Telecom

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

/ Telecom / 1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso / back.issues / 1981-86.volumes.1-5 / vol4.iss001-075 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1991-01-20 | 619KB | 14,654 lines

31-Dec-83 11:12:28-PST,11468;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 31 Dec 83 11:07:52-PST Date: 31 Dec 83 1104-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #129 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 1 Jan 1984 Volume 3 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: Extended calling services LATA boundaries A Few Things TELECOM Digest V3 #85 Felony monthly charges for wiring? reporting FCC registration numbers General Telephone provides number identification New Sprint rates: fact or fiction? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 27 Dec 1983 06:11:52-PST From: decwrl!rhea!donjon!goldstein@SU-Shasta Subject: Extended calling services (In-real-life-from: Fred Goldstein @Digital, Concord MA) Most states, it seems, have had some sort of optional residence-only reduced toll plan(s) for years. The details vary widely, being cheaper than intrastate WATS (which is very pricey) but designed to recover decent revenue by encouraging extra off-peak toll calling. In multi-LATA states, these plans of course cannot be offerred anymore by the local telcos, but since they remain entirely within state jurisdiction, AT&T theoretically can be compelled to provide them. Just because there's more than one holding company involved doesn't mean that state regulations must be cast aside! I suspect that within a few months, when the dust settles, some states will give in to AT&T and discontinue the discounts while other states will enforce them. FX, it seems, comes in three "mileage" flavors. Short-haul FX to contiguous exchanges, common in LA, may be charged (in some states) by the distance to the rate center boundary. This makes sense when you live just over a line. Most FX, though, is charged rate center to rate center; where you live within a rate center doesn't count. (This is easier to administer, since they don't have to argue over maps, etc.) Finally, there's pseudo-FX which is charged like the latter. If you want FX because the interexchange network won't carry data well enough, pseudo-FX won't help much! Will, what state are you in (Office-3 isn't too descriptive)? A 60 mile run is beyond practically any optional extended-local plan, but a residential toll discount plan (like Bay State Service in Mass., Dial-A-Visit in NY, Gopher State Bargain Rate in MN, etc.) may ease the pain. A pretty good appendix on toll & other rates is found in "Long Distance For Less" by Robert Self (Telecom Library, NY). Trouble is, a book like that is outdated by the time it's printed. Even with periodic update sheets mailed out, they are a bit outdated before second class mail can deliver them! Or so it seems (sigh...). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 83 21:19:53 est From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: LATA boundaries Does anyone know if the northern New Jersey LATA includes any part of New York or Nassau County? I had assumed not, since NY and NJ are served by different RBOCs, but that's the way it showed up on my last phone bill. --Steve Bellovin 201-789..... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Dec 83 09:48:25 EST From: Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE.ARPA> Subject: A Few Things I'm a newcomer to this list, so pardon me if this is rehashing old material. If someone could point me to a piece of relevant archives, I'd be happy to look at that. (1) What do people think of the so-called "access charge"? I have heard several different "explanations" and rationales for it. Basically, the party line is that it is intended to cover (a) revenues that will be lost by the local companies when the supposed subsidy of local service by LD service (see below) goes away and (b) the cost of providing the hookup of your phone to the LD network. Well, as for (b), it seems to me that this is what my local phone rate is supposed to pay -- the cost of providing local phone service, whether it be from my house to someone else's house within the local area or from my house to the local entry point into the LD network. In addition, everyone is spouting how the poor LD users have been subsidizing local service all these years and how everyone should instead pay their "fair share" based on actual use not public policy. Well if that's so, why should I pay a flat rate (the "access charge") instead of paying two bills for each LD call: one to the LD company to cover the cost of the LD part of the call and one to the local company to cover the cost of the local call to the entry point into the LD network? If part of the access charge covers fixed costs associated with the local network, then that should simply be called part of the cost of local service and added to the fixed part of my local phone rate. It seems that any other part (e.g. the non fixed cost of the equipment that that local company uses to connect my call to the LD network) should be charged based on actual usage. I'm not opposed to the idea that local rates should go up if the present rates are in fact not carrying the full cost of local service. It just seems that the bureacrats and regulators could do a better job explaining what the situation actually is instead of introducing questionable terms like "access charge". (I saw the head of the FCC and some congressman on TV a few weeks ago and all the FCC guy could blather is "you know, LD is subsidizing local service and the access charge is paying for your local lines connecting you to the LD networks" and I felt like screaming [a shortened version] of the above argument.) (2) While I'm adding fuel to the fire: it has been suggested to me by no one of any particular authority that the whole notion that LD subsidizes local service is perhaps a bit bogus. The idea is that ATT can read out their presumably volumnous and complicated books anyway they like to show anything subsidizing anything. (3) On a more neutral tone: could someone explain how a "long distance" call within the area serviced by a single local company will be handled and billed? Will the local company internally buy LD service from a LD carrier or do the local companies have sufficient internal networks for handling such calls. -- Nat ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1983 14:37:42-EST From: york@scrc-vixen Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #85 I received no responses at all to my query. We are going with a Toshiba Strata 12 system after all. I'll let you know how it goes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Dec 83 09:21:48 est From: decvax!dartvax!mss@Berkeley (Mark S. Sherman) Subject: Felony Please explain this felony concept to me -- I thought there was a 1st amendment which basically lets me say anything I want. Maybe civil action for aiding the theft of services, but there was no theft of trade secrets, no incitement to riot. -Mark Sherman (Mark.Sherman@CMU-CS-A) ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 30 December 1983 20:23 est From: Kovalcik.Multics@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) Subject: monthly charges for wiring? Can someone explain to me the racket that New York Telephone has charging monthly charges for interior wiring? Why do they get away with this while no one else does? (Obviously tariffs, but how did they get the tariffs.) Most of the wiring in my parents house is done by me and they now own their own phones, yet they are still being charged for wiring for the two phones they reported to NYT. In order to get rid of these charges the supervisor I spoke to says they have to send someone out at the cost of about $40 to install a new terminal which we have to run all the wiring to. The charges are 1.27 per month for wire investment recovery and .77 and .77 per month for the wiring for the two phone lines / jacks currently. What happens if it turns out that there are really four jacks and they move the phones around? Are they supposed to pay another .77 times two per month for that? Why do I get the feeling that they only should have bought one phone so that they would be saving more? Perhaps one phone will break and they will have to call the phone company and tell them that they only have one phone. -Rick (this never happened to me in CA, PA, or MA) Kovalcik ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 30 December 1983 20:29 est From: Kovalcik.Multics@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) Subject: reporting FCC registration numbers Asumming I have a phone or portable direct connect terminal (like the TI 787 I am using now) that I move around from phone line to phone line (possibly in different states). Am I supposed to report the FCC registration number on all the phone lines? Since New York Telephone seems to charge .77 per month for each phone you own for wiring, I get the feeling that I would have to call them on Friday to say I was going to hook it up over the weekend and then on Monday to tell them I removed it. Also, New York Telephone seems to like to check FCC Registration Numbers and bill people for touch tone service if the registration number is that of a touch tone instrument. What do I do if it is a dual touch tone / rotary instrument (like the TI 787) and I only am going to use rotary? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 21:55:39 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: General Telephone provides number identification At least in the Malibu and Topanga exchanges of General Telephone, dialing "114" produces a recording of a woman's voice, one numeral at a time, of the calling number. ted vail ------------------------------ From: sdcsvax!bob@Nosc (Robert Hofkin) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 12:27:15 pst Subject: New Sprint rates: fact or fiction? I'm a current customer of Home Sprint. The nice folks GTE sent me a glossy brochure sort of explaining the January 1 rate changes. I learned only three facts -- the monthly charge is replaced by $5 minimum usage; various discounts apply to bills over $25, $75, and $200; service is available at all hours. Great. I *STILL* want to know the AMOUNT of discounts, and the basic per-minute charges (are they changing?). I called the "general information" people, who told me to call my sales office. They gave me the wrong number, too. The San Diego sales office promised to mail me something (another copy of the brochure I already have?). I tried the billing office; as usual, they know nothing, but suggested that I try again in mid-January. It almost makes Ma Bell look worthwhile.... --Bob Hofkin (sdcsvax!bob) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 2-Jan-84 13:40:45-PST,10948;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 2 Jan 84 13:36:07-PST Date: 2 Jan 84 1216-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #2 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 3 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: wiring charges dial tone after hangup phone stores after divestiture some area codes in UK SWB update: SWB made first base, ATT up to bat Re: more on VA. pay phones // Pentagon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 83 12:57:07 pst From: allegra!karn@Berkeley To: ucbvax!Telecom-Request@usc-eclc Subject: digital trunks and 212 modem hits Regarding the problems a 212 user was having over a digital trunk: It makes sense that only a 212 would be affected when frames slip on a digital trunk because of timing errors. The 212 uses DQPSK (differential quadrature phase shift keying), in which -+90 or 180 degree changes of phase on an audio carrier are used to encode pairs of bits. If the trunk adds or drops a "leap sample" every so often to correct for clock skew, this will appear as a small, sudden change in propagation delay. If the sampling rate is 8khz, the shift in timing would be 125 microseconds. This is hardly enough to be noticeable in speech or with a low speed, noncoherent FSK modem such as a 300 baud 103, since 125 microseconds is only about 1/27 of a bit interval. However, the 212's high side carrier at 2400 hz has a period of 416.7 microseconds. A slip of 125 microseconds then corresponds to a phase shift of 108 degrees, large enough to be interpreted as a data transition. The descrambler will in turn propagate this error over several more bits, resulting in garbage character(s). It seems to me that there should be a big market for error correcting modems, using some protocol such as HDLC to ensure a reliable link. In fact, this could be done with a single board computer and 212 in synchronous mode (8 bits/char instead of 10), compensating somewhat for the additional protocol overhead. As modems with higher bandwidth efficiencies are developed, it seems to me that the need for error correction will be even greater. I hope that it becomes part of any new high speed standard. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 2 January 1984 00:19 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: wiring charges In the old days, whne you had your house wired up for phone service, the installation charge was much less than the cost of doing the wiring. These extra costs were "capitalized" and put in the rate base just like the cost of outside wiring. Your monthly local bill paid for the amortization of your phone, your inside wiring and the outside wiring. Since only the phone company was allowed to wire up your house, bundling all the charges into one local rate was a simple way to handle things. In the new scheme of things, much has changed. First, wiring can no longer be capitalized and put in the rate base. If you want the local phone company to do it for you that's OK, but you'll pay for it all up front with an installation charge of $100 or so. Or you can hire an electrician to do it, just as you would for your internal electrical wiring; again you end up paying for the installation cost up front. Finally, of course, you can do it yourself. For houses that have already been wired by the phone company, they still have the cost in their rate base, and they are trying to get it back through these montly charges. But since some people will have done the wiring themselves, and others won't, the local phone rate has to be broken into pieces: part for the outside wiring and local service, part for inside wiring, and part for the handset. If you want, you can buy the inside wiring from your local phone company, just the way you can buy the handset that you've been leasing; in that case you won't see it anymore as a monthly charge. The local phone companies of course are terrified that customers will say "I don't want to lease your inside wiring any more, and I'm not going to pay for it." Unlike handsets, the phone company can't afford to take it out when the customer wants to stop leasing it. So you end up with the wiring, but they can no longer charge you. The charge for putting in a "connector block" for customers who no longer want to lease their inside wiring from the phone company is set high enough to discourage this practice. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 7:38:13 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-bmd> Subject: dial tone after hangup If the other party hangs up before you do, do you normally have to hang up before you get your dial tone back? (I normally do have to hang up.) There are at least 2 radio spots where you hear an immediate dial tone, and, from what I can guess now, it may be done that way to emphasize that the other party has indeed hung up. (One such radio spot was in an ad, another was on the CBS Radio Mystery Theatre.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 7:46:54 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-bmd> Subject: phone stores after divestiture Yesterday, I saw that the phone store in Elkton, Md. had been closed permanently as of noon Dec. 23. Sign refers customers to Bel Air, Md., but I believe that Newark, Del. is closer. Currently, Del. comes under Diamond State Telephone ( & Bell of Pa.) while Md. comes under C&P, but don't these operating companies come under the new Bell Atlantic? In any event, they do offer identical equipment, so you could look up sample jacks in Del. if you live in Md. or vice versa. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 14:13:54 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-bmd> Subject: some area codes in UK Country code 44. Note the "easy-to-dial" area (city) code for London: 1 London (Eng.) 21 Birmingham (Eng.) 31 Edinburgh (Scot.) 41 Glasgow (Scot.) 51 Liverpool (Eng.) 61 Manchester (Eng.) (0 is prefixed to these codes when dialing within Great Britain.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon 2 Jan 84 04:52:21-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: SWB update: SWB made first base, ATT up to bat 12/15/83 *** BELL SEEKS INCREASE IN TEMPORARY RATE *** ------------------------------------------------ AP - SWB, carrying through on its promise to challenge a temporary $6 53 million rate increase, complained Wednesday to the PUC that it needs more money. PUC Counsel Jim Boyle also appealed the interim rate order Wednesday. He called the interim rate increase "an early Christmas gift for a monopoly." "I am very concerned that the PUC is setting a precedent for granting rate increases without a hearing," Boyle said. The 2 appeals challenge a Dec 9 order by hearing examiner Jacqueline Holmes granting the telephone company a temporary rate increase of $653 million on Jan 1. SWB says it needs at least $292 million more. [ SWB made an initial request of $1,7 billion, since scaled down to $1.3 billion which will not be decided on by the PUC until April 84. SWB, therefore, requested a temporary increase effective Jan 1, of $978 million, including a $2.60 monthly increase to home telephone bills. The Holmes ruling specifies that all of the $653 million should be paid by the long-distance carriers. ] 12/15/83 *** RULING ON BELL RATES PRAISED BY GOVERNOR *** ---------------------------------------------------- Governor Mark White laude the PUC Thursday [12/21] for not allowing SWB to, temporarily, increase the telephone rates for the consumer. ...... The commision ruling prompted officials at ATT - which will pay $617.8 million of interim rates to Bell - to threaten to file their own case to raise Texas long-distance rates by $200 million. 12/16/83 *** ATT ASKS BOOST ON LONG-DISTANCE *** ------------------------------------------- ATT Communications asked the Texas PUC Friday to raise long-distance rates by 27.8%, saying the request is neccessary because of higher rates granted Southwestern Bell. The rate request is designed to generate $301.4 million in revenues. ..... "Someone's pocket is about to be picked," said Jim Boyle, a commission lawyer hired to represent consumers. Attorney General [of Texas] Jim Mattox said, "They shouldn't get anything." ATT wants $164.2 million in higher rates to be paid beginning Jan 1, which would mean long-distance customers would begin paying 16.4% more. ..... At the same time, Boyle questioned why ATT chose to pass along the additional costs to consumers instead of appealing the commission ruling. Boyle said the request makes it "obvious that the 2 pieces of the pie are larger than the pie." ..... Mattox ...: "They shouldn't get anything until we've had a test year to look at it," the attorney general said. "Obviously they shouldn't get what they've requested." 12/18/83 *** DOUBLED PHONE RATES VIEWED AS UNREALISTIC *** ----------------------------------------------------- Washington (AP) - Assistant Attorney General William Baxter, who engineered the break-up of ATT, has adviced consumers to be suspicious if their local rates double, but said a 50% increase might be realistic. Baxter, who quit Friday after 3 years as chief of the Justice Department antitrust division, told a news conference that the ATT divestiture of 22 local phone companies Jan 1 will produce a rise in the cost of local telephone service. ........ In addition, he said, the FCC is forcing local phone regulators to use more realistic depreciation rates for equipment installed in the phone system many years ago. Baxter said regulators had been allowing phone companies to depreciate over 30 years what should have been depreciated in 7 to 10 years. Baxter said the action, which he supports, "will cause local rates to go up to cover these accounting costs." ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jan 84 05:24:40 EST (Mon) From: Chris Torek <chris%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay> Subject: Re: more on VA. pay phones // Pentagon I don't know about pay phones within the Pentagon itself, but at the Metro stop next to it the pay phone(s) I've used are Va. exchanges. (I think). Chris ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 3-Jan-84 23:05:46-PST,17197;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 3 Jan 84 22:58:17-PST Date: 3 Jan 84 2256-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #3 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 4 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Access Charges and other Break-Up issues dial tone after hangup Dial-tone after hanging up new Bell Atlantic UK Telephone Dialing Codes Wiring charges Cheap Error-Free Phone Communications Access misnomer Extended area calling Re: UK codes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jan 1984 1949-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Access Charges and other Break-Up issues Nat at Yale is concerned about rehashing old material, but everyone is confused about this, so we probably should rehash it. There is absolutely no question that LD rates have been subsidizing local rates. Though a lot of the record keeping at AT&T is confusing, this is obvious without looking at AT&Ts records: Those companies which were not Bell System companies have been getting direct payments from AT&T for the long distance traffic offered to AT&T by the independents. In fact, many very small independent companies are only profitable because of this subsidy, which is much greater than the cost of the switching equipment within their plant to provide long distance service. "Access charge" was probably a poor choice of terms, since it has been so misused by calling it a "Long-Distance-Access-Charge." It isn't; it is a network access charge. An access charge for the access to any part of the telephone network. You're right; this is what your local phone rate is supposed to pay. But your local rates are determined by local regulatory authorities, and the FCC has created a national problem (while trying to solve another national problem -- more later). The FCC wants this solved with a national-scope solution. Congress also wants a national-scope solution, but a different one. One alternate solution is to make the LD carriers continue to pay the same amount to the local companies by making the cost of the LD carrier's connection much higher than it really costs, thereby continuing the subsidy. The problem with this is that this encourages the LD carrier to build facilities directly into large LD user's facilities (into corporate headquarters, large hotels, and airports (which they're already doing!)) thereby BYPASSing the local company. The local company now has lost NOT ONLY the subsidy over and above the cost of providing this service, but also the legitimate revenue associated with the cost of this service. (This service is, in fact, the non-fixed-cost part of an LD call, which the LD carrier will be paying to the local company. Determining the rate for this is bizarre, as well. In most cities, each exchange has direct toll trunks for AT&T traffic, (this is not the case in the New York Metro area, but a realignment of tandems may make it the case). Thus the variable cost part is not much different than the variable cost part of a local call. So another patch gets applied -- the Universal Service Fund -- which is paid into by all LD carriers. Now we've got another problem -- defining who pays how much into this universal service fund for what. If I have a private right-of-way over which I operate long-distance service for myself (within my company, say within a power company along my power transmission facility), is that bypass, and do I have to pay into the universal service fund? The question about long-distance calls within a local company requires an understanding of the LATA concept. Even though both ends of an LD call may be in the same company (e.g. Boston and Springfield are both served by New England Telephone within Massachusetts), unless they are in the same LATA, the LD service must be provided by an LD company. The LATAs were presumably set up with the capabilities of the local companies in mind; only the local company may provide service within the LATA. This means that MCI may not provide service between, for example, Montauk Point (the eastern end of Long Island) and West Point (these are the eastern and northern points of the NYC Metro LATA) but can provide service from West Point to Newburgh (assuming the New York PUC grants them a franchise). I mentioned earlier that this new national problem solves another national problem. That problem was the monopoly of AT&T. (Though this may have been one case where a monopoly was in our national interest -- it was a monopoly and was against the law. So either the law had to be changed or the monopoly had to be broken up.) All the comments "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ignore what was broken -- not the phone system, but the free-enterprise system. By breaking off the local companies from AT&T, the other LD carriers will now, presumably, be able to compete fairly with AT&T. I still think AT&T will win, even in the free enterprise system. If they really are allowed to compete -- but it's likely that most of their rate reductions will be challenged as being anti-competetive, as using their huge corporate size to introduce products at below cost. And here we leave the realm of telephony, and need discuss this no further in this digest. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2-Jan-84 20:33:32-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: dial tone after hangup The exact behavior of dialtone return to a callee after calling party hangup varies from CO to CO, depending on the type of switching equipment, and also sometimes on the origin of the call. Generally, ESS offices revert to dialtone quickly at hangup, while #5 Xbar may take 20 to 25 seconds -- during which time enough line noise may be present to keep VOX answering machines taping away merrily. On intraoffice calls in Xbar, and sometimes even occasional interoffice calls, immediate reversion to dialtone may occur, but this is fairly sporadic and installation dependent. With Step X Step offices, all bets (as usual) are off -- most Bell System step offices revert to dialtone immediately, while many GTE exchanges may or may not revert at all -- depending on the exact wiring of the final selector banks in the particular office. In fact, in GTE step, a single line may change in this characteristic at random times, since routine equipment changes may result in altering that "critical" wiring. In cases where the line never self-reverts, even a VERY short momentary interruption of the line is enough to clear the circuit and restore dialtone. I have considerable experience in radio/teleproduction, voiceover work, and the like, and I can tell you that 90% of the time, any "telephone conversations" you hear in radio spots are carefully edited for maximal effect, with hangups, dialtones, dialing, and similar "effects" separately added in most cases. So, don't try to draw ANY conclusions about the "real world" from what you hear in radio commercials! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 0011-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Dial-tone after hanging up This Hollywoodization of the phone system has always bothered me, too. What happens is going to vary depending on the type of exchange at each end and any tandems in between. The cases of an outgoing caller getting an immediate dial-tone when the called party hangs up are VERY rare, in fact, I can't think of any specific examples; but there probably are some. The called party is more likely to get dial tone in a shorter amount of time after the calling party hangs up, but this, too, is seldom immediate. Hollywood also likes to have people flash the switchhook rapidly whenever the call is disconnected. I suppose people really do this, but the reason for it comes from the days when most exchanges were manual -- this was to recall the operator! But even in the later days of cord boards, this was not the proper way to recall an operator; a single, deliberate flash (just like the one to activate add-on) would activate a circuit in the cord which flashed until the operator responded. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 0015-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: new Bell Atlantic Even though both Diamond State Telephone and C&P of Maryland are both under the new Bell Atlantic, they are still separate companies and are separately regulated by the separate state PUCs. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 0053-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: UK Telephone Dialing Codes According to British Telecom; the places mentioned in Carl's message cities with "All-figure numbers." To call one of these numbers, dial all the figures. There is no separate dialling code. What this means is that people in those cities are supposed to ALWAYS state their number in the format 021-246 8071. People in other cities are required to show there number as follows: Aberdeen (0224) 34344. The exchange name is required by callers within the local call area so they can refer to their list of local call dialling codes for the correct code to use. This is one of the more bizarre features of the British telephone system -- someone from a town adjacent to Aberdeen will not dial 0224; they'll probably dial something like 93. And on the other side, they might dial 96. Back to the cities with all-figure numbers... Did everyone notice that the Birmingham is 0B1-xxx xxxx, Edinburgh is 0E1-xxx xxxx, etc? This continues in the Numbering Plan... Reading is 0RE4, Coventry is 0CO3, (in England, the O was on the zero -- new phones have no letters, though) Worcester is 0WO5, Cambridge is 0CA3, Dover is 0DO4. Of course, this isn't true for all cities, but it is for quite a few. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 0121-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Wiring charges I'm sure this is a case where the tariffs really need to be consulted. Fortunately, Massachusetts has no wiring charges, but for a brief period they had an extension charge which I ran afoul of because I had given them all the registration numbers. I was able to convince them that I could not have more extensions than jacks, and they took the charge for the extra one off. Doesn't the wiring charge apply to the number of New York Tel maintained jacks? Can't you use any one of the existing New York Tel jacks as the Network connection point, and run your wiring from there? (You can in Massachusetts -- of course, this is a mess if none of the jacks are in a good location to run a wire back to the central distribution point.) It seems you should be able to tell them "This is the only jack I want; I'll connect my wiring here." Here in Massachusetts I was told that this was my only option... they would not even come out if I wanted them to to install a new network interface. (That seemed like a silly answer; they certainly would have come out and disconnected everything and installed a new jack in the basement if I wanted them to. For a price. It wouldn't have been the same cute little jack with the test button, but that's their problem as long as I have enough extra phones to be sure any problem is theirs before making them come out.) If you can get the whole wiring charge (you said $2.81, plus tax) eliminated for $40, then DO IT unless you're planning on selling the house within the next year and a half! On the Touch-Tone charge; if you aren't using it, they can't make you pay for it. (If your exchange can't block you from using it, then they still can't charge you for it, but they can charge you retroactively (to the date of registration), disconnect your service, or request the state to bring fraud charges against you if they find you have been using it.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1984 04:19:04 EST From: HAGAN.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (John Dotts Hagan "The Kid") Subject: Cheap Error-Free Phone Communications I am interested in statistics about the expected error rate when using modems in the U.S. For example, how many errors should I anticipate when sending to CA from NY over 1200 baud using 212A Bell modems? I know that the above question is very dependent on many factors, but I was wondering if anyone had any information or pointers to literature that would claim evidence about one protocol or another being better or worse over long distance, ect. Specifically, I want to send "error-free" data from a central host to several receiving sites throughout the U.S. I was wondering how I could cheaply reach that goal. One route I know of is error detecting/correct modems (about $1000). Any alternative ideas? Any facts on expected error rates? Thanks in advance! John Hagan P.S. Please send to me personnally (Hagan%UPenn-1100@CSnet-Relay) since I do not receive this digest regularly. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 3 Jan 1984 06:15:50-PST From: decwrl!rhea!donjon!goldstein@SU-Shasta Subject: Access misnomer Nat Mishkin's comment about "access charges" points out the misnomer which they are. They aren't there for YOUR access to L.D., they're there for L.D.'s access to you! BUT that doesn't mean they are purely there because of LD cost. Somewhere in the distant past (the 30's), the Supreme Court ruled that phone facilities used for both interstate and intrastate calling were legally in both jurisdictions. That meant that AT&T had to "separate" its toll revenues, paying back some to the local telcos for use of their facilities. Originally, the percentage of local line usage that was interstate was the percentage of the local investment that was moved to the interstate rate base. Later that got marked up, constituting a subsidy. For example, if 10% of all calls in a state were interstate, then (original rule) 10% of the cost of local lines was legally ATT Long Lines', and 90% the local telcos. Today that would be over 30% ATTs, because of the markup (called SPF, subscriber plant factor). With competition, such orderly separations don't work. Which interstate carrier pays? Hence access fees. The FCC wanted originally to have the local customer pay the INTERSTATE portion of the FIXED cost, as an "access charge", to REPLACE what ATT had been picking up as their share of the rate base (i.e., the interstate share). This is not nonsensical at all, since the COST of providing local service would not go down if there were no interstate calls. But it did constitute an effort by the FCC to get around the "separations" idea. Politics being what it is, that plan is now being replaced by who-knows-what. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Tue 3 Jan 84 14:58:36-MST From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Subject: Extended area calling For those that have asked, by the way, I am in Southwestern Bell territory, in St. Louis, Missouri. The telephone to which I wanted to get some sort of extended local service is in Warrenton, MO, and is serviced by "an independent", as the SW Bell Business Office people daintily put it. They say that there is no way for me to get any low-cost extended service to include that exchange or number. Since it is another company, they can't (or won't) say if that company offers any option to make that number local to me. I am guessing that anything they might provide would be one-way, not allowing local-rate calls from a St. Louis number TO that Warrenton number. After all, the independent could only sell a service which would reduce its own revenues; it couldn't (or wouldn't be allowed to) reduce SW Bell revenues by selling its own customers a service which would reduce the costs to another company's (SW Bell) customers by eliminating LD charges those customers would otherwise pay. Will Martin (who started all this discussion in the first place...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 84 17:20:08 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Re: UK codes The 7 digit phone numbers I have seen with the 1 & 2 digit UK codes include 3 digit prefixes of the NXX (not NNX) form. (Reminder: X is any single digit; N is any single digit EXCEPT 0 or 1.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 4-Jan-84 22:35:57-PST,11875;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 4 Jan 84 22:28:46-PST Date: 4 Jan 84 1939-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #4 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 5 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Rate Comparisons UK Codes Phone CenteStores 800 number question inside wiring cost recovery British postal codes & phone prefixes welcome area 818 Intra-LATA competition Long Distance Service Various unrelated requests from holiday cogitation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3-Jan-84 14:35 PST From: Pam Bicknell <PAMV.TYM@OFFICE-2> Subject: Rate Comparisons I live in Sunnyvale, CA and most of my relatives live in Massachusetts - my telephone bills are therefore outrageous. Does anyone have references to written items or any online data regarding long distance rate comparison between Sprint/MCI/AT&T? I would VERY much appreciate the info. Pam Vittum (please send reply copy to: vittum@office) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 1846-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: UK Codes Carl Moore has pointed out that in the U.K., seven digit phone numbers are of the NXX form rather than the NNX form which was formerly a restriction in the U.S. The restriction in the U.S. was a result of the absence of letters on the 1 and 0 position of the dial, which happened because any letter on the 1 or zero could not have been used as the first character of an exchange name. "1" as a first digit was avoided because of the danger of a false pulse as an operator inserted a plug into a jack (I kid you not, I have read 1927 AT&T documentation stating this) and the reservation of zero as the code for reaching the operator. However, in the U.K., in order to avoid the confusion of 0 and O, the letter O was placed on the zero. Thus exchanges such as MOOrgate (they used a three letter scheme, rather than our scheme) were 600. New telephones in the U.K. no longer have letters. In London, no exchanges began with the letter O. In Paris, however, ODEon was a valid exchange, 033. Within France, 16 is the prefix used before the city code for national calls, and 19 before the country code for international calls. When international direct distance dialing was first introduced in the sixties, the lettering plans posed quite a problem. Germany had to publish all the exchanges in London and Paris in its dialling code booklet. Most countries use 0 for national and 00 for international, but the U.K. uses 010 for international, we use 01 or 011 depending on the type of call, Australia uses 0011, parts of Austria use 00 and other parts use 900, Denmark uses 009, El Salvador uses 0, Finland uses 990, Ireland uses 16, Japan uses 001, the Netherlands use 09, Norway uses 095, Lisbon uses 097, Qatar uses 0, Senegal uses 12, Singapore uses 005, South Africa uses 091, Spain uses 07 and Sweden uses 009. In France, a fixed length numbering scheme is used, as in the U.S., Belgium, Norway, Spain, Turkey. Exchanges in the U.S. knew which countries had which length numbers and needed not wait for the "#" or the four-second timeout for these countries. No 1 ESS only knew the minimum number of digits on countries with variable length codes, but No 2 ESS knew minimum and maximum. With the disconnection of AT&T and its overseas administration from the operating companies, an order went out making all countries variable length with the minimum ever used, 7 digits (starting counting at the first digit of the country code). ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 1532-PST From: STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL Subject: Phone CenteStores Yes, something is going on with AT&T's phone center stores. The Pasadena, CA store was also closed on December 23 and the sign there refers people to the Glendale, CA store, about 5-10 miles away by freeway. --david-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed 4 Jan 84 04:03:53-PST From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC> Subject: 800 number question Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 Is the same 800 number ever used multiply for intrastate WATS in two different states (and for two different purposes)? ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed 4 Jan 84 04:26:29-PST From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC> Subject: inside wiring cost recovery Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 In California, is the current billing surcharge that is supposed to recover customer plant costs over a 10 year period designed to mean that each consumer now owns his wiring? It might be double billing to levy this charge and also claim continued ownership of the wiring. All customers pay the same surcharge percentage, even if they have ordered service very recently and did their own wiring. