise the rates by a very large amount (which is extremely to hard to compute from the information in their rate filing. Have you considered renting time from a satellite? Perhaps it would be cheaper to install your own earth-bound microwave system? vail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1983 00:27 EST From: DVW.STRAT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Expanded local calling area Will, The latest that I've heard about FX service out here in DC, VA, and MD, is that Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone is discontinuing it, whether you have it now, or want it in the future. A friend of mine in Maryland, outside of the DC Metro area is being severely inconvenienced by this, because the majority of his calls go to the DC Metro area. From what I hear, C & P held a meeting for all subscribers to FX service in his area, and didn't have any suggestions for alternative service types, nor were they unduly concerned. I guess they simply weren't deriving enough revenue from these services. *sigh* I hope that your search is more fulfilling than my friend's has been so far. --Bob-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1983 00:54 EST From: DVW.STRAT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Portable tone generators vs. "blue boxes" Will, As regards people like the Mafia, and drug traffickers using blue boxes, I'd like to quote from an Esquire article "Secrets of the Little Blue Box", by Ron Rosenbaum. [He was interviewing the "creator of the blue box"] "I wish I could show you the prototype we made for our big syndicate order." He sighs. "We had this order for a thousand beeper boxes from a syndicate front man in Las Vegas. They use them to place bets coast to coast, keep lines open for hours, all of which can get expensive if you have to pay. The deal was a thousand blue boxes for $300 apiece. Before then we retailed them for $1,500 apiece, but $300,000 in one lump was hard to turn down. We had a manufacturing deal worked out in the Philippines. Everything ready to go. Anyway, the model I had ready for limited mass production was small enough to fit into a flip-top Marlboro box. It had flush touch panels for a keyboard, rather than these unsightly buttons sticking out. Looked just like a tiny protable radio. In fact, I had designed it with a tiny transistor receiver to get one AM channel, so in case the law became suspicious the owner could switch on the radio part, start snapping his fingers, and no one could tell anything illegal was going on. I thought of everything for this model--I had it lined with a band of thermite which could be ignited by radio signal from a tiny button transmitter on your belt, so it could be burned to ashes instantly in case of a bust. It was beautiful. A beautiful little machine. You should have seen the faces on these syndicate guys when they came back after trying it out. They'd hold it in their palm like they never wanted to let it go, and they'd say 'I can't believe it. I can't believe it.' /You/ probably won't believe it until you try it." As you can see, there must have been a great deal of syndicate blue boxing, (the article was written in 1973, I believe) but I have no idea as to how much they still do. I'd expect that they'd have to have some technician who keeps track of which areas have gone CCIS, and therefore couldn't be reached or called from, as well as those areas still functional. I'm not sure how cost effective this would be, but then again, if you could spend $300K on hardware in 1973... --Bob-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Dec 83 1:09:57 EST From: BRINT <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: Re: Expanded local calling area I am in what might be called a "Small town" and have full Metropolitan Baltimore dialing privileges (to and from) by paying a surcharge on my monthly bill which is based on the mileage to the central office for my exchange. Here, this is known as "foreign area exchange service" , and it is rumored that divestiture will abolish this because it is considered a "long distance" service rightfully belongin to the long distnce carriers and not to the local fone company. By the way, can anyone confirm or deny this rumor? Brint ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Dec 83 23:13:23 pst From: The tty of Phil Lapsley <jlapsley%D.CC@Berkeley> Subject: Blue Box Called Number Detection Again, I can only speak for Pacific Telephone land, but from what I gather, the equipment drops trouble cards when multifrequency tones (i.e., blue box tones) are sent at incorrect speeds. When a blue box is used, it is generally done manually, with the duration of each tone lasting as long as a given button is held down. However, this is not the case with Bell's signalling equipment, which sends the tones at specific digit/interdigital intervals (don't quote me, but I think 120 ms KP and ST, 68 ms digits). So in any case, the system will flag the blue box calls as an equipment malfunction. When the "equipment malfunction" is found not to exist, I would presume the matter would be forwarded to Telco security. The information they would then have would be the time the call was placed, the number calling, and the "real" (or blue boxed) number being called. Of course, they would also know what equipment it was routed through. I would not think organized crime would make too heavy use of blue boxes, since it would tend to automatically flag their calls and draw attention to them, while I would think they would want to keep a low profile. Besides, it has been a while since I have seen an organized crime king using a pay phone at 1 AM on a rainy morning. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 1983 2020-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO@KESTREL> Subject: Cheap semi-local service I remember when I was growing up in NJ, it was common for two parties who lived near enough to be local but far enough for their phone service to be toll would have some kind of special line installed whereby they could call each other cheaply (as if it were local). There was a one- time charge for this, and for many people who had situations similar to yours, it paid for itself quickly. --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Dec 83 8:20:55 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: examples of expanded local area I don't know the technical term, but I'll mention some examples I know: one-way--If you are in a Pa. (area 215) exchange immediately adjacent to Phila. metro, you can obtain Phila. metro service. Dial 1+ for numbers not already in your local area; calls from such numbers to your phone are still long-distance. E.g. if you have such service from Mendenhall (215-388), you dial 1+local number to reach Phila., and Phila. to 215-388 remains long-distance. two-way--Available around the fringes of Baltimore & Washington areas. E.g. the Aberdeen exchanges 301-272,273,278 are beyond Baltimore calling area, but 575 has local service to & from Baltimore metro, not just Balt. city. Note, however, that changing to 575 from the other Aberdeen exchanges takes away local service to areas along the Susquehanna (i.e. the direction opposite to Baltimore). 575 is also available in Havre de Grace (301-939) but does not have local service to 301-939. ------------------------------ Date: Fri 23 Dec 83 15:34:18-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: !! You can't expect 1200-Baud quality in a dial-up line !! Below follows an article which appeared on a USENET-news-group. I think this might be of interest to this group. I removed the author, not out of disrespect, but out of respect for his possible dislike to publicity. It addressess a topic I have recently addressed here, mainly: "What level of quality of transmission service is the phone company committed and obligated to provide". Given that I'd like to build a black-box wich allows communications over a regular dial-up line at higher than 1200 Baud, I started wondering, if something as what is described below, is possible and if I have a right to demand from the phone-company that they fix whatever may be causing it. My concern was based in the sudden realization, that I am "contracting" with the phone company for service, without ever having gotten a contract for what I have a right to getting, contrary to my usual habits when contracting for service. Unfortunately, there was only one response I remember having seen, which makes me wonder if this group is not getting forwarded to USENET, where all the BELL-computers are listening in .... ------------------------------- ( start of forwarded msg ) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Telecommunications and the Phone Company Lines: 50 I recently installed a computer system in the little town of Sugar Grove, IL. The phone company in this area is Illinois Bell Telephone (name is good until Jan 1, anyway). To allow outside access to this system, I also installed a UDS212A/D modem. The phone company was notified of the installation and given the FCC registration number and ringer equivalency number. Fine. I tried dialing into this system from my home in Aurora, IL, about 15 mi. distant. Lo, and behold I get garbage characters every 30-45 seconds at 1200bps!! I know the problem isn't in the modems because they work fine between two Aurora exchanges. As a next step, I called 611 (repair service) and explained the problem to them. Their answer was that they weren't obligated to provide data quality service on a voice line. I explained that these modems were designed to work on voice grade lines and they are used all over the country to transmit and receive data on unconditioned lines. Illinois Bell insisted that it's not their problem unless I wanted to rent a conditioned line for data transmission. After my anger had cooled down somewhat, I started thinking about the implications of this sort of attitude on the part of telephone companies. There are businesses which are getting into the teletext and videotex markets and incorporate 212 type modems into their products. Can you imagine some consumer buying one of these products, finding out it won't work, and then being informed they would have to rent a special conditioned line in order to use it?!! This problem also extends into the home terminal market as well. The phone company won't have to charge you for use of the modem, because they can soak you for a special line!!! Actually the problem to which I'm referring can't be too wide- spread, or there wouldn't be any market for 212 type modems. The problem is in a digital trunk between the Sugar Grove central office and the Aurora office. The synchronizing clocks drift out of phase and every so often re-synchronize themselves. It is at this point that garbage shows up in the data. By 'digital trunk', I mean that the main line between the two offices carries a digitally multiplexed signal of voice traffic and is demultiplexed at both ends. During regular voice communication and low-speed (<= 300bps) data communication, the problem isn't noticeable. But due to the way 1200 bps data transmission is accomplished, the re-synchronizing clocks mess up the data. The result of all this is that I will have to work at 300bps or pay for a conditioned line to work at 1200bps. THAT MAKES ME ANGRY!!!! [A suggestion: Try making a voice call to the line you are trying to communicate via data with. If the connection is lousy THEN complain, else you might try twiddling the intensity of the tones of the modems (have an authorized person do this). You could just be getting a line which isn't amplified properly. The Phone company is right, they don't have to provide data communications, but it is possible to complain about voice grade quality if it indeed is a problem. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 83 17:45 EST From: Stephen Tihor <TIHOR@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA> Subject: RING Back numbers in NYU Area Does anyone know the current ringback number in the NYC area, esp. Manhatten? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Dec-83 14:21:21-PST,12532;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Dec 83 14:09:54-PST Date: 24 Dec 83 1404-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #126 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 25 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: local service options GTE & FX's THE LAW Kiss your FX lines goodbye... [Merry Christmas!!!] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Dec 1983 2223-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: local service options There are several options available, depending on where you live. Here's an example of the places I've ever lived in, and what options are available (I tend to check these things out): Connecticut (statewide - Southern New England Telephone): This company has been independent for some time. Its local calling areas are pretty good when you are living in a suburb of a city. Generally you can call most of the communities around the city unless you live way out on the fringes. You can get foreign exchange service (a different phone number from a different city), but the only exchanges you can get the service from are the toll centers. I.e. if you live in a suburb of Hartford (Newington (203-666, 667), you can get a downtown Hartford (203-522, 524) line, but you can't get a Newington line brought into Hartford. If an exchange boundry just happens to be your street, or you live some certain distance from the border (small, like 1 mile), you can choose to have either exchange brought into your home BUT NOT BOTH. A friend of mine lives in Bethany (203-393 - which is New Haven city exchange), and his neighbor has an exchange from Shelton (203-888). These exchanges are NOT local to each other, and they strung an intercom wire between their houses so they could talk without paying the toll charge (They strung the wire across their properties, so I don't think it's illegal). Connecticut also used to have optional toll calling services, which would basically reduce a daytime call by 35% and a evening call to 60%, but instead they just do it for contiguous nonlocal exchanges automatically (i.e. Bethany<->Shelton). New Jersey (NJB): Foreign exchange service is offered, but is expensive. Optional extended local calling by exchange is offered for exchanges up to 16 miles away (the first toll rate step), and discounted toll calling is offered to exchanges up to 22 miles away (the second toll rate step). I think FIGMO was referring to this service option. This is not offered in the Hoboken/Jersey-City/Newark area since they have message unit tiers instead of rate steps. California (Pacific and General Telephone only, I don't know anything about Continental (does anyone?) -- Their tarriffs usually say "See Pacific Telephone"). Pacific and General Telephone have been offering about the same service (although General Telephone tends to be slower about implementing changes). I was there from Jan 1982 to Feb 1983, and during that year, Pacific telephone had: 1) disallowed unmeasured foreign exchange service for new customers. Existing customers remain as their service is, EXCEPT if you move, you lose your unlimited priviledges. Both companies maintain foreign exchange dedicated prefixes in certain areas (Pasadena has LA city numbers, West LA has Beverly Hills numbers, Beverly Hills has LA city numbers, etc. etc.) and new orders to these exchanges were drastically reduced by this order (I wonder why...) 2) disallowed unmeasured ORTS for all customers. Replaced it with measured ORTS (ORTS - optional residence telephone service - add an exchange to your local calling area). General Telephone followed through shortly thereafter, but there was a change in the way FEX lines were billed/authorized for lines across the phone company boundary. EG: If you were a GTE customer and wanted a PACTEL line, you paid PACTEL rates (which at the time were measured, and GTE lines were flat rate.). All of this has probably changed again. FEX rates have tripled or so I think since I was last there. Massachusetts (New England Telephone): This company tends to be rather conservative in its approach to service. Local calling areas statewide are typically REALLY BAD, except in this one large metropolitan area near Boston. NET had offered a phone service called Bay State service, which allowed discounted (really, like 5 cents/min + 2 hours free) long distance calling to: "Exchanges in Mass. Served by NET". They have recently changed that to only allow long distance calls within the LATA (Mass has two, corresponding to the area codes), but that's still good (unless you live on the border between the LATAs and want to call across). NET also offers "Expanded community calling" - 2 hours free plus 0.039/min thereafter, exchanges bordering your local calling area; "Measured Circle Calling service" - again 2 hours free plus $0.049/min to exchanges within a 20 mile radius of your exchange. Unmeasured circle calling, (think of it, a 20 mile radius local calling area!). Within the Boston Metropolitan area there is Metropolitan service, Suburban service (all exchanges in the metro area EXCEPT the Boston Central exchange (sigh - I live in the Boston Central Exchange!), which replace the circle calling options. Calls to nonlocal exchanges within the metropolitan area are changed at message unit rates. An interesting point is certain exchanges outside of the Boston Metro area have Metropolitan service additions as well, but only one way (they can call us, we can't call them). Anyway, the whole gist of this, Will, is that it varies from company to company. Pacific Tel is phasing out FEX service wherever possible, NET has priced it out of range as well, but offers reasonable alternatives. Of course, if your FEX line happens to cross a LATA boundary, you will probably find your line being phased out. If there is sufficient demand, however, a common carrier (MCI, ATT, etc) may sell you a line. Some cooperation could be reached if there was a public outcry. Cheers, --Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1983 03:20 EST From: "Eliot R. Moore" <Elmo%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: GTE & FX's Reply-to: Elmo%Mit-Oz@Mit-ML I'm not certain Mr. Vail is aware, but he is rather fortunate to still have his flat-rate FX service for $48.00 per month. Both Pacific Telephone (Bell) and General Telephone, through various tactics have frozen flat-rate foreign exchange service to existing service. New service (except in strange places where tariffs never existed [Lauren-this is a neat one]) is available measured (timed) on a "non-optional" basis. Pacific has yet to increase their basic mileage rate of $6.40, but I'm certain its been in their rate applications for some time. Installation charges for FX lines have increased significantly, unfortunately they applied the same rules to FX's and psuedo-FX's. Pacific has now proposed to eliminate residential FX service entirely (except for existing service) as it has incurred 'lessening demand' for the service. Yes, it would appear they are trying to price the service out of the market. Rightfully so, I suppose; we FX users are depriving them of a good deal of cross-town toll revenues. Can't wait for my "service area" rate increases. Regards, Elmo ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Dec 83 01:44:49 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: THE LAW A telecom contributor states, in reference to blue boxes, "The scenario you have just described is not only possible, but it is also a felony to describe it." Other contributors have referred to violations of telephone tariffs as "illegal". Perhaps these readers should send their contributions to the info-law mailing lists. For the United States Constitution (The First Amendment in the "Bill of Rights") states: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, ... The Unites States Supreme Court has extended this rule to the various States and most States have a similar statement in their Constitution. Of course, "Telecom" is an interstate "publication" and the Federal Law applies. There are certain exceptions to this rule in the Law, but they are based upon other Constitutional guarantees. These include laws concerning libel (mostly a civil matter carrying no criminal penalty) and laws restricting "classified information", specifically the "Espionage Act". The Government has found it extremely difficult to prevent the dissemination of classified information and, in many cases when such information has been published in the "open literature" has simply "overlooked" the matter. In other cases it has plain lost. Simply publishing the "blue-box" frequencies can't possibly be a crime; indeed our noble benefactor AT&T published them in the Bell System Technical Journal many years ago, and they appear in various international standards books published under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union available from the UN, as well as in published standards of the various Operating Companies here in the USA. Descriptions of multi-frequency oscillator circuits have appeared for over 50 years in numerous technical and scientific publications, Suggestions on how to commit perfect crimes using various scientific methods have appeared in numerous "detective novels" and Agatha Christie isn't in jail. Due to the influence of the Telephone Company lobbies, there are various State Laws purporting to make some of these acts felonies; they are about as likely to stand up in Court as laws setting pi equal to 3. I don't think Jonathon Sol needs to worry about going to jail just yet. Similar comments apply to violating the Telephone Tariffs -- such violations are no more "illegal" than failing to pay rent -- failing to fulfill a contract (such as installing a telephone) on a promised date, etc. vail [I'm sorry to disagree with you, but toll fraud is indeed a federal crime, like failing to pay taxes. --JSol] ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Friday, 23-Dec-83 22:18:28-PST Subject: Kiss your FX lines goodbye... The various telcos are pretty uniformly attempting (quite successfully) to make Foreign Exchange services MUCH more expensive, and to eliminate residential FX completely. Here in California, both PacTel (oops, excuse me, as of Jan. 1 it's PACIFIC*BELL) and GenTel have filed very similar FX tariffs. The PacTel tariff, for example, would approximately quadruple the basic rate for FX, and change the method of calculating the additional mileage charges from the use of rate boundaries to the use of rate centers. While Pacific apparently plans to charge a smaller per mile rate under the new scheme, the difference will not be enough to avoid larger total charges than would typically have occurred under the older charging method. The tariffs would also abolish all new residential FX service (both flat-rate and measured) though in-place service could continue for now. One particularly "amusing" aspect to the FX tariff was that existing residential FX service (once again, both flat-rate and measured) would end up costing MORE than the proposed rates for business FX (measured only). I had considerable difficulty getting anyone at Pacific or the PUC to explain the rationale for charging more for residential measured service than for business measured. I was fully expecting the rate changes for Pacific to take place on Jan. 1, but it appears that there will be a delay of several months while the PUC continues to work out the final charges. For now, a fairly small surcharge on basic service has been put in place -- it will vanish when the REAL charges show up fairly early in '84. I'm not looking forward to that. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 26-Dec-83 15:47:38-PST,12021;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 26 Dec 83 15:33:52-PST Date: 26 Dec 83 1529-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #127 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 27 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: Describing how to commit toll-fraud the law UC long-distance network Pseudo foreign exchange service in the Balto-Wash area reply to you can't expect 1200 baud service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Dec 1983 1833-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Describing how to commit toll-fraud Whether it's constitutional or not, there are laws on the books which make it a felony to possess or disseminate plans or schemes to commit interstate toll fraud. Two examples come to mind: A Ham magazine (I've forgotten the name, having been too lazy to learn the code, I never became a ham, but I think it was QSL or 73) published schematics of a blue box many years ago. They agreed to remove all copies of that issue from the newstands and the charges were dropped. Some of you may remember 8BBS. A few years ago this system was shut down by the FBI, who seized the disks as evidence. Whether the SYSOP was ever charged with a crime or whether the disks were just used as evidence in the cases involving the users of the system I don't know, but the SYSOP did lose his job. You're right that simply violating the telephone company's tarrifs is not a crime, it's only a breach of contract. But any device or scheme for obtaining telephone service which deprives the telephone company of their lawful charges is not just a violation of the tarrifs; it is fraud and is illegal. I know of one particularly disgusting case of someone who was using someone elses INWATS and OUTWATS lines. The telephone company was getting its money for the use of the lines, and the company wasn't overly concerned about the situation, but the telephone company pursuaded the U.S. District attorney to bring charges against the person on five counts of interstate toll fraud, because the telephone company had not gotten the lawful charge, the price of an regular toll call from the point or origin to the destination. The person was convicted and given a suspended sentence, but he lost his job. (I personally think he had a lousy lawyer.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Dec 83 20:30:37 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: the law Some comments on the comments on my last communication: ------- I'm not certain Mr. Vail is aware, but he is rather fortunate to still have his flat-rate FX service for $48.00 per month. ------- I was neither complaining nor boasting, just stating what the current costs are in a specific case, well known to me. As I noted, if General and Pacific have their way, the rates will skyrocket. There are some interesting schemes involving call-forwarding, etc. which may limit the excessive costs, at least to modem users who only call a few different numbers. ------- [I'm sorry to disagree with you, but toll fraud is indeed a federal crime, like failing to pay taxes. --JSol] ------- We don't disagree. Fraud is a crime. I was referring to publishing specs on blue boxes, methods of disguising them, etc., as well as to what are often called "illegal extensions", etc. ted vail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Dec 83 23:45:00 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: UC long-distance network The UC system is planning to purchase it's own long-distance network. It has prepared a 185 page RFP (request for proposal) for the system. It was issued in October, 1983 and vendor responses, necessarily quite lengthy, are due in March, 1984. As it is probably a typical example of long-distance networks being prepared by large organizations, I'm enclosing a few excerpts, mostly from the "Executive Summary". "The University of California which is comprised of nine campuses (Berkeley, Davids, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz) and three physically separate medical centers (Sacramento, Irvine and San Diego) plans to implement an intercampus telecommunications network which will accommodate voice, data and video traffic. "This network will utilize digital microwave, satellite technology, and/or other broad band technologies as well as a digital tandem switch function for purposes of voice and low speed data network management and control. No specific technology is presumed or preferred, but for purposes of describing the University's specifications a terrestrial microwave system is assumed to link the Northern campuses and the Southern campuses. A satellite backbone is assumed to connect the two regional systems. Tandem switches in this model provide the voice and low speed data switching functions. The network will also be capable of supporting digitized video transmission. Campuses will be connected to the intercampus network either by utilization of campus owned switching facilities or by the Telco central office or centrex currently serving that campus..." There are two lengthy sections covering Performance Specifications. As might be expected, the trivia is emphasized, while important data specifications are barely mentioned and rather naively. For example, the description of the printer connection for obtaining accounting reports uses a lengthy paragraph to require both an RS 232C port, stating all the standard date rates from 1200 baud up, and a magnetic tape system which shall run at a "minimum of 125 inches per second at 6250 bits per inch". It doesn't, however state what actual information shall be transmitted at that rate, nor does it restrict nulls on the RS 232 connections, or limit inter-record gaps on the tape. The only statement concerning error rates is for the required 56 kbps digital circuits which shall "perform at an error rate no greater than a single bit, undetected error, among 10 to the 10th power bits transmitted". There don't appear to be any limits to detected errors, nor are methods of measuring the undetected error given. I am reminded of a sign posted by the system programmer in a computing lab I once used, which stated in large letters: "We have never recorded an undetected error". Of course the real protection is given by the fact that when all specifications are considered, there are perhaps only half a dozen companies in the world which can come close to meeting them, and their equipment is well known. Bids are expected from NTI (Northern Telecom), which has the inside track because of its large UCLA installation, AT&T, Pacific Telesys, and possibly General Telephone and NEC. There are potential dark horses, e.g. Rolm, as well as various European Companies. Proposals are due in March, 1984 and the vendor is expected to be chosen by May, 1984. I'm betting on NTI. I do have the complete RFP and will attempt to answer Telecom Reader's questions (within reason) about it, if any. ted vail ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 1983 1351-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Pseudo foreign exchange service in the Balto-Wash area Don't be so quick to say good-bye to current services in the Baltimore - Washington area. As soon as C&P announced that the current "foreign-exchange" service would be terminated, it was taken to court. It is being argued that "nothing has changed" so why should the rates change? The Balto-Wash area is full of exceptions and special cases. The primary method of providing "FX" service in the Balto-Wash area is by having an additional NXX in the local switching machine which is defined in the tariffs as having the same rate center as NXXs in the community which has the preferred calling area. Thus, for a customer living in Columbia, Maryland, four service offerings exist: Columbia Service, which includes the local area and some of the DC suburbs, some of the Baltimore Suburbs, and downtown Baltimore, Ellicott city service, which drops the DC suburbs, picks up more Baltimore suburbs and more points east of Baltimore, Laurel Service, which drops some of the Baltimore Suburbs but picks up Washington, and Bowie-Glendale service, which drops all of the Baltimore suburbs, is not even local to Columbia, and picks up the entire Washington Metro area. Subscribers to these services pay a flat "mileage" charge (even though no real mileage is involved) which is extremely low and then pay the local service charge as though they were really in the town their logical FX is in (which is based on the number of telephones which can be reached as a local call). All of these services are provided out of the two central offices located in the same building in Columbia! All of these services are provided with specific NXXs which make the service two-way. And the fact that two customers who happen to live next door to each other in the center of Columbia can choose to be long distance to each other is quite bizarre. Customers served by the same C&P machine in Columbia are actually in two different LATAs! Currently, when they dial a long distance call the call does not even leave the machine. But since they are in different LATAs, the service cannot be provided by C&P! This is certainly a situation to watch! I doubt that the Maryland PUC (or the legislature, which has gotten involved in telecommunications in Maryland before, as well -- passing a law making directory assistance charges illegal) will let people in Columbia lose their DC service. Columbia is sort of a "special" town, one of those model communities built during the early sixties, and the choice of Baltimore and Washington phone service was one of the issues involved in building the town. Another, unrelated, case of bizarreness in the DC area no longer exists, but is interesting to recall. About seven years ago, a friend served by the downtown Alexandria machine, which was, at the time, No. 1 XBar, became envious of his many friends with Custom Calling Service in ESS exchanges. He started to investigate the cost of having FX service brought into his home. The startling result was that due to two flukes, he was able to get service from downtown DC at a slightly lower price than local Alexandria service. This was caused by (1) the presence of an especially low FX rate for points in Alexandria which had been put in primarily to serve government agencies at National Airport and (2) the existence of a 25% local Alexandria tax on local service which did not apply once he had the Washington service installed. After he had the service for a few years, the preferential FX rate disappeared, and the service was no longer economical. ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 24 December 1983 16:14 est From: Kovalcik@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: reply to you can't expect 1200 baud service I have this feeling that part of your problem may be the UDS modems. A group at MIT bought several of them and has had lots of problems with noise and lines that they just didn't work on at all. We replaced one that didn't work at all with a Vadic 3400 series modem and it works just fine. You get what you pay for. We have been trying to sell them off and have had few interested parties and fewer takers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Dec-83 18:43:05-PST,5340;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Dec 83 18:34:58-PST Date: 27 Dec 83 1831-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #128 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 28 Dec 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: PTC'84 preview. More on the Balto-Wash area Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #122 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 83 16:41:53 pst From: cunningh%CCVAX@Nosc Subject: PTC'84 preview. PTC'84, the 6th annual conference of the Pacific Telecommunications Council meets January 8-11, 1984, at the Shearaton-Waikiki Hotel in Honolulu. This year's theme is "Telecommunications for Pacific development". The Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC), is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the development of telecommunications in the Pacific hemisphere. Members are primarily telecommunications multi-national carrier corporations, governmental PTT's, plus representatives from various and sundry insititutes (e.g. MITI). The main thing the PTC does is to hold these annual conferences, and publish the proceedings. As usual, the upcoming conference will feature extensive discussions of policy issues, with only a limited number of technical sessions. Featured speakers are: Tetsuro Tomita, deputy director-general MPT Japan; Basil Beneteau, vice chairman Northern Telecom; Olof Lundberg, director-general, INMARSAT; Colin Franklin, director-general, space programs and industry development, department of communications, Candada; Julio Polloni, subsecretaria de telecommunicaciones, Chile; and Saburo Okita, former foreign minister of Japan. Comsat, Intelsat and the CCIT will be represented, as usual; unlike last year, none of their directors will be featured speakers. Space in the exhibition hall is sold out. American Bell, AT&T, GTE, Hughes, IBM, NEC, Northern Telecom, Pacific Telephon, RCA, Rotelcom, and Western Union -- among others -- are represented. I'll be attending part of PTC'84, as a recorder for the Pacific Science Association Communications and Education Committee sub-sessions. I'll post any interesting developments here to the TELECOM Digest. If anyone out there is interested in attending, the conference fee is $375 in advance (payable to the PTC), or $400 at the door. Bob Cunningham, University of Hawaii ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 1983 1120-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: More on the Balto-Wash area I just called the "Let's talk-we can help" number in Washington (in case you're not familiar with this - 800 555-5000 gets you the "Let's talk" number for your local operating area). It seems that Judge Green decided on 7 December that those people in the Baltimore-Washington corridor (e.g. Columbia) would be allowed to continue to have new or existing FX service. Places to the northwest and south are not included, but C&P claims that they are looking for a vendor to provide the service so that the customers will not have their service interrupted. This seems easy for customers with true physical FX service. I still wonder how they plan to serve the customers with "split-office" service. Theoretically C&P could assign a trunk group in the split office to either another carrier or a consortium of carriers. These carriers would provide trunks into a tandem inside the metro area. They would have to provide the same grade of service as C&P provides now. It's interesting that this problem will not exist in the New York Metro Area. The New York LATA extends all the way to the tip of Long Island in the East and beyond West Point in the North. This is roughly the same distance as from Washington to Philadelphia. In addition, local service provided across state boundaries which cross a LATA boundary (such as Tyngsboro, Mass to Nashua, New Hampshire) are permitted to remain in service. ------------------------------ From: tektronix!tekig1!dont%decvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: decvax!tekig1!dont@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: Monday, 26 Dec 83 14:04:30 PST Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V3 #122 I am not sure that this deserves to be included in the next digest, but you might ask around for some substantiation. I recall reading that the "blue box" problem was realized when the original concept of the switching system was on the drawing boards. The guy who designed most? of the system is suppossed to be on record somewhere, (inside bell?), saying that control tones dumped down the line would have the possibility of siezing control of the system. This all came to an end with the ESS. The system is now capable of detecting this immediately and logging the information. <<< I dont remember where I read this, but I seem to remember that this was written by the designer of the system, after the ESS installations were well under way. >>> Don Taylor tektronix!tekig!tekig1!dont ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************