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 84 9:27:55 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: British postal codes & phone prefixes In the U.S., the phone exchange will NOT NECESSARILY match the address required by postal service. It is no surprise, because phones and mail are handled by different organizations. What of countries where the postoffice does also handle the phones? (I believe UK is one of the latter.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 84 10:10:56 EST From: cmoore@brl-vld Subject: welcome area 818 1st state to have a double-digit number of area codes: California! New 818 area, formed by splitting 213, is the 10th area code there. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 4 Jan 1984 14:13:18-PST From: decwrl!rhea!donjon!goldstein@SU-Shasta Subject: Intra-LATA competition Actually, the BOCs don't have a monopoly on intra-LATA calls. They are only precluded from Inter-LATA toll (non-local) traffic. In Mass., for example, MCI has applied for both inter-LATA and intra-LATA permission to operate. ATTCOM has only asked for inter-LATA so far, but will if you want provide intra-LATA private lines. (NET, the BOC, is cheaper though.) They may join the intra-LATA competition if the state DPU permits. The divestiture didn't restrict AT&T from anything. It just left the BOCs out alone with restrictions on them. ------------------------------ Date: 4-Jan-84 16:05 PST From: MJM.TYM@OFFICE-2 Subject: Long Distance Service Have there been any recent comparison studies done for long distance services? SPRINT and MCI may be cheaper, but will the service be on par? Will AT&T become cheaper as competition grows? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 84 23:10:19 pst From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Various unrelated requests from holiday cogitation Subject: Wargames breakin techniques that work -- or don't I found it very interesting that of the 7 or 8 techniques the kid hero of "Wargames" used to break in to systems, only one of them doesn't work in the real world. Examples of ones that work: Finding passwords written down next to terminals Investigating peoples' backgrounds, kids, etc as potential passwords Using 'help' commands before login (got me onto the Arpanet years ago!) Scanning many phone numbers looking for interesting things The one that doesn't work is: making a free pay phone call by unscrewing the microphone cover and grounding it to the phone (!). [Even if it had the potential to work, the covers are glued on so nobody will steal the crummy microphone.] Somehow the movie scripters and producers believed that (1) nobody important would get upset if they showed good techniques for breaking into computers, and (2) somebody very important would get upset if they really showed a few ways of making free phone calls. Now where would they get an idea like that? --------- Subject: Telco defenses against scanning? While on the subject -- Does anyone know how the phone companies protect themselves and their customers against scanning? I'm sure that after being shown the example in a major movie, plenty of kiddies have written the 10-line Basic program to call a few thousand free local numbers and record whether their modem said "CONNECTED" or not. It could be detected as a pattern of high usage, or of sequential calls, or of calls to large numbers of different destinations. But all of the above are valid uses of phones -- I suspect our uucp lines are busy that much, though they only call about 50 numbers. A phone ad service would do as well, though, and many of them are computer-dialed too. Sequential call detection would be easy to program around, of course. Does the phone company even notice this kind of thing? Being a high-tech company in a prime Silicon Valley exchange, I'm curious how many such calls we've gotten -- we haven't detected any, but that means nothing. ---------- Subject: dial-out data calls Do any public data networks offer dial-out calls, e.g. connections which are completed on the remote end by having the network dial a local call with a modem? It seems to me that this would bring significantly more business into the data nets. I know Sun probably can't affort a direct connect to Telenet (hefty up-front charges, a box in your machine room, a leased line to the Telenet C.O., and needs a good bit of traffic to be reasonably priced) but it seems a shame to send (and pay for) 56kbps to decvax when 1kbps is all we need. Of course the per-packet cost of such a link would be greater than on a dedicated link, due to increased use of shared capital equipment, but should still be much lower than Bell long distance. A call could be billed to the caller or could be a collect call if the receiving node has an account with the data net. Under those terms it would be easy for companies like Sun (or even individuals who make many long distance data calls) to become PDN customers. (How many non-Bell sites are on Usenet? Conservatively, hundreds -- and they spend most of the night calling each other, when the PDNs are relatively unloaded.) If the PDN's wanted to go thru the hassle, the could contract with the local telcos like long distance voice providers, to avoid peoples' having to set up billing, etc, ahead of time. I originally conceived of this as a service of the alternate L.D. providers, but they aren't set up for it -- the packet switch companies already have the facilities to move the data efficiently cross-country, they just can't get it across town cheaply. ----------- Subject: Detection of data calls by telco equipment? Can ESS equipment detect whether a data call or voice call is in progress? Do they care (except for echo suppressor disable)? If the volume of calls became sufficiently high it would be a win to switch those calls to modems at a point near the source, and just send bits at low bps rather than 56kbps to the other end. The error rate would hopefully be lower, too. Is the pattern of a data carrier easy to detect in digitized 56/64kbps audio? Could this determination even be done by software? I guess not, or somebody would have built a modem with a codec and a single chip micro. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Jan-84 23:21:33-PST,9228;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 7 Jan 84 23:12:16-PST Date: 7 Jan 84 2310-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #5 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 8 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: time of day in Md. MCI Mail Telex Service Line polarity InterLATA calls InterLATA calls by the RBOCs Beverly Hills Courier advertisement Happy 818 day!! MCI Mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 9:44:41 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: time of day in Md. Time of day is available as a local call anywhere in Md. If you are in DC calling area, call 844-2525 for DC time of day. Elsewhere in Md., call 844-1212 for Baltimore time of day. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1984 1141-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI Mail Telex Service Well, it's up. The following glitches, which will hopefully be removed soon, exist: On a message sent to an ITT TELEX in DC, the message arrived three times; the last two said "suspected duplicate." (Better they send duplicates than not at all.) On an attempt to reply from that Telex machine, the number was not accepted. ITT hasn't figured out how to route ten digit numbers (all other numbers beginning with six (other MCII Telex numbers) are shorter). However, by dialling the MCII gateway, waiting for a response, and then entering the 6501046199 (my MCI Mail Telex ID), the message was delivered. When MCI mail Customer service was asked about this, they said it only works from outside the continental US. Not good if you can send a message to someone who can't reply. But this customer service rep also thought that you could only send to Telexes outside the U.S. But they give rates for domestic telex. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1984 1950-EST From: Philip A. Earnhardt <S.PAE at MIT-EECS> Subject: Line polarity I have a touch-tone telephone. About every 20th dial tone, I'm unable to generate any tones. I'm able to generate tones after getting a new dial tone. This has been happening for at least a year. Is this caused by somehow getting reversed line polarity? What else could be causing this? If helpful, I'm in the (617) 625 exchange. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 84 11:26:38 est From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: InterLATA calls A few days ago, I inquired about the LATA boundaries in the New York area. I had received a bill from NJ Bell that showed calls to New York City in the intraLATA section, which made no sense to me -- NJ Bell and NY Bell are not only separate companies, but they're owned by two different RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies), Bell Atlantic and Nynex. I've just learned that this is legitimate. It seems that there are two "corridors" where interLATA calls are handled by the local operating companies; these are most of northern NJ and the 212 area code, and calls between NJ's Delaware Valley LATA and the Philadelphia LATA. I confess that the logic of this escapes me. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1984 1432-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: InterLATA calls by the RBOCs I suspect that the exceptions in these two cases are a result of the fact that, due to the very high volume of traffic in these areas, there are an extremely large number of circuits from Class 4 and Class 4/5 offices (these kind of offices usually remained with the BOCs -- a class 5 office is an end-office and a class 4/5 office is an end-office which concentrates toll connecting trunks for telephone users in that office and nearby class 5 offices) in one LATA to offices in the other. Another exception was recently made in the Balto-Wash corridor because of the large number of simulated FXs in that area. Northern New Jersey also has a large number of simulated NYC FXs. I wonder whether the exception also includes the operation of the physical circuit across the LATA boundary, or whether the BOC has to lease that circuit from a long-distance carrier? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 1984 0003-PST Subject: Beverly Hills Courier advertisement From: Ian H. Merritt <SWG.MERRITT@USC-ISIB> On the back page of the Beverly Hills Courier newspaper of January 6, 1984, I found the following add: [This is printed on a tombstone which I couldn't easily reproduce here] I N N M M EEEEE M M OOO RRRR I AAA M M I NN N MM MM E MM MM O O R R I A A MM MM I N N N M M M EEEE M M M O O RRRR I AAAAA M M M I N NN M M E M M O O R R I A A M M I N N M M EEEEE M M OOO R R I A A M M MM MM AAAAAA BBBBBBBB EEEEEEEEEE LL LL MMMM MMMM AA AA BB BB EE LL LL MM MM MM MM AA AA BB BB EE LL LL MM MMM MM AAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBB EEEEEEEE LL LL MM MM AA AA BB BB EE LL LL MM MM AA AA BB BB EE LL LL MM MM AA AA BBBBBBBB EEEEEEEEEE LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL DIED DECEMBER 31, OF GOVERNMENT MEDDELING, IN HER 98TH YEAR. SHE PROVIDED US WITH THE GREATEST TELEPHONE SYSTEM THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. THE CONFUSION RESULTING FROM HER LOSS WILL BE A LIVING TESTAMENT TO THE EFFICIENCIES SHE PROVIDED. BEING BIG IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD! Lone Star Industries, Inc. [Signed James Stuart] ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 1984 2001-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Happy 818 day!! Well, it's 818 day, and a happy 818 day to all Telecommers. Aside from the lack of 818 in most private PBX ARS patterns nationwide (well, duplicate dialling exists for 9 months, but if you're given an 818 number, unless you're a phone hacker you won't know to dial 213 if 818 misbehaves) the 818 cut seems to be going remarkably well here in New England, where I've checked. Around the country in general (not General Tel, well, one) things are interesting. Most interesting is Memphis, where 818 sort of works, at least for some exchanges, but 818 555-1212 isn't in the toll machine, or is in wrong. It's missing in the following local exchanges I've checked (and certainly many more I won't be checking): Quincy, Mass 471, Contoocook, NH 746, Rochester, NY 223, Tyngsboro, MA 649, Houston, TX 977 (But ok in 953), and not in the Band 5 WATS Table in whatever machine our Band 5 WATS in Houston comes from, Rolling Meadows, IL 640, Chicago, IL 569, Ann Arbor, MI 665, and Tampa, FL 879. That's actually only about 10% of the exchanges I've checked. I'll certainly find more, but I won't bore you with the details (at least not until 9 months from now when it really matters). ------------------------------ Date: Sat 7 Jan 84 23:06-EST From: Joseph D. Turner <RG.CUTTER%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: MCI Mail Having just recently gotten MCI Mail (well, my brother, actually), I wanted to comment on it a litttle bit. I think that the terminal-to-terminal part of it is fine. Even the U.S. Snail service is O.K., if not a slight bit slow --- I mailed myself a letter on a Friday, and it got to me Wednesday --- but everything else is completely overpriced. 4-hour delivery? Hell, I could call someone for far less cost (and faster, too!). The computer itself isn't bad, in fact it's quite user-freindly. The quality of the letter, however, was disappointing. They advertise "laser printing" --- well, maybe they should think twice about that. My letter was readable, but faint. Maybe they should use the laser for the custom letterheads, and use a NEC Spinwriter or some such for the letter itself? Who knows. Their laser printer might have been having a bad day when my letter was done. In any case, if they reduced the prices a bit and put an on-line directory of subscribers so one could find the User Name of someone if you didn't know if they were on the service or not, then I think a) I would like it better, and b) it would (maybe) get a little more popular than it is now. Thought -- forget the US Snail stuff, and provide users witth a cheap terminal/300bd modem? Hmmm, sounds like what The Source did/does... -- cutter -- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 9-Jan-84 16:10:34-PST,11850;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 9 Jan 84 15:55:00-PST Date: 9 Jan 84 1544-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #6 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 10 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: MCI Mail On-Line directory Free calling from payphones Blue boxes 818 Bebugged Alternative LD Services Comparison ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jan 1984 1337-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: MCI Mail On-Line directory MCI Mail does have an on-line directory. If you don't know whether someone uses the service or not, just type is last name, or narrow it down further with his first initial and last name (MCI recently told people to do this without a space -- bad -- all people who chose usernames other than that wouldn't be found, but first initial <space> last name finds all). I think the prices for overnight and four-hour delivery are quite reasonable; it's the price for the other two services I find a bit high. But maybe not so high when you consider there's no membership or connect charges and they let you call in on an 800 Service number (paying their competitor!). Laser printers are a xerographic process, and if they don't keep enough toner in the machine, then you'll get bad copy. You can't print anywhere near as fast as is necessary to handle the volume they need with a mechanical process. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jan 84 13:59:10 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: Free calling from payphones Referring to the movie "Wargames", John Gilmore comments about the various methods of breaking into systems: The one that doesn't work is: making a free pay phone call by unscrewing the microphone cover and grounding it to the phone (!). [Even if it had the potential to work, the covers are glued on so nobody will steal the crummy microphone.] He obviously hasn't tried it. Variants of this were the standard way of making local telephone calls from the Student House (dormitory) pay phones when I was an undergraduate at Caltech. The best was to ground one side of a 1000 ohm resistor (value not critical) and touch the other side to any of numerous wires in or around the telephone. In particular, one could fasten a pin to the resistor and poke it into the microphone, making contact with the metal cover. Although less reliable, just grounding, without the resistor, through a slightly bad connection would work, with perhaps a few trials required. These methods worked on both Pacific Telephone (Western Electric) pay phones, which didn't have a dial-tone until they were ready for dialing, and General Telephone (Automatic Electric) pay phones which gave a dial-tone first. As for gluing on the cover -- while common in large cities and, especially in places with Street People, such as Berkeley, small telephone companies in places like Wyoming often don't bother -- they don't have the same kind of a rip-off problem found in the Big City. In any case, our hero could have poked a pin into the mouthpiece to make the connection if he were unable to unscrew the cover. ted vail ps I do not recommend the above technique. It is, of course, a misdemeanor, punishable in the customary way. I guess if you're saving the world (as in the movie) then it is justifiable. But even then the telephone company lawyers might give you a hard time. -- tnv ------------------------------ Date: Mon 9 Jan 84 00:58:03-EST From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <RALPHW@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: Blue boxes I have often wondered if the telco would hassle me because my customer-provided equipment has the ability to do blue boxing. My equipment (a Novation Apple-Cat modem) uses a digital-analog converter to generate DTMF tones, although it is not limited to these frequencies. - Ralph Hyre (ralphw@mit-xx) ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Sun, 8-Jan-84 03:59:51-PST Subject: 818 Just for amusement, on Friday night here in L.A., I started experimenting with 818 to see what would result. I have two Pacific*Bell and two General Telephone lines here, so I tried calling 1-818-555-1212 from both types. In all cases, I was routed to the normal directory assist operator for that line, just as if I'd dialed 411. In the case of the GenTel lines, I got the standard "please hang up if you could have used your directory" recording. Now, an interesting question comes to mind. When the real cutover comes in nine months, do we get shafted for directory assist calls? For example: Right now I could call 411 and make up to three requests on that call, any of which could be for the 213 or 818 area. After a full split, I'd have to make two separate calls if I needed numbers both in 213 and 818. Even more interesting, what happens when AT&T gets their "outside the area code" directory assistance charge? Will calls that previously were rated as local D.A. then be rated as long distance D.A.? I doubt that the second scenario will take place (though I'd like to know for sure) but the first one seems pretty likely. Since we were promised that the area code split would result in no additional customer charges, I'm tempted to call my local P.U.C. contact and see what he has to say on this matter... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 7-Jan-84 22:23:46-EST From: (Joel M. Heller) jmh@BNL The Los Angeles Times introduced a new service (which was advertised in the business section of the L.A. Times [Jan. 7, 1983]) called WeatherTimes. If you dial (213) 976-4646 between 2-3 pm or 10pm - 6am Ski Report 8-10 pm Surfing Report 6-9:20 am or 3-6:20pm Traffic Sat & Sun 5:40-8 am Sailing All recordings are updated every time new information comes in. (Each one contains a report on the weather in general, business travel forcast, and the special reports listed above.) In addition there is Business Pulse (213) 976-6464 SportsTimes (213) 976-6363 SportsCall (213) 976-2111 (National sports) At the bottom of the ad in small print: "One quarter buys a lot of convenience. Each call costs only 25 cents plus applicable toll charge, if any. You'll find the charge on your monthly phone bill. These services do not work on coin operated phones." Does anyone have the details on whether such a service can be set up on residential phones. Do businesses have the legal responsibility to notify you if such charges are made? If such services are set up on a residential line, does the owner of the line get the full amount that the caller is charged? It seems that setting up a charge might be useful a) On a public bulletin board system, where the sysop would get a small income to help pay for the phone line. b) On a line you plan to use only for outgoing calls (Crank callers would be penalized!) But what about wrong numbers? You accidentally dial such a service and you receive a charge (without being notified until the bill arrives...) Please share any knowledge or opinions you have! ~~jmh ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 84 10:44 EST (Monday) From: Denber.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Bebugged From page 38 of the Spring 1984 Edmund Scientific Catalog: Is Someone Listening In? Makes your phone secure, and works whether call is being made or received. Adjustable for all telephone installations and can be easily installed. 3 1/4" x 5" x 1/2". Eavesdropper K33,199 $39.95 The accompanying photo shows a box (labelled "Eavesdropper Stopper") with an on/off switch, and what look like one or two small lights. Now I vaguely recall some discussion of bug-detectors here about a year ago but I ignored it, not being directly interested at the time. Lately however, I have noticed strange clicks on my line, not faint switching noises or static, but loud definite single clicks occurring once per call on many calls I get (sounds like an extension being picked up). I also have reason to believe that someone might be interested in tapping my line (how dramatic). The phone company "checked the line" and "found nothing wrong" and appeared uninterested/unwilling to investigate further. So my questions are: 1. how easy is it to bug a private residential phone line (ie. do you need an EE degree, do you need connections down at the C.O., do you have to climb poles, or what?); 2. can you tell if someone is tapping a line you're using (ie. could that result in what I'm hearing, or am I being paranoid?); 3. do devices like the above really work, and if so, how? Thanks. By the way, the $4.88 Cheap Phone I told you about last month lasted exactly three weeks before biting the Big One. The "0" key decided to become a NOP. At least the store gave me a brand new one no questions asked. The new one had a different face plate and keyboard. - Michel DENBER.WBST@PARC-MAXC ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 1984 1348-PST Subject: Alternative LD Services Comparison From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Since there has been interest expressed in comparing the alternative LD services, I typed in the following chart: From USA TODAY, Friday, 30 Dec 83: Comparative LD Services. Rates shown are for a New York-Los Angeles call. (Original chart also has a Denver-Chicago call, but the whole thing won't fit in 80 columns.) Day Eve Night Sign-up Monthly MinimumBilling Wkend Fee Fee Charge Unit ______________________________________________________________________ AT&T $4.17 $2.50 $1.66 None None None 60 sec. AT&T(new-4/84) $3.74 $2.24 $1.49 None None None 60 MCI Full-Time $3.46 $1.70 $1.33 None $10 None 60 MCI Super Saver $3.76 $1.70 $1.33 None $5 None 60 MCI Basic $3.76 $2.12 $1.41 $10 None None 60 (1000-1600 hours "restricted") GTE-Sprint $3.72 $2.16 $1.45 None None $5 60 Allnet $3.35 $1.55 $1.21 $7.50 $5 None 6 sec. Homeline $3.96 $1.75 $1.00 None $5 None 60 sec. (US Telephone, Inc.) ITT Longer $3.89 $1.59 $1.17 None $5 None 60 Distance Skyline $3.12 $1.44 $1.12 $16 None $15 6 (After 1 min) (Satellite Business Systems, Inc.) Western Union: Metrofone I $3.44 $1.60 $1.55 None $10 None 60 sec. Metrofone II $3.44 $1.60 $1.55 None $5 $40* 60 Metrofone $3.44 $1.60 $1.55 None None $10 60 Off-Peak (0900-1700 "restricted") * = After first 60 days I'm sure this changes quite often, so be sure to check with the companies yourself instead of relying on this data. It might be a useful tool when trying to compare them, though. I wish they would include an intrastate call on these kind of comparisons, though. They never do... Will Martin PS: Since the sign-up fee is usually waived in sales periods and as a part of come-ons, I would never pay one myself; probably you could always wait a bit for a sale in which is is waived. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 11-Jan-84 16:22:53-PST,8171;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 11 Jan 84 16:12:22-PST Date: 11 Jan 84 1606-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #7 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 12 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Alternative LD Services Comparison local calls in California time & temperature numbers Telex and Teletex Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 1984 1348-PST From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Alternative LD Services Comparison Since there has been interest expressed in comparing the alternative LD services, I typed in the following chart: From USA TODAY, Friday, 30 Dec 83: Comparative LD Services. Rates shown are for a New York-Los Angeles call. (Original chart also has a Denver-Chicago call, but the whole thing won't fit in 80 columns.) Day Eve Night Sign-up Monthly Minimum Billing Wkend Fee Fee Charge Unit ______________________________________________________________________ AT&T $4.17 $2.50 $1.66 None None None 60 sec. AT&T(new-4/84) $3.74 $2.24 $1.49 None None None 60 MCI Full-Time $3.46 $1.70 $1.33 None $10 None 60 MCI Super Saver $3.76 $1.70 $1.33 None $5 None 60 MCI Basic $3.76 $2.12 $1.41 $10 None None 60 (1000-1600 hours "restricted") GTE-Sprint $3.72 $2.16 $1.45 None None $5 60 Allnet $3.35 $1.55 $1.21 $7.50 $5 None 6 sec. Homeline $3.96 $1.75 $1.00 None $5 None 60 sec. (US Telephone, Inc.) ITT Longer $3.89 $1.59 $1.17 None $5 None 60 Distance Skyline $3.12 $1.44 $1.12 $16 None $15 6 (After 1 min) (Satellite Business Systems, Inc.) Western Union: Metrofone I $3.44 $1.60 $1.55 None $10 None 60 sec. Metrofone II $3.44 $1.60 $1.55 None $5 $40* 60 Metrofone $3.44 $1.60 $1.55 None None $10 60 Off-Peak (0900-1700 "restricted") * = After first 60 days I'm sure this changes quite often, so be sure to check with the companies yourself instead of relying on this data. It might be a useful tool when trying to compare them, though. I wish they would include an intrastate call on these kind of comparisons, though. They never do... Will Martin PS: Since the sign-up fee is usually waived in sales periods and as a part of come-ons, I would never pay one myself; probably you could always wait a bit for a sale in which is is waived. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 16:01:55 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: local calls in California It's noted that charges for calls are not changed by areacode split (but see earlier Telecom note for question about directory assistance). However, local calls across 213/818 line will have to be prefixed with 1+areacode, right? (During the period when 213 OR 818 can be used to reach 818, how are such calls made?) [If you dial 213-213 just dial 7 digits. If you choose to dial 818, you MUST put a 1 before it. This is both during and after the final split] Local calls from old 213 area outside such area require 1+areacode; what of the reverse? (And what of local calls from 408/415 to other areas?) I take it that you can still dial local calls across 714/619 boundary with only the 7-digit number; these areas don't have N0X and N1X (neither do 408 & 415, which do require area code on local calls across 408/415 line). [714/619 is the same as 213/818. Local calls across the boundary require 1+areacode before the number. Whether an area code has N0X/N1X doesn't have anything to do with the standard of dialing 1+areacode+number --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 84 1609 EST (Tuesday) From: Thomas Rodeheffer@CMU-CS-A (C410TR30) Subject: time & temperature numbers Does anybody know of a time & temperature number you can call from Kitty Hawk, NC 919-261-xxxx? The yellow pages don't list anything and the locals I asked didn't know of any. You can get boating reports by calling Norfolk, but that's 80 miles away in Virginia and seems like overkill. My parents are moving down there this spring and they're wondering how they're going to set their clocks. ------------------------------ Date: 11-Jan-1984 1532 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: Telex and Teletex Telex will soon be passe if Teletex catches on. Teletex is a new service similar to Telex but which operates at significantly higher data rates (Telex is 50 bps asynch; Teletex is 2400 bps synch) and using a much larger character set. Sending Teletex messages is much less expensive than Telex (for example, from the U.S. to Germany compare MCI Mail's Telex mini-ounce (400 characters) at $1.82 with a Teletex full page (8 1/2 x 11 or DIN A4) for $1.00). But the equipment is more expensive, and it may be (I'm not sure) part of the requirement that the equipment have the full character set defined in the CCITT recommendation for Teletex service which includes the alphabets of all the European languages and a large number of special characters. I've asked for more details on the service in the U.S. Western Union is the carrier which is providing the service today. There are very few machines in service, though several contracts are in effect waiting for installation. All Telex terminals are reachable from any Teletex terminal, and vice versa. I've communicated with a Teletex terminal located in Germany from MCI Mail. Of course, since MCI Mail is considered Telex, all the nice upper/lower case available on both MCI Mail and Teletex disappears in the converter. Last week I received the following statistics on the status of Teletex in Germany: Relatively shortly after the W-German Teletex Service has been implemented by the DBP the number of network termination points (NTP's) reached 3335 Ttx connections. The growth rate within 2 months (Aug. to Oct.83) was 12%. The highest connection density we will find in Munich with 502 NTP's and Frankfurt with 375 NTP's. Above statistics are from Oct.83 and are representing DBP figures. The list of DBP approved Ttx equipment is growing too. DBP informed me that presently 35 different Ttx terminals or stations are permitted for connection to the Teletex Service (General Connection Licenses only; trial licenses are excluded). The above number reflects at least 24 different manufacturers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 02:26:21 pst From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #6 Ralph Hyre asks if telco might hassle him about possession of an Apple-Cat modem which can generate blue box signals. I recall the venerable Captain Crunch mentioning this topic while he tried to recruit me for his software company. (He founded it while in prison for phone phreaking; I wonder if IBM knew who they bought their first PC word processing program from?) Anyway, he said that his Apple was impounded as evidence when he was arrested. This was before the Apple-Cat existed; I'm not sure what kind of special equipment, if any, he had; nor if it was actually used as evidence in his trial. Nor if he got it back. Any old Walkman held up close to the mike can generate DTMF tones too. I doubt you'll get it any trouble unless they actually detect illegal activities on your phone line. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 12-Jan-84 17:23:24-PST,3560;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 12 Jan 84 17:19:45-PST Date: 12 Jan 84 1721-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #8 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 13 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Alternative LD Services The rise of the computer state Corridors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jan 1984 1219-PST Subject: Alternative LD Services From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) After seeing that chart I sent in Telecom, I remembered the other comment on the subject I meant to add: I have a friend who subscribed to one of the alternative services; I believe that he chose Allnet based on price. He does save money. However, he has found that he is often cut off in the middle of conversations. His habits included late-night calls that continued for long durations. He has found that his connections were often abruptly terminated. He complained to the vendor, and was told that this was normal, and he should expect it. It seems that portions of their network are shut down during periods of low usage, and calls can still be made via alternate paths, but calls in progress on the affected portions are interrupted without warning. This is of course irritating, and a definite inferiority to standard Bell/AT&T service. Could we have comments from others on this list who use the altenative services with regard to these sort of "quality" issues, as opposed to basing all our comparisons on price alone? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1984 1636-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: The rise of the computer state A submission prepared by Rob Kling of the University of California, Irvine, talking about the Rise of the Computer State, and how some politicians are using computers to increase their power unfairly (those are his opinions, not those of the TELECOM moderator), is too large to sumbit to the digest. The file is being made available for FTP from the archive host, SRI-CSL. The file is <TELECOM>COMPUTER.STATE. SRI-CSL accepts the ANONYMOUS login convention for FTP. If you cannot access the ARPANET to ftp this file, send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@USC-ECLC and I will be happy to forward you a copy by return mail. Cheers, --Jsol ------------------------------ From: pyuxbb!ggr%eagle@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: Wed, 11-Jan-84 15:53:02 EST From: Guy Riddle <decvax!pyuxbb!ggr@BRL-BMD.ARPA> Subject: Corridors As usual, New Jersey is considered an appendage of New York City or of Philadelphia, but I'll restrain my flaming for now. Two questions for you experts out there: 1) If calls between the North Jersey LATA (most of it) and NYC (212) are handled by New Jersey Bell (and show up on the intra-LATA portion of your bill), who approves the tarriffs for these rates? They are still inter-state, but NJB normally deals with the NJ PUC not the FCC. 2) When the explicit-carrier routing plan gets installed, can a user choose to route these calls via AT&T-C or MCI instead of through NJB? === Guy Riddle == AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway === ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 17-Jan-84 16:45:55-PST,8862;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 17 Jan 84 16:37:40-PST Date: 17 Jan 84 1636-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #9 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 18 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Blue Boxes How to get "them" to support LOC's First CSDC Installation tapping phones Correction -- Alternative LD Service follow-up Pacific-Bell Miscellany: Customer-Provided Inside Wiring, and Dialing from the 818 Area to the 213 Area ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 3:29:06 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Blue Boxes I wouldn't worry about your modem too much. Owning a blue box isn't inherently illegal. Using it to defeat charging is. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1984 08:28:59-PST From: dswise.oregon-state@Rand-Relay Subject: How to get "them" to support LOC's I have watched the great AT&T breakup with some horror. I *hope* that our phone service will be best-in-the-world a few years out, but I'm not sure for the near term. The problem with the old system is that overpriced business use of long distance was supporting the private subscriber, and that new technology allows business users (even smaller ones) to buy out from under the heel of Long Lines. (My other thesis is that the *real* problem was the IBM settlement, but that's another story.) How can the private consumer *vote* business back into carrying its moral share of the local net? I have a proposal that derives from the "message unit" billing with which we are all about to be burdened. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Serious proposal for local billing: Charge the connection cost to the caller, and charge time costs to the caller if it is a "residence". Charge time costs (above a small minimum) to the callee if it is a "business". -------------------------------------------------------------------- The philosophy is that residence-to-business calls generate economic value for the business, which should pay for the call. Whose value/money, then, is it if a businessman puts me on hold? When a resident makes a local call to MCI, SPRINT, or L-LINES, he calls businesses and they are billed for the local time charges on his end; they also are billed for ALL local charges on the other end if he is calling a residence. ------------------------------ Date: Sun 15 Jan 84 00:30:38-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: First CSDC Installation [From USENET Newsgroup net.dcom --JSol] Mr. Nguyen I don't know if this is what you were interested in, but I thought it worthy enough to post on the net in any case. Reprinted with permission in part from: BELL LABS NEWS Jan 9, 1984 Vol.24 No.2 FIRST CSDC INSTALLATION A SUCCESS: OUR CUSTOMERS ARE SATISFIED Circuit Switched Digital Capability (CSDC), a system designed to make the most of conventional telephone lines, has been cut over for the first time. It is undergoing a technical trial at New Jersey Bell's Murray Hill switching center. Developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories, CSDC allows computers to communicate with each other at high speeds over the same lines used for regular phone calls. With it, customers can send nearly all types of signals - voice, graphics, and data - over conventional telephone lines. "CSDC is a giant step toward fully integrated voice and data communications networks that will bring new digital services right to the customer's doorstep," said Mark Mortensen, CSDC project manager at Bell Labs in HOMDEL. "At the touch of a button, a CSDC user can alternate between analog voice calls and digital data transmission to any other subscriber on a CSDC network at speeds as high as 56000 bits per second ..." ...Local telephone compaines expect to install CSDC equipment in over a dozen cities by the end of 1984. This equipment can be interconnected by long distance networks of various interexchange carriers. CSDC provides a common-user swithced network that transports information at 56 kilobits per second by transmitting digital, rather than analog signals... ...To use CSDC, a customer merely dials into the service with a five- digit access code, and then dials another user. Once a call is established, the connection can be alternated between voice and data transmission simply by pushing a button... ...they developed a time compression multiplexer, a device that alternately sends and receives bursts of data...Rather than sending signals in both directions at 56 Kb the multiplexers send signals at double that rate, but alternate between sending and receiving over 700 times a second... ..."As long as there is a circuit between the caller and the receiver that can carry digital signals - and there usually is - we can provide them with just about any new digital application that comes along in the forseeable future," Mortensen said. " ...here's lookin' at you kid " C. M. Votava, ...!cbosgd!noc!cmv ...!cbosgd!cbnap!cmv ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12-Jan-84 21:53:39-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: tapping phones "If you can hear the clicks, you have an ordinary phone line. If you don't hear nuttin', you're bugged!" Seriously, unless an eight-year old is tapping your phone (and maybe not even then) you won't hear a damn thing if your line is "tapped". There are a multitude of non-obstrusive techniques for tapping, and even most of the obtrusive ones will only make a sound at the instant of initial connection to the line. Does anybody *really* think that phone taps consist of some guy with an EXTENSION PHONE who picks it up to listen from time to time? Taps are left in place continuously and (typically) fed directly into a tape recorder. Some units will start and stop the tape on a voice-activated basis, but you're not going to hear that either. Needless to say, the cheapo bug detection devices are only suitable for detecting gross voltage and/or current variations, like what you'd get if someone DID try to tap you with an extension phone! Totally useless. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 1984 0857-PST Subject: Correction -- Alternative LD Service follow-up From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) Regarding my earlier submission wherin I mentioned the experience of a friend who got cut-off often on late-night alternative LD service: I had said that I thought he had bought Allnet service, but I was wrong -- he has Western Union Metrofone Off-Peak service. Will Martin PS He also mentions that the quality of the lines and connections is definitely inferior to what he had been used to with Bell/AT&T. Much extraneous noise and interference. WM ------------------------------ From: tp3!nomdenet at RAND-UNIX Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1984 14:36-PST Subject: Pacific-Bell Miscellany: Customer-Provided Inside Wiring, Subject: and Dialing from the 818 Area to the 213 Area ---------- Re: Customer-provided inside wiring: In November I got an additional telephone in the San Fernando Valley, in Los Angeles. I wanted to do my own wiring, and so talked to a few Pacific-Bell people, finally talking to an installation foreman. The upshot was that all I needed to do was provide wires which the installer connected to the station protector; I didn't need any network interface. Re: Dialing OUT of the 818 area INTO the 213 area. As of this morning, dialing 1-213-451-xxxx from 818-901 still yielded a recording saying that the area code wasn't required, that I must hang up and call again. Yet, dialing the same number from 818-781 worked. Also, calling 213-202 from both 818-901 and 818-781 worked. 818-901 and 213-202 are both ESS exchanges; 818-781 isn't; and 213-451 is GTE area. On the 818-901 telephone I have Speed-Calling service, and I can still speed call the 213-451 number; I didn't need to reprogram after the area-code split. A. R. White ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Jan-84 16:45:33-PST,6147;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Jan 84 16:43:05-PST Date: 22 Jan 84 1327-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #11 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 23 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Prices Charged with non-emergency use of 911? AT&T Calling Card Prices V&H tape MCI quality # of rings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 1984 2344-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Prices $55.00 for a NEW 2500 set is not at all uncommon. I've usually seen retail new 2500s around $65 to $70. It was the already installed sets that were cheaper. They were, for a while, driving the prices of new sets from other vendors down. ------------------------------ Date: 21-Jan-1984 0203 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@su-shasta> Subject: Charged with non-emergency use of 911? Did the California Legislature actually pass a law making it a crime for non-emergency use of 911? ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 21 Jan 1984 07:41:48-PST From: (Paul A. Karger - LTN1-2/H02 - DTN 229-6087) From: <decwrl!rhea!ultra!karger@su-shasta> Subject: AT&T Calling Card I also just received my AT&T calling card. Does anyone know if the new cards are good for long distance calls that are within an LATA? (Those calls would be handled by the local operating company - not AT&T long lines.) By the way - AT&T used some STRONG glue to attach the new cards to their cardboard backing. It took 10 minutes to scrape off the cardboard and glue that was stuck to the card and would have interfered with running the card through a reader! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jan 84 09:56:53 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: Prices John R. Covert writes: Subject: Prices $55.00 for a NEW 2500 set is not at all uncommon. I've usually seen retail new 2500s around $65 to $70. It was the already installed sets that were cheaper. They were, for a while, driving the prices of new sets from other vendors down. Perhaps there are regional price differences? The recent advertised prices in the Los Angeles Times, for the model 2500, have ranged from a low of $39.88 to about $50.00. The $39.88 price was for a white American Bell (Western Electric) model 2500 and was from Federated Electronics, a large local chain of hi-fi, video, etc., stores, and may have been a "loss-leader". The price at Ad-Rays (a local discount store) on January 19 (when I was last there) was $42.95. This has not changed for months, and is their regular price. It is for an ITT model 2500 with choice of white, beige, or black. The $50.00 price was from several local Department stores who are not noted for low prices and must have been for the Western Electric model (for they were advertising "AT&T" telephones). ted vail ------------------------------ Date: Sat 21 Jan 84 13:13:02-PST From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC> Subject: V&H tape Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 I just inquired about the V&H tape. After several indirections through various employees who had changed job functions and/or telephone numbers, I found that the current source is the Central Services Organization company owned in common by the 7 Regional Bell operating companies, and no longer AT&T. However they are obtaining the tape from AT&T for the next several months. The price has gone to $449 from $50, although this may change one way or another after the transition to the CSO is complete. They are taking names to receive a letter explaining all of this. People who have ordered a V&H tape in the last year will automatically receive this list. The contact is Marshall Cook, 201-221-4668. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21-Jan-84 15:47:43-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: MCI quality There can be major variations in quality of circuits over MCI, depending on where you call. Some circuits are nice and clean, while many are horrible, with volume variations, echo, crosstalk and some interesting whining noises that I have yet to completely identify. Generally, I've found that the variations are consistent geographically -- calls to given points *from* given points are *usually* always pretty good or always pretty bad, as the case may be. This is to be expected given the small size of the MCI network -- there aren't many alternate routes for any given call setup. Comparing an MCI network map with an ATT map makes the small size of the MCI network pretty obvious. Generally, I stick with ATT for almost all calls -- the small price break with MCI just typically isn't worth the hassles except on those MCI routes that normally maintain relatively high quality. I fully expect all of the carriers (ATT, MCI, Sprint, etc.) to be charging nearly the same rates within a few years... Still, the situation deserves to be closely watched for any changes in quality (in either direction) by any of the carriers, not just MCI. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1984 2258-PST From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO@KESTREL> Subject: # of rings If you ever make an operator-assisted phone call, you'll find that they only let the phone ring SEVEN times before giving up. I once questioned an operator on this; she told me that the operators are told to only let it ring seven times. I was calling a friend who is disabled and needed at least TEN rings just to get to the phone. --Lynn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Jan-84 17:49:20-PST,13060;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Jan 84 17:36:46-PST Date: 23 Jan 84 2333-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #12 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Monday, 23 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: V&H and MCI and Credit Cards Re: 10 rings number of rings AT&T Cards, Operating Company Cards, Divestiture, and Marketing Strategy MIT Research Program on Communications Policy Quality odds & ends Canadian territories AT&T Credit Card ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun 22 Jan 84 16:53:30-EST From: Charles B. Weinstock <Weinstock%TARTAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: V&H and MCI and Credit Cards What exactly is a V&H tape? What is it used for? Why might I want it? My company uses MCI for virtually all of its long distance calling. I put the service in place and get several complaints a month about quality...but people keep using it because it is mostly just as good as Bell for vocal. MCI just tried to sell us an MCI Wats line. They claimed that they could save us $46 a month (over current MCI rates) by installing the single line. (Of course the savings go away almost totally when one considers that two or more people can't make simultaneous calls over the wats line.) Bell of Pennsylvania (a Bell Atlantic subsidiary) just sent my company its renewal credit cards. They were not the fancy AT&T ones described. In fact they don't even mention AT&T, just Bell of PA. They are the same old cardboard that they always were without a magnetic stripe. The only difference is that they send the PIN to you on the piece of cardboard from which the card is detached...it doesn't appear on the card. Chuck Weinstock ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 84 16:34:31 PST (Sunday) Subject: Re: 10 rings From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA It seems like it would be really trivial in electronic exchanges to always save the last number that had RUNG each phone, so that if you were tied up and missed a call, you go simply go to your phone and, say, hit *5 to call back the person who tried to call you. I'm amazed that I've never seen such a feature advertised, either in a public exchange or, say, in a Dimension PBX. (It would be especially handy in the PBX case where most people have their phone forward after only 3 rings.) --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22-Jan-84 20:16:12-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: number of rings I've never encountered an operator who wouldn't let a line ring longer than seven rings on request. If you ever run across such a person, try get their operator number and speak to their supervisor, or call the business office (be sure to note the time of the call) and report the situation that way. Unfortunately, some operators will drop your call instantly when you ask for their number -- so it's best to try remember it if they gave it when they answered... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 22-Jan-1984 1633 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@su-shasta> Subject: AT&T Cards, Operating Company Cards, Divestiture, and Subject: Marketing Strategy Someone asked me yesterday why AT&T had issued the new AT&T cards. Here is my reply: (N.E.T. is New England Telephone) The database that validates calling cards (regardless of who issues them, AT&T, A local Bell company, a General Tel or other Independent operating company) was attached to the part of the network that went to AT&T. It makes sense for N.E.T. to establish a contract to access this database from AT&T just like GTE has always done for their customers in places like Tampa. At first glance there is no real reason for AT&T to issue their own card to N.E.T customers; the local operating companies always issued them in the past whether they were Bell operating companies or independents. There always was an interchange for the cards among all operating companies; your N.E.T card was always good for a call from Tampa to St. Pete even though GTE handled the call (GTE always handled all long distance within the 813 area code even before the split -- and there was enough traffic that typical Automatic Electric exchanges wouldn't handle it so they bought from Western Electric!!) Likewise the new card can be used for calls within a LATA, by the existence of the same agreements. So you could have just one card, and it would still be interchangeable. HOWEVER ---- AT&T is issuing their own card, for at least two reasons: 1. Technical Reason -- the AT&T Card Caller accepts the AT&T card (or an American Express card -- fantastic advantage for foreigners in this country!) and reads the mag stripe. So AT&T had to issue the card. (One might ask -- what about calls within a LATA placed from Card Caller phones? Why not? AT&T may be just long distance, but that means they are ONLY restricted from providing local dial-tone. The real restriction is on the local operating companies to not provide service outside the LATA. The long distance companies can still provide service within a LATA. How they do it, with their own network with many access points or just by buying the service from the local company doesn't matter.) 2. Marketing Reason -- (this is my opinion, not based on any inside knowledge, just looking at the market) -- AT&T wants to impress upon people that they are the best long distance company. Putting the AT&T Card into everyone's hands will remind the public that AT&T is still there, still strong, and still convenient to use. It also allowed them to write a letter to everyone saying "No, you won't get an extra bill if you use the AT&T card; we've made agreements with your local operating company to place the charges on a separate page in the bill you'll have to pay anyway." There is no reason the other Long Distance companies can't use the same marketing techniques, can't issue accounts to everyone that wants one, or even send out cards unsolicited where the accounts only become active on use; gas companies have done that for years. And there's no reason they can't get billing agreements with local operating companies. The Divestiture means that the Long Distance companies are all equal now. Competition can occur on a fair basis. Let the best company get the most customers. AT&T still handles around 98% of all long distance (the other companies are a drop in the bucket). AT&T intends to compete and to retain the market share they have. And AT&T may be able to agressively price services to win back some of that 2% of the market they've lost. Do they need to if they have only lost 2%? Do they want to? Will they get themselves into more anti-trust trouble if they try too hard? Only time will tell. ------------------------------ Date: 23 January 1984 07:39 est From: Kahin.ComForum at MIT-MULTICS Subject: MIT Research Program on Communications Policy Here follows the schedule for the RPCP spring seminar series: January 25 Planning for the Space WARC (in room E25-117) February 9 Deregulation of Cable February 23 Transport Protocol Standards March 8 New Developments in Europe March 22 Effect of Reproduction Technologies on Intellectual Property April 5 Central Services Organization (of the Bell Operating Companies) April 19 Videotex: Strategies for Startup May 3 New Directions in Educational Television Except for the seminar on January 25, all seminars are scheduled to be held in the Marlar Lounge, 37-252, 70 Vassar St. in Cambridge. ------------------------------ Subject: Quality Date: Mon, 23 Jan 84 09:59:04 EST From: Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE.ARPA> Speaking of quality, my experience is that ATT is not always so hot either. I'm referring to (what I'll call for lack of a better name) "half-duplex" connections -- the kind where if both parties in the conversation talk at the same time you end up with the verbal equivalent of typing out a binary file on your terminal. I don't know how widespread this kind of connection is. I know at least some of the alternative LD services use it all the time (of course they could be using ATT circuits). Presumably it saves money for the LD carrier -- why allocate capacity for the silent end of the conversation? But I think it's a real loss -- one misplaced long "uh huh" or "yeah" and the line gets "turned around" and words get chopped. Anyway, it would be nice to believe that our new competitive market will have a niche for carriers who are willing to provide full-duplex connections (at a higher price, of course). I'm not counting on it though. If anyone has the technical details behind the phenomenon, I'd enjoy hearing them. -- Nat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jan 84 10:45:36 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: odds & ends Price of V&H tape has gone to $449 from $50?!? I'd be interested in seeing the letter explaining this new stuff about V&H tape. I ordered it further back (June 1982) and am still editing my own notes, dating as far back as summer 1976, to conform to it although we have had 3 new area codes (and another coming in NYC in June) since June 1982. I ran out of phone books to look thru in Phila. and Wilmington (Del.), and had to use many non-phone-company sources to continue to fill in my notes. (Problem with looking at phone bills is that mine get ex- pensive and others' raise the question of their privacy.) So when I edit my notes to conform to V&H tape, I have to filter out noise such as neighboring place names, messed up digits, etc. Speaking of NYC: I looked up 1984 Staten Island & Manhattan phone books a few days ago. They use the same message-unit zone numbers within NYC as before, but now split NYC between 2 tables in anticipation of 212/718 split. I vaguely recall from MANY years back (before N0X and N1X there) that from Manhattan you dialed 411 to get dir.asst. for Manhattan & Bronx, and 555-1212 for S.I., Brooklyn & Queens. A problem in the 1984 S.I. call guide: calling instructions (which anticipate 212/718 split) are those for Manhattan & Bronx, which remain in 212. (Also, I saw "area code" prefixes in SI for 1st time: 317 and 816.) As for number of rings: My mother suggested 10 many years ago. I still allow 10. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jan 84 13:22:43 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: Canadian territories My Wilmington (Del.) directory lists Yukon in area 403 and Northwest Territories in area 604. This conflicts with my V&H tape, which did have the latter in 403, too. Was this a change or just an error? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 1984 2322-PST From: Jon Solomon <JSol@USC-ECLC> Subject: AT&T Credit Card I just got mine, shiny and new. The same number as my New England Telephone credit card. There were some questions yet unanswered by the literature. 1) Is my New England telephone card no longer valid? (obvious question, since the numbers were the same). The answer was no. 2) When should I use my AT&T card and when should I use my New England card (same thing). Answer was: New England telephone will get my intra-LATA calls, but not my inter-LATA. Those are AT&T's. Inter-LADA calls will appear on the AT&T section of my phone bill. 3) Here's the one they couldn't answer. If I'm in Wyoming, making an intra-LADA call (presumably to someone else in Wyoming), will New England telephone bill me or will AT&T? It really doesn't matter NOW, but what of the future, when the LOC's no longer act as billing agents for AT&T? Yet another random divestiture question comes to mind: You have to pay all of your bill, *including* or *excluding* the AT&T charges to keep your line from being disconnected. Perhaps another call to the RSC will help... Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 25-Jan-84 15:09:11-PST,12475;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 25 Jan 84 14:57:10-PST Date: 25 Jan 84 1455-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #13 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 26 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: MCI/Sprint/etc. ILLEGAL? (and other topics) Billing agents connection quality with SBS PTC'84 highlights. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 02:50:47-PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: MCI/Sprint/etc. ILLEGAL? (and other topics) Greetings. I had an interesting conversation yesterday afternoon with my California PUC contact. Among other things, he pretty well cleared up my questions regarding directory assistance -- at least for now. It appears that since the AT&T proposal only covers INTERstate DA, and no tariffs have been proposed for INTRAstate (other than local) DA charges in California, the result is that out-of-area-code but still within Calif. DA calls would remain "free" -- at least for now. He also assumes that if such charging *were* proposed, the 213/818 area codes would be under a special arrangement. In the course of our conversation, we got into a long discussion about Central Services Organization (CSO) and the role the DoD played in bringing it about by calling into play "national security" considerations. CSO is actually very important -- but virtually nobody outside of the industry (or this digest?) has ever heard of them, nor is it clear if CSO will ever become a household word. --- A reader of this digest made some comments about "half-duplex" telephone conversations. The effect is caused by the use of blocking echo-suppressors on long-haul toll circuits. These devices are usually required to prevent unacceptable echo. If you've ever experienced a circuit where they weren't working properly, you already know how important they really are! There are new types of suppressors that have been developed which largely eliminate the need to block even on very long-haul circuits, but it'll be some time before they are in general use. I might add that you always have the capability of a true full-duplex circuit during your call -- as is demonstrated by the fact that modems work after sending their 2225 Hz. echo-suppressor disabling tone (and maintaining energy in the specified frequency bands). Since most modems don't care much about echo (we hope!), this sort of functionality works out very well. --- Flash: Watching C-SPAN just now, I heard U.S. Senator John Melcher (D-Montana) say that given the way the U.S. telephone system seems to be progressing since the FCC/Court decisions regarding AT&T, "we may have to put it back together again". That's as close a quote as I can remember. I don't offer a comment at this time. --- By now you're all wondering about my banner headline regarding possible legal problems for MCI/Sprint, etc. I've held that off to the last for best effect. During the conversation with the PUC that I mentioned earlier, my contact mentioned that Pacific Bell/AT&T might well get PUC approval for their "intrastate call blocking devices" fairly soon. I hadn't heard about such devices and asked for a full explanation. Fascinating. According to him, all carriers other than AT&T currently providing INTRAstate phone service in California are operating ILLEGALLY, period. It seems that they have never filed tariffs with the PUC for such services, even though the procedures for doing so have been in place for some time. The result is that AT&T/Pacific*Bell are hopping mad, and have requested permission to install devices on the access lines to these services which would detect and block intrastate calls. Any attempts by these companies to evade such devices would be evidence of attempted fraud, apparently. Frankly, this is the first I had heard of this, but it is apparently well along and is seemingly pretty close to getting approval. I thought you might be amused. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 24-Jan-1984 0850 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@su-shasta> Subject: Billing agents JSol asks "what of the future, when the LOC's no longer act as billing agents for AT&T?" Why should they ever stop? It's profitable for both parties; AT&T doesn't have to spend the postage to send out the bills; the local operating company makes money for itself by doing a little bit of extra data processing to include the charges on the bill. The operating companies have had billing arrangements with Western Union forever. Some mechanism for transfer of the information between operating companies for the calls made intra LATA in other companies has to exist; this will flow through the Central Services Organization (I would presume). The CSO needs to also handle the flow of billing to and from the independent companies for billing. AT&T (and MCI and GTE-Sprint, etc.) need not be treated differently than General Telephone of Florida. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 84 10:34:37 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> As has been noted, the new AT&T calling cards state: Use of this card is an extension of credit and the customer named on the front accepts the terms furnished when issued and agrees to pay for all charges incurred." Obviously the key words here are "charges incurred". If your number becomes public knowledge (e.g. is posted on the bulletin board of a college dormitory without your permission) and $10,000 worth of long-distance calls are charged to it, you won't have to pay for them. You (the customer) didn't "incur" the charges. (Of course this would be the case regardless of what AT&T states -- you don't have to pay for services you didn't receive.) However, in the case of bank and other general purpose credit cards there are explicit Federal and State Laws limiting your liability. Are there such laws regulating telephone "credit cards" and how much hassle will the various telephone companies give you if you deny calls charged to your telephone credit card? ted vail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jan 84 23:31:00 EDT From: haddock!johnl%ima@BRL-BMD.ARPA Subject: connection quality with SBS I recently signed up for SBS Skyline home service, because MCI service (around here at least) is terrible and SBS looks cheaper. Their flyers boast about their high-quality connections, and the calls I've made bear it out. There seem to be two reasons for the high quality: - Their access number (everywhere) is 950-1088. Regular Telecom readers recall that before the Bell breakup, the plan for OCC connections was to reserve the 950 exchange for OCC access everywhere, providing supervision and the same quality of interface that AT&T gets. I had thought the 950 business was scrapped given that 10XX is coming, but there it is. (I expect 1088 will be SBS.) The 950 call is always free, not even message units, even from pay phones many places. - Their topology is a star with their satellite at the middle. An article in the IBM Systems Journal in 1983 describes the ground stations that IBM builds for SBS. The satellite bandwidth is TDM divided into 480 us slots allocated to ground stations as needed, so your conversation goes from your SBS office to the satellite to the destination office without intermediate hops. They go everywhere, but I don't know what their strategy is for handing calls off to AT&T. Connections to North Pomfret Vermont were pretty good. If people are interested, I can send their price list and other details. John Levine, decvax!yale-co!ima!johnl, ucbvax!cbosgd!ima!johnl, {allegra|floyd|amd70}!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA PS: Has it occurred to anybody else that the airport of the future will have tens of thousands of payphones from all the different carriers? I expect that after they cover all available wall space and put kiosks every 2 feet all over the concourses, Darwinian forces will have them pushing out snack bars, news stands, departure gates, baggage carousels, ticket counters, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 84 18:55:00 pst From: cunningh@Nosc (Robert P. Cunningham) Subject: PTC'84 highlights. A couple of weeks ago, I promised a summary of the Pacific Telecommunications Conference (PTC'84) held in Honolulu Jan 8-11. Unfortunately, due to other commitments, I wasn't at most of the sessions. Here's a few of the highlights that I did hear about, though: Most of the sessions dealt with the problems of the Pacific basin countries, and what better telecommunications could do for the smaller developing nations. If most of the speakers are to be believed, these nations are growing economically much faster than the rest of the world and many of their leaders believe that decent telecommunications is a key to further growth (I kept hearing references to 'catching up with the Japanese'). Still, the telecommunications traffic around the Pacific is a small fraction of the trans-Atlantic traffic, and most of the multinational service providers, though they say polite things, still seem a bit skeptical about the Pacific market. Undersea cables still carry a major portion of the trans-Pacific traffic, and more new cables are going in. Apparently the problems in developing optical fiber repeaters are close to solution. AT&T confidently expects to put in a trans-Pacific optical fiber undersea cable in 1988. It'll have at least 40 fibers (plus spares), carrying an average of 1,000 circuits per fiber. That's 40,000+ circuits. In the face of this (or more likely, in the face of coming SDS offerings), INTELSAT announced a new service called 'Vista', a low-volume, low-cost service to multiple points within small nations available through relatively low-cost ground stations. The figure of $25,000 per ground station was mentioned. Since many Pacific nations have precious little telecommunications infrastructure, they already rely on INTELSAT not only for international communications, but for communication between selected points within a nation. There seemed to be considerable enthusiasm for the 'Vista' offering. Besides the US, Japan, Canada and Indonesia, several of the better-off nations also play to launch their own national communications satellites soon. Expect to see satellite systems go up within the next year or two for: Australia (with Papua New Guinea), Columbia, and the People's Republic of China. According to the Deputy Director-General of Japan's Telecommunications Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT), the MPT is now drafting up bills for the Diet to turn over the Nippon Telegraphic and Telephone Public Corporation (NTT) to private enterprise. This will probably have some of the same effects there as the AT&T deregulation in the US. The legislation is modeled more on what the British are doing than what the US is doing, though. There was a considerable amount of talk about what the Japanese call 'the new media', apparently referring to the conglomeration of digital transmission techniques they're developing. There was mention of the Japanese BS-2 direct-broadcast TV satellite. I've just heard the satellite was launched yesterday from the Tanegashima Space Center. It should be operational around May, allowing Japanese subscribers to receive TV signals using a parabolic antenna less than 30 inches in diameter and a signal converter. It's operated by the NHK network. Incidently, I saw a demonstration of the Knight-Rider (Florida) and Canadian Telecom 'viewtext' services. Very impressive. Bob Cunningham, Oceanography Dept., Univ. of Hawaii (cunningh@nosc-cc) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 26-Jan-84 20:14:44-PST,10835;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 26 Jan 84 20:03:38-PST Date: 26 Jan 84 1958-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #14 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Friday, 27 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: Charges incurred (by use of AT&T card) Intrastate Call Blocking in California TELECOM Digest V4 #13 Charges incurred (by use of AT&T card) Carriers for Intrastate calls in California Custom calling services Theory on AT&T card distribution MCI Quality Comment machine readable calling cards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jan 1984 2225-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Charges incurred (by use of AT&T card) Whoa -- that agreement says "charges incurred" not "charges incurred by you." I believe the consumer has no protection at all here. The state and federal laws on improper charging apply to bank cards only. And remember that even with those laws the cardholder is responsible for the first $50 charged against the card unless it can be proven that the charges were incurred AFTER the bank was notified of the lost card. If you've subscribed to MCI Mail, look at the agreement: Mail transmitted by MCI Mail under your PASSWORD will be charged to your MCI Mail account whether or not you have authorized the use of your PASSWORD. Just hope you don't have to find out. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1984 2342-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Intrastate Call Blocking in California I hope that the cost of putting those call blocking devices in doesn't get put into the rate base. Since it only benefits the stockholders, and is of NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER to the ratepayers, the stockholders should carry the full cost. ------------------------------ Date: 26 January 1984 09:26 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #13 According to Telephone News, the California PUC recently ruled that 14 companies (including AT&T) may provide inter-LATA intra-state service in California. The PUC put off deciding whether competition would be allowed intra-LATA. Pacific Telephone wanted the inter-exchange carriers to put in blocking equipment that would prevent any intra-LATA calling until it is officially approved. The PUC declined to order the investment in such equipment, but ordered the Interexchange carriers not to advertise that you could use their service for intra-LATA calls, pending a final PUC decision on the issue of intra-LATA competition. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jan 84 09:30:30 PST From: Dr. David G. Cantor <dgc@UCLA-CS> Subject: Charges incurred (by use of AT&T card) Obviously we're going to have to wait until either 1. The Legislative agencies or the regulatory agencies establish laws or regulations limiting the customer's liability. 2. The matter is taken to law (civil suit) and the courts establish legal precedent. By no means are contracts (especially one-sided contracts) of this nature, necessarily binding. Firstly, they must not violate law and secondly, in cases such as this, where the contract is written entirely by one side, all ambiguities are interpreted in favor of the other side. Obvious examples include credit charges -- most states limit the interest which you, as a private lender, can charge, and, if a contract calls for more than the legal limit, it is invalid, regardless of agreement by both parties. My GTE "Calling Card" has the same statement as the AT&T card, "[c]ustomer agrees to pay for all charges incurred". It doesn't warn the customer not to divulge his pin, nor does it promise that GTE will not divulge it. We will simply have to wait and see. But current law and court interpretations tend to favor the consumer. ted vail. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 26 Jan 84 09:53:46-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Carriers for Intrastate calls in California As of today, the following carriers have applied to the California Public Utilities Commission for intrastate long-distance service. Some have already been approved at the rates they filed; the PUC consultant said the others would be soon: AT&T Communications, GTE Sprint, MCI, SBS (Skyline), Western Union (Metrofone), Combined Network (Allnet), US Telephone of the West, [have you heard of these:] American Telephone Exchange, Ameritel (not Ameritech), Call USA, Inc., Com-Vest, LD Communications, Telecommunications, Inc., Telemarketing Communications, Inc., Telephone Network, Inc., and US Ameri-Call, Inc.. [Absent from the list: ITT, ComPath Network Services, and NCR Telecommunications Services Inc. (ThriftiCall).] She said other carriers will be restricted, but "I don't see how it could happen this year". +j ------------------------------ Date: Thu 26 Jan 84 09:57:52-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Custom calling services Does anyone know more about these, e.g. whether they're already in #1A/#5 ESS code, where/when available, whether callee can use them to determine caller's number, ... ? a233 1505 24 Jan 84 AM-Junk Calls,360 Bell Plans 'Nuisance Call Reject' Test In Central Florida ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Southern Bell is getting ready to test a no-pest phone service that can screen out ''junk calls.'' If the Florida Public Service Commission approves, customers in the Orlando area can subscribe to signaling services such as ''Nuisance Call Reject'' or ''distinctive ringing.'' The services may also be tested by other phone companies created by the breakup of AT&T. With the nuisance call feature, a subscriber could stop repeats of nuisance or obscene calls. After the first such call, punching a few numbers would alert the phone company switching computer to block future calls from the same telephone number. If the caller tried again, the computer would greet him with a recording saying his call would not be accepted. With ''distinctive ringing,'' a subscriber could have the computer alert him to calls from certain telephone numbers with a different ringing pattern. When you hear the distinctive ring you could decide to answer in a hurry or not pick up the phone at all because you'd know who was calling. Southern Bell plans to make these and other special services available to 171,000 customers in July if it receives PSC approval, Orlando-area operations manager Bill Amidon said Tuesday. Orlando was chosen because it is a high-growth area already equipped with the most modern electronic switching systems, he said. The optional services will be tested for a year or two to determine acceptance and pricing. Some of the other special features include: -Distinctive call waiting. When you are on the phone and someone tries to call, the tone alerting you to the second caller is different for preselected callers. -Answering service. With a special display phone, you can dial a code to retrieve the phone numbers of up to 30 people who called while you were away. -Line calling line display. A special display phone displays the number of the person calling you. Most of the features will go into effect when a predetermined two or three-digit code is dialed into the phone company computer. Prices have not yet been set, Amidon said. +j ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1984 1601-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Theory on AT&T card distribution I think there's a good possibility that the AT&T cards are going out in RAO (Revenue Accounting Office) order. The only evidence of this so far is that the only three known recipients are all in RAO 007. As recipients receive their cards, please let me know (I don't think it's necessary to notify the digest; you can if you want; I'll let the digest know if my theory is correct). If you don't know your RAO, send me your Area Code and Exchange (NPA-NXX); I can look up the RAO in my database from that. I'm particularly interested in the first recipient from a non-Bell company to receive a card from AT&T. Also the first card for a "fictitious" billing number. And do we have any readers in Cincinnati who can check out the phones at the airport? Of special interest is whether the Amexco card already works. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1984 20:08 EST (Thu) From: Paul Fuqua <PF@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: MCI Quality Comment Just to throw my two cents in: My parents in Dallas have used MCI for three years in an effort to keep track of their three away-from-home college-student children. From Dallas to Boston (me), the quality was mostly good, but worsened with the weather. Light rain resulted in noisy lines, and if there was a storm in Boston, MCI wouldn't make a connection. There's been no problem in the last six months, but we haven't tried in bad weather yet. Of course, MCI could have improved their service. There were never any problems in calls from Dallas to Chicago, which I make frequently when home. There were also never any rain problems in-state to my sisters, but there was noticeable noise. pf ------------------------------ Date: 26 January 1984 21:33 est From: Dehn at MIT-MULTICS (Joseph W. Dehn III) Subject: machine readable calling cards AT&T has to have its own cards so its telephones can read them? Well, Southern New England Telephone has just sent out new cards with magnetic stripes. "Soon, you'll be able to use your new card in new 'card reading' phones in Connecticut". That is, apparently, SNET card-reading phones. I called the business office to ask if a SNET card would work in an AT&T phone, and vice versa; they said they did not know for sure, but from what they have been told, the information on the cards is identical, and they know of no reason why not. Does anyone know for sure what exactly IS on the magnetic stripe? Is it just what appears visibly on the card? Is there some kind of company (issuer) identifier? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Jan-84 14:09:22-PST,7975;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Jan 84 13:57:50-PST Date: 27 Jan 84 1358-PST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@USC-ECLC> Reply-to: TELECOM@USC-ECLC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #15 To: TELECOM@USC-ECLC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 28 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: New York Phone Credit Scam Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #14 Area code 213 > 818 changes MCI Quality Comment att calling card for net number bell of pa calling card ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jan 1984 02:25:18-EST From: ima!inmet!nrh@CCA-UNIX Subject: New York Phone Credit Scam Just thought I'd let people in on a con game that was tried on me a while ago in New York. While waiting in the NY Bus station I made a few phone calls, and after a while, two gentlemen approached me with the following deal: For $50, they'd give me a telephone credit card number that was GUARANTEED for a year, unlimited free calling. I'm always interested in con games, and I was curious who was footing the bill for the calls, so I let them chat me up a little. After I refused their deal, I watched them for a while. My impression was that they were listening to people recite or touch-tone their credit numbers, and then passing those numbers on to the rubes. Of course, I could be wrong: it might be that you really can get unlimited phone service for a year for $50. You try it first, though and let me know. Also, you might want to be a little paranoid about who can sense your credit card number, although I've no idea how responsible a cardholder is for bills he does not incur. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jan 84 8:17:45 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #14 Now wait, it isn't just bank cards that are limitted to $50 loss after I report them missing (of course, you have to know they're missing), my department store and gas cards say the same thing. If you are really worried you can always subscribe to one of these credit card protection services. You list all your cards/numbers and send it to them and if your cards are lost they report for you and they assume the liability. Rates vary. American Express does this and I seem to remember offers from Amoco and J.C.Penny as well. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri 27 Jan 84 14:07:38-MST From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Subject: Area code 213 > 818 changes Pulled from the INFO-CPM list, for your information: --------------- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 84 1:30:32 EST From: Keith Petersen <w8sdz@brl> To: Info-Cpm@brl-vgr Subject: Area code 213 BBS changes --forwarded from the Sysop Clearinghouse RCPM-- (818) Area Code Helper January 17, 1983 (2nd version by Kim Levitt) On Jan. 7th, the 213 area code which used to cover most of Los Angeles County was spilt in two. For the benefit of those who are changing dialing menus or macros, here is a list of the former 213 prefixes which are now 818. If you dial one of them without the 1-818, for the next nine months you will probably get connected, but you might get a recording which may, (probably will), keep your modem from connecting. After Oct. 1st, (or possibly sooner), you will not be connected unless you dial the (818) area code. The prefixes which were changed are listed below. 240-244 Glendale 246-247 Glendale 248-249 La Crescenta 280-282 Alhambra 284-289 Alhambra 300 Alhambra 303 Monrovia 304 Pasadena 307-308 Alhambra 330-339 Covina 340-341 Canoga Park 342-345 Reseda 346-348 Canoga Park 349 Reseda 350 El Monte 351 Sierra Madre 352-353 Sunland-Tujunga 354 La Canada 355 Sierra Madre 356 Pasadena 357-359 Monrovia 360-368 San Fernando 400 Pasadena 440-441 Pasadena 442-444 El Monte 445-447 Arcadia 448 El Monte 449 Pasadena 500 Glendale 501 Van Nuys 502 Glendale 504 Sun Valley 505-506 N. Hollywood 507 Glendale 508-509 N. Hollywood 570-573 Alhambra 574 Arcadia 575 El Monte 576 Alhambra 577-578 Pasadena 579 El Monte 700 Canoga Park 701 Reseda 702-704 Canoga Park 705 Reseda 706-707 Agoura 708 Reseda 709-710 Canoga Park 715-716 Canoga Park 717 Reseda 760-766 N. Hollywood 767-768 Sun Valley 769 N. Hollywood 780-789 Van Nuys 790 La Canada 791-799 Pasadena 810 Covina 812 Covina 814 Covina 817 Covina 840-843 Burbank 845-848 Burbank 880 Canoga Park 881 Reseda 882-884 Canoga Park 885-886 Reseda 887-888 Canoga Park 889 Agoura 890-899 San Fernando 901-908 Van Nuys 912-915 Covina 917-919 Covina 917-919 Covina 951 Sunland-Tujunga 952 La Canada 953-954 Burbank 956 Glendale 957 La Crescenta 960-969 Covina 980 N. Hollywood 981 Van Nuys 982 N. Hollywood 983-984 Van Nuys 985 N. Hollywood 986-990 Van Nuys 991 Agoura 992 Canoga Park 993 Reseda 994-995 Van Nuys 996 Reseda 997 Van Nuys 998-999 Canoga Park The above list was compiled from a listing published in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, supplemented by several calls to General Telephone Information. Any errors are probably caused by my poor proof reading. (Prefixes 505, 780-789, 790 and 791-799 were omitted on first version of this list. These additional prefixes were listed on page A-80 of the Pacific Telephone June 1983 Los Angeles White Pages, and have been confirmed to be a part of the (818) area code.) (Original version by Henry Dowst - KA6KNJ; revision on 1/17 by Kim Levitt, sysop of Hollywood RCPM/MBBS (213) 653-6398) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jan 84 16:23:11 EST From: BRINT <abc@brl-bmd> Subject: MCI Quality Comment Since the subject seems to be of general interest, I report that I've had MCI service for over a year. Once or twice, at the very beginning we noticed insufficient volume on calls from BAltimore to Las Cruces, NM. Other than that, there have been no quality problems. COnnections are at least as fast as local calls; there have been no untoward connections; and the lines are rather noise-free. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 27 January 1984 10:11 est From: Kovalcik.Multics@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) Subject: att calling card for net number I received TWO ATT Calling Cards for my secondary home phone (the one I use for my modem) last week and none for my primary home phone (the one whose number I give to people). Since both phones are on the same exchange I am a little worried. I guess I will wait another couple of weeks and call ATT. This was the 617-254 exchange. Anyone else have a similiar problem? ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 27 January 1984 10:07 est From: Kovalcik.Multics@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) Subject: bell of pa calling card I got my new Bell of PA calling card a while back with the number on the card and the PIN not on the card. Now, this seems backwards to me as I can remember my parents second home phone number (which is where this comes from), but I can't remember the PIN if I only use it once a year. I got this card as a backup as New England Telephone was having a lot of trouble making my calling card from them stay valid for more than a week at a time. It seems to me that the PIN and not the number should really be on the card you carry around with you. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 29-Jan-84 17:03:31-PST,6886;000000000000 Return-path: <Mailer@SRI-CSL> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 29 Jan 84 17:00:16-PST Date: 28 Jan 84 1837-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-EECS> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-EECS Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #16 To: TELECOM@MIT-EECS TELECOM Digest Sunday, 29 Jan 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: TELECOM has moved! Breakin' Up is Hard on You call blocking inter/intra-LATA and Florida Fone Fun Line problems... MCI-Mail Tymnet access ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1984 01:57 EST Sender: M.JSOL@MIT-EECS From: Jon Solomon <JSol%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM has moved! TELECOM is now distributed from MIT-EECS. MIT-EECS is not an ARPANET host, but has connectivity with the ARPANET through gateways. The Archives have not moved, they still live on SRI-CSL, which is host [10.2.0.2] on the ARPANET. Mail to USC-ECLC for TELECOM and TELECOM-REQUEST will be automatically forwarded to their counterparts on MIT-EECS via ARPANET host MIT-MC. You may send TELECOM mail to either TELECOM@MIT-MC, or if you can send directly to MIT-EECS, TELECOM@MIT-EECS. MILNET, CSNET, BITNET users can send mail to ARPANET hosts, so they should also send mail to TELECOM@MIT-MC, or TELECOM@MIT-EECS. USENET users should continue to send submissions to brl-bmd!telecom, but this may change in the future. ENET (DEC Engineering Net) users should send through host decwrl and Shasta. This route may also change in the near future. Enjoy, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 84 00:55:06 EST From: Don <WATROUS@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Breakin' Up is Hard on You "Breakin' Up is Hard on You" Doo doo doo down doobie doo down down, The deal is going down, doobie doo down down, The rates are going up, uppy, up, up, up, Breakin' up is hard on you. Don't take Ma Bell away from me, I've gotten used to monopoly, When they divest, then I'll be blue, Yes breakin' up is hard on you. Remember when you'd make a call, And you'd get through -- no sweat at all, Now you'll wait the whole night through, Cause breakin' up is hard on you. They say that breakin' up is hard to do, And so they put the screws to you, Don't say it's fate my friend, Including breakin' up, They're also jackin' up the rates again. A. T. and T., Don't say goodbye, Don't wanna use no MCI, You'll pay bills out the wazoo, Cause breakin' up is hard on you. They say that breakin' up is good to do, But then they send six bills to you, Don't say it's fate my friend, Including breakin' up, They're also jackin' up the rates again. I beg of you, don't take my phone, I want to lease, don't want to own, Reach out and touch some other fool, Yes breakin' up is hard on you. Doo doo doo down doobie doo down down, The deal is going down, doobie doo down down, The rates are going up, uppy, up, up, up, Breakin' up is hard on you. (repeat and fade as in song) Written by The American Comedy Network (C) Copyright 1984 If you'd like to obtain a copy of the single, call ACN at 203/384-9443 (Reprinted here without permission) ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 03:20:53-PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: call blocking inter/intra-LATA and Florida Fone Fun Well, for whatever it's worth, my PUC contact says that the call blocking devices will be going in shortly (at least in Southern California) though activation dates remain unclear. There also seems to be some sort of confusion over tariffs that were filed and then withdrawn by some of the carriers. Everything appears to be totally confused regarding actual inter/intra-LATA operations within California. I'll try get more info next week and verify through another party. --- That business over the Florida plan for call screening and the like is rather amusing in some aspects. I'd like to see them successfully block a call dialed from my General Telephone FX Step by Step line. As far as I know, the CCIS network is not sufficiently complete to provide reliable end-to-end calling number identification for all (or even most) calls. Of course, if your obscene-phone-call-maker is in your same CO, that makes matters a good deal easier. Still, all that such call screening devices will do is drive the culprits to payphone rotation, until eventually the person getting the calls will have "screened-out" every payphone in the city -- which might be a bit inconvenient in some situations. Frankly, at this stage of the game, I'd like to see a little less attention given to "bells and whistles" and a little more toward the provision of POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) with monthly and local calling rates that aren't (as "Crazy Eddie" would say) IN-SANE! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 84 01:23:22 EST From: Eric <LAVITSKY@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Line problems... Hi, I have been having a problem with my phone. I always get poor voice and data connections. I have trouble hearing people and have trouble being heard on the other end, and constantly lose characters while dialed up to local computers. I tried the phone on another line and had no problems. I called the phone company about the problem, and after telling me that if it was a problem with the phone itself they would have to bill me, sent a technician over. He 'Transferred the pair' of connectors the line was tied to at the local junction box. I am still having problems, so I recontacted the phone company and they are sending someone over Monday. Does anyone know what might be causing the problem? Sometimes I get static on the line, some connections work fine. I am relatively unfamiliar with the technical aspects of the situation, but has anyone had a similiar problem? ... Did the phone company fix it for you? ... How long did it take?? Thanx, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jan 84 11:00 EST From: Sibert@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (W. Olin Sibert) Subject: MCI-Mail Tymnet access Is there a Tymnet ID which one can use to talk to MCI-Mail? None of the obvious ones ("mci", "mcimail") work, but it seems like something they ought to have.... since that would make it easily usable from other countries. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 31-Jan-84 15:32:35-PST,3170;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 31 Jan 84 15:08:15-PST Date: 31 Jan 84 1741-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #17 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 1 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Bizarre punch line Mci and tymnet International Calls Implementing TELEX capability? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jan 1984 2154-EST From: Philip A. Earnhardt <S.PAE at MIT-EECS> Subject: Bizarre punch line Nynex has been running TV ads for about a month now. One ad has "Alexander Graham Nynex" as it's spokesman. The closing line of the ad goes something like... "We'll always provide you with the best in phones and services or my name isn't Alexander Graham Nynex." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, Jan 30, 1984 01:00 est From: TIM%VPIVM2.BITNET@Berkeley (Ron Jarrell) Reply-to: TIM%VPIVM2.BITNET@BERKELEY.ARPA Subject: Mci and tymnet If they do have one, they aren't telling anyone. If you have an account with them, send a question to MCIHELP. I got a toll-free number from them to use if I'm not near a local node, with no extra billing involved. I think they don't feel tymnet is economical for them. If you're not a subscriber, you can dial in to 1-800-323-7751, and log in as Register, with a password Register and complete an application. -Ron Jarrell Tim%vpivm2.bitnet@Berkeley.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jan 84 10:29:09 EST From: A.S.Sethi <sethi%udel-eecis1.delaware@udel-ee.arpa> Subject: International Calls What is the current situation (and the likely future situation) with respect to International Calls? Are they all handled through ATT ? If I subscribe to MCI or one of the other long-distance companies, how would they handle such calls? Do they charge different rates? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 84 00:26:20 pst From: cunningh@Nosc (Robert P. Cunningham) Subject: Implementing TELEX capability? I'm working up a TELEX send/receive capability for a computer running UNIX. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who's done this before. Briefly, the major TELEX carriers (WU, RCA, ITT) usually have local dial-up numbers that will accept TELEXs (and TWXs, and MAILGRAMS), provided they're in the correct format. Accepting TELEXes is also simple. The major awkwardardness is in getting the inter-carrier prefixes correct. The correct thing to do seems to have a separate little program to send TELEXes, and massage incoming TELEXes so they can be handled like 'mail'. It looks so straightforward to do that someone on this list must be doing it already. Bob Cunningham <cunningh@nosc-cc> 21 18' 5" N 157 49' 9" W ...sdcsvax!noscvax!cunningh or: ...sdcsvax!noscvax!uhpgvax!islenet!bob ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 1-Feb-84 16:37:30-PST,6132;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 1 Feb 84 16:33:25-PST Date: 1 Feb 84 1809-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #18 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 2 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Communications Protecols signing up for SBS SBS skyline details noisy lines TELECOM Digest V4 #17 AT&T Communications -- 800 222-0300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Jan 1984 1440-PST From: Kelley <BOAN@USC-ECL> Subject: Communications Protecols Does anyone know of a source listing all international data communications protocols? I have a student who is doing research on transborder data flow and he is having trouble finding a listing of all current formats. Thanks Kelley Boan Annenberg School of Communications USC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 84 19:18:00 EDT From: haddock!johnl%ima@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: John Levine@BRL-BMD.ARPA, INTERACTIVE@BRL-BMD.ARPA, Subject: signing up for SBS They must have heard that I was saying nice things about them, because yesterday in the mail arrived info on their "Sign up a friend" program. The friend avoids the $16 signup fee and the current subscriber gets swell free gifts. Not being one to pass up a free Lotus Nut Dish or Cordless Pencil Sharpener (used to be they were all cordless, no?) and considering the entire Arpanet community to be my friends, I'll send a signup card to anybody who sends me their U.S.Mail address. SBS says they're available in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York (incl. nearby NJ), Philadelphia (incl. nearby NJ), Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, St. Louis, and Washington DC (incl. MD and VA suburbs.) Dial 950-1088, and if you get their tone, you're OK. There are also rudimentary credit restictions; they want you to have to have some credit card and have lived where you live for a year. You can cancel any time with no penalty. If you can't wait and don't mind the $16 one-time fee, call 800-235-2001. John Levine, Levine@YALE.ARPA decvax!yale-co!ima!johnl, ucbvax!cbosgd!ima!johnl {allegra|amd70|cca}!ima!johnl, {uscvax|ucla-vax|vortex}!ism780!johnl PS: On entirely another note, I spent the weekend near Woodstock VT (802-457). Sometimes when I make a long distance call, an operator asks me for my number, and other times not. Sometimes when I dial 0+number, it asks me to dial my calling card number, other times I go directly to an operator. I think it's a fairly old exchange; its ring sounds like a death rattle. What gives? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 84 23:24:00 EDT From: haddock!johnl%ima@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: John Levine@BRL-BMD.ARPA, INTERACTIVE@BRL-BMD.ARPA, Subject: SBS skyline details Several people asked for details, so here you go. There is a one minute minumum, and 6 second increments. There are two rate zones, states adjacent to yours and everywhere else. They go to the 48 states, Puerto Rico, and the USVI. I expect their satellite isn't visible in Alaska and Hawaii. Another message in this digest (or perhaps yesterday's talks about how you sign up. Cents/minute Adjacent Other state states Day 8AM-5PM 25 39 Night 5PM-11PM 13 18 Late 11PM-5AM 10 14 (also any time weekends) There is a $16 initial charge (which they didn't ask me to pay) and a $15/month minimum after the first 30 days. Additional authorization codes on the same bill are $4 each (once.) For $4 each you can have your authorization code turned on in other cities than your home. If you're away, you can have service suspended for 14 to 60 days for $4, in which case the $15 minimum is avoided. John Levine, decvax!yale-co!ima!johnl, ucbvax!cbosgd!ima!johnl, {allegra|floyd|amd70}!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 1 Feb 1984 07:45:49-PST From: (David Ofsevit..ZKO2-2/K29..381-2665) From: <decwrl!rhea!glivet!ofsevit@Shasta> Subject: noisy lines This subject comes up often here, most recently under "Line problems..." in Telecom 4:16. Sometimes noisy lines can be caused by bad physical connections. If your house is like mine, the interior phone line may enter the house and pass through several blocks before it gets to your phone. If somebody (like a lazy installer) once forgot to tighten the screws on one of the blocks, you can have trouble. I had a bad problem a while back, and it turned out that one of the connector blocks had all of its screws loose so that the wires were barely making contact. The bad contact was acting as a low-grade detector, so that I kept hearing stray voices that were not other conversations but rather local radio stations! ------------------------------ Date: 1 February 1984 11:37 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #17 A student of Jerry Saltzer (Saltzer@mit-multics) did a bachelors thesis on the telex sending problem a couple of years ago. MS ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 1984 1253-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: AT&T Communications -- 800 222-0300 There is one nationwide number for calling with billing inquiries. But if you happen to be outside your area when you call, you will be asked to dial the specific 800 number for that area. For example, to reach the appropriate office for my bill here in Massachusetts if I happen to be in Washington, D.C. when I want to call, I have to call 800 341-6101. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 2-Feb-84 17:38:10-PST,7854;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 2 Feb 84 17:35:32-PST Date: 2 Feb 84 1752-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #19 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 3 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: AT&T Phone Cards. MCI-Mail Tymnet access Calling cards interesting 800 number usage SBS Access in St. Louis (?) TELECOM Digest V4 #18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Feb 1984 15:29-PST Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: AT&T Phone Cards. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> a229 1442 01 Feb 84 AM-Phone Cards, Bjt,540 AT&T Seeking Customer Help In Fouled Mailing Of Credit Cards BEDMINSTER, N.J. (AP) - AT&T officials said Wednesday they have mailed an estimated 4,700 telephone credit cards to the wrong customers, and appealed to consumers to ''be honest'' and not use them fraudulently. AT&T was in the process of mailing out 47 million credit cards when customers began calling to say they had received cards with the wrong name and telephone number, said Maureen Dvorak, spokeswoman at AT&T's Communications Division headquarters here. AT&T spokesman Jerry Santos said the firm believes the problem is limited and that it would not be necessary to stop the mailing of those not yet sent. He said the company estimated about 0.01 percent - or 4,700 - cards had been incorrectly mailed. He said he did not know how that figure was determined. ''It's not really a large problem. It is only a small fraction that will cause problems and we don't think fraud will be a big factor because the error rate is so low,'' he said. Ms. Dvorak said the firm had set up a hotline for customers to report receiving wrong cards, but that it was too early to tell how many of those calls had come in. ''We're appealing to our customers to help us by reporting any error to us immediately,'' Ms. Dvorak said. ''We're asking our customers to be honest.'' AT&T officials said they do not how much the errors will cost. Ms. Dvorak said the company would not have a firm grip on the problem until the first round of bills comes due March 1 under the new system put into effect when AT&T was broken up Jan. 1. The problem arose when some cards were placed in the wrong envelopes for mailing and when some customers moved and cards were sent to their old addresses, she said. One Massachusetts customer reportedly received two cards, neither of which belonged to him. A wrong telephone number on the card would result in credit card calls being charged to someone else's telephone account. Ms. Dvorak said one mitigating factor in the potential scope of the problem was that the credit cards were ''not sent unsolicited.'' ''We only mailed cards to people who were already card holders. This was not a random mailing,'' she said. Before the breakup of AT&T, telephone credit cards were issued by local Bell Telephone companies. Those companies may also still issue their own cards, with a customer getting the same identification number on both cards. The AT&T credit cards were designed to be used in new AT&T card-caller telephones. The first such phones, which read a coded magnetic strip on the back of the cards for automatic billing, were installed in the Cincinnati airport Jan. 1 and are scheduled to be installed around the country this year. Ms. Dvorak said using the toll-free service - 1-800-CALL-ATT - to report the credit card problems would not cost the company extra because it had set up that system nationwide before the first cards were mailed in order to answer questions about the AT&T breakup. An operator who answered the toll-free number Wednesday said customers who report receiving the wrong card are told to destroy the card immediately and that they will be issued a new card. ap-ny-02-01 1741EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 1-Feb-84 18:15 PST From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc. Cupertino CA <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2> Subject: MCI-Mail Tymnet access I don't know about MCI-Mail, but I don know there is a TELENET gateway host on TYMNET. I was told it is only for CANADA and MEXICO. There should be gateways between mail systems. I suspect that companies might react if there was enough interest ($$$). Write you local EM companies. --Bi<< ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 84 2125 EST (Wednesday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz@CMU-CS-A> Subject: Calling cards I got mine from Bell of PA a month or so ago; the ATT one arrived today for those interested in timing the distribution. The ATT card is different from almost every other credit card I use in that I don't have to sign for each transaction. Thus, a stolen card can be used without possibility of detection until I report it. My other cards can (but may not) be spotted by the supposed inability of others to replicate my signature. I assume telephone orders using major credit cards are at the risk of the vendor -- much like any other purchase on open account. Another difference for my ATT card: it makes no mention of interest for overdue payments. Does this make it different under the fair credit laws? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 84 10:40:38 est From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: interesting 800 number usage I recently saw some note from an insurance company (I don't remember which) which told you to call 800-xxx-y+(your area code) for service. A clever scheme, I thought. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 1984 0900-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: SBS Access in St. Louis (?) From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) I noted that St. Louis was one of the cities listed in the message on SBS availability so I tried dialling 950-1088 from a downtown St. Louis location. I got a "Call cannot be completed as dialled" recording. Satellite Business Systems is listed in the St. Louis telephone directory (AC 314) with an office number of 421-3370. No other number is listed in either the white or yellow page directories. (An interesting curiosity -- a botched editing job in the Yellow Pages put a bunch of Southwestern Bell PhoneCenter and business office numbers as indented subsidiary listings under the SBS listing! They can't even get their own listings right!) Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1984 13:53 EST From: Jeffrey R. Del Papa <DP @ MIT-ML> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #18 subject: death rattle exchange. You are on a step by step (strowger) exchange, the second most primitive form of telephone exchange. Some do not have the ability to send the toll office the number that you are dialing from. Most such places have a mechanisim that verifies an operator dialed number. (you give the number, the operator dials it into some box, and a light comes on if you told the truth.) The other explanation would be that you have a party line. There may be no way to identify which phone of the four is the one dialing. This may also explain the death rattle ring.. they have to use multiple ring frequency's in combinitation with ringing differing wires with respect to ground, to get only one of the phones to ring. jeff ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 3-Feb-84 18:21:34-PST,9970;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 3 Feb 84 18:15:59-PST Date: 3 Feb 84 1711-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #20 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 4 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Billing of calls made using the caling cards A light comes on if you told the truth? Bell of PA/AT&T Cards Re: MCI-Mail Tymnet access operator asking for number Minitel Phone-y Names More on SBS in St. Louis Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #19 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2-Feb-84 20:37:06-EST From: jalbers@BNL Subject: Billing of calls made using the caling cards Has anyone who has gotten a calling card from AT&T (hopefully their own!!) gotten a bill yet? I am interested in the way they bill for the use of the cards. Does it cost more that calling from a normal pay phone? Are the calls made locally using the cards put on the bill from AT&T or from your local calling servace or the AT&T 'long-distance' bill? Jon (interested in this foolishness) Albers jalbers@bnl ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 1984 2333-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: A light comes on if you told the truth? Nonsense. If the exchange can tell whether you told the truth or not, it can figure out your number on its own. Only if you tell a BIG lie will the operator taking the number be notified. Big enough that the number you gave implies a totally different trunk group. The reason the original writer sometimes gets the operator and sometimes goes through without a "Charge Operator" is that many exchanges have either a limited amount of or flaky automatic number identification equipment. When the ANI equipment is busy or fails, the call goes to an operator as a backup. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 2 Feb 84 21:17:12-EST From: Jim Murawski <CMU.JJM@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA> Subject: Bell of PA/AT&T Cards About a month ago, I received my new Bell of Pennsylvania calling card without the PIN on it. I thought this was a good idea, since if I happen to lose the card, the finder wouldn't be able to use it without the PIN. The other day, I received my new AT&T plastic "credit card" Caller Card, and of course, the PIN is embossed right on the card. So, what was the sense of Bell of Pennsylvania sending me the card without the PIN?? If I lose my AT&T card, the finder will be able to use it. If I were AT&T, I wouldn't include the PIN on the cards, just have the person remember it as one remembers his/her Banking Card's PIN. This way, when inserting the Caller Card into one of those new phones, the person would have to enter their PIN as if he/she were at a bank machine - after three wrong "guesses" at the PIN, the machine would keep the card, protecting the owner. Also, my parents, who reside in Connecticut, told me they received their plastic card from Southern New England Telephone, not AT&T, with the SNET logo on it. -Jim Murawski -Pittsburgh, PA [SNET Newsline reports that AT&T will be distributing plastic calling cards to SNET customers sometime in the spring. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 2 Feb 84 19:35:47-MST From: Walt <Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA> Subject: Re: MCI-Mail Tymnet access I recently tried to get the folks at Tymnet to tell me how to access their OnTyme mail system from Telenet. They claimed there was no gateway between the networks. I quoted the existance of a gateway based on a user from Japan who used to get in via Tymnet <-> Telenet. The person I was talking to said, well, you really wouldn't want to go through an International Record Carrier, would you? I said Why not? He finally broke down and allowed as how Tymnet and Telenet were "at war" and therefore Tymnet wasn't going to allow Telenet to carry any OnTyme traffic. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 84 23:03 EST From: Kovalcik.Multics@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Richard Kovalcik, Jr.) Subject: operator asking for number I would suspect that being on an old step by step exchange was the cause of the operator sometimes asking for the phone number. When we had a party-line in 717-894-xxxx land, the operator always used to come on and ask for a number. After I got tired of being woken up by calls for the neighbors, and we got a private line the operator would still come on infrequently when things broke. When I complained about the nuisance of having to give my number after paying twice as much for a private line, I was told something was broken. Of course, it is all different now as they just installed an ESS. I suspect they still have the same problem with party lines though. (But, I don't plan to get one just to find out.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 84 22:22:13 pst From: cunningh@Nosc (Robert P. Cunningham) Subject: Minitel [abstracted from, of all places, 'Nature' the British science journal (307:5946, 5-11 Jan 1984] Just before Christmas the Frnch post office, PTT, inaugurated 'Minitel', an electronic telephone directory .... Minitel has been on trial in Brittany and Versailles, but now the experiment has been extended into part of Paris. By March, there should be 50,000 sets operational in the centre of France, and 3 million should be in action by 1986. Basically, Minitel is designed to replace paper directories: a user dials 11 to link up to a local computer, and then -- using a keyboard -- answers a few questions to tell the computer the name (and/or address) whse number is sought. The answer is displayed on a small television screen.... In Velizy-Versailles PTT has offered other services: banking, cinema booking, rail timetables, stock exchange prices, even a newspaper; and the take-up has been moderate. One-third of the Minitel owners (who like the others in the experiments have been given them free, though those outside experimental areas can rent them at 6 [pounds] a month) do not use the machines at all; but the other two thirds use them an average of 40 minutes a week. The biggest users are those with children between 12 and 15; the smallest, retired people. Where people have been offered the choice of a Minitel or a conventional directory, 46 per cent have chosen Minitel. It is nearly the figure forecast by PTT (50 per cent), but not enough yet to encourage PTT to abandon its printing machines. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 84 7:31:37 EST From: "John W. Kinch (VLD/REB)" <kinch@brl-voc> Subject: Phone-y Names The following letter appeared in The Baltimore Sun, February 3, 1984. I thought the readers of the digest might enjoy it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Has anybody else noticed anything funny about the names the divested regional phone companies have chosen? I don't mean Bell Atlantic. That's a fine name that sounds like it belongs a phone company. I mean Ameritech, Nynex, US West, and Pacific Telesis. I don't care what businesses they say they're in, Ameritech is clearly a name belonging to a university with a powerful football team, Nynex is a patented fabric, US West is an airline, and Pacific Telesis runs a chain of medical clinics offering a procedure that probably can't be talked about in mixed company. W. H. Earle. Baltimore. ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1984 0836-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: More on SBS in St. Louis From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) I was wrong to assume that SBS's standard 950-1088 didn't work in St. Louis because I got a recording when dialling it. I could reach it from my home phone, and others could from theirs. It turns out that our office exchange (314-263) operated by the DTS (Defense Telephone Service) has a toll restrictor on it that cuts out "950" as a valid exchange to dial. We can get to 950 numbers by going through the procedure by which we access out WATS lines, however. I do wonder why we reach the "Cannot complete your call as dialled" recording, instead of a more specific one, perhaps the one about dialling one before the number or the like. We are on a Centrex setup here. Does the customer have any options in this sort of circumstance (we have the whole exchange for DTS, as far as I know) to customize recordings to be more exact about the error conditions? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1984 1042-PST From: Kelley <BOAN@USC-ECL.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #19 re: Gateway services One of the new information utilities is offering limited gateway service (or will be when they get their new software de-bugged). The Delphi utility run by General Videotex from Cambridge, MA, will offer EMAIL gateway for its subscribers to Source and CompuServe, I don't know about MCI. They also offer gateway to full use of Dialog if you need it. Kelley ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 6-Feb-84 21:00:12-PST,8250;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 6 Feb 84 20:53:47-PST Date: 4 Feb 84 2315-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #21 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 5 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: MIscellany death rattle exchange (cont'd) Re: MCI-Mail Tymnet access ANI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Feb 84 17:15:21 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: MIscellany Time for another three-month backlog update... Back when I was part of the TSPS game, I was told to let phones ring ''5-7 times''. In other words don't let it ring all day long, such that the boards get tied up.. but they did allow some leeway, and if the customer requested to ring longer, in case they were calling Grandma who takes ten rings to get to the fone, we could stay on longer. Nothing to complain to the super about. [This is directed in Lauren's general direction] Since when must one have a ''contact'' at the PUC [or BPU, as it is here]? Does not that agency exist for the public good? Can't anyone call with tariff questions or flames or whatever? The answer as far as I can tell is *yes* - I called the office in Newark, and got a guy who was very helpful and informed me that if NJ went to usage-sensitive pricing, you'd pay about $17 a month for basic service. Naturally, NJB is stil charging an additional $.95 for touch-tone recognition... and as if that wasn't insult enough, if you want to *change* your service from rotary to touch-tone, you lay out $25 or so!!! And for what? *Nothing*. The ESS lines by default have the TT bit set anyway, so basically they do nothing at all except push some paper and tell the CO wizards to at least make sure your bit is still on. Re: intrastate call blocking: Outfits like MCI and ITT Citicall [I think] implement this, but it isn't LATA-driven. You can't use ITT to call next door, but you can call from Piscataway to Hoboken, which is indeed in the same LATA. A small table rewrite could easily set them on the straight and narrow.... Someone asked about passing the calling number to the called end. This raises some interesting questions. Back in the good ol' days, long-distance billing was handled by the local CO - you'd make a call, the office would watch the supervision, and do the timing right there on-site. The punched paper tapes [!!] that were generated were forwarded to the billing department and that's how they charged you. No need existed for any calling-number forwarding unless you went through TSPS, where they needed it for their local billing records. Now, since the split, how is the billing done? Does the central office determine if you're making a long distance call, and if so, pass on a packet containing your number as well as the called number to the carrier?? Or is it still done locally for direct-dial? If the former is the case, then it appears on the surface that to pass the packet all the way to the far end would be relatively trivial, and some arrangement could be made to parse off the calling number and hand it to the customer. You'd never have crank calls again.... But everyone knows that what looks easy is undoubtedly incredibly hairy. Remember what happened when the Arpanet went to long leaders??? So, I went ahead and ordered fone service today... That silly tariff that says you can't have mixed billing types in the same dwelling still exists, so rather than a low-use measured second line, I had to get what's known as a Secondary Line [teenage-phone type] which is a dollar cheaper rather than three... oh well. It took a long time to get the lady to believe that I can screw pairs on to the big connector block in the basement of the complex. You know how they handle ''customer-provided wiring'' in this case?? They unscrew the existing pairs, install a protector, and then leave the pairs dangling for you to connect yourself, and *charge* you for the site visit. I asked her wouldn't it just be simpler to turn on the lines at the block, and tell me which pair numbers they were so I could hook up... Why do they have to make life so complicated??? I hope at least the installer understands what I want to do when he shows up. _H* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 84 11:57:00 EDT From: haddock!johnl%ima@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: John Levine@BRL-BMD.ARPA, INTERACTIVE@BRL-BMD.ARPA, Subject: death rattle exchange (cont'd) The Woodstock (802-457) exchange may well be step, but I doubt it. We have a touch phone and there's no clicking sound when we dial, nor any delays that might result from such. The strange symptoms were (again): Sometimes there seems to be ANI and sometimes not. That's right -- sometimes an operator cuts in to ask for the number and sometimes a call goes through directly. When I dial 0+number, sometimes a machine invites me to dial my calling card number and sometimes it goes directly to (beep) an operator. Perhaps only some of their trunks have been upgraded. Is this possible? When I tried dialing 950-1088, a funny access number, it directly went to a "your call cannot be completed as dialed" recording the same way whether or not I dialed 1 first. We have a private line, albeit a long and noisy one. The 60HZ num before and during dialing is deafening, but gets better once it starts to ring. John ------------------------------ Date: 4-Feb-84 01:15 PST From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc. Cupertino CA <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2> Subject: Re: MCI-Mail Tymnet access Walt, I work at TYMSHARE (but not with the TYMNET folks). I would like to talk with the person you talked with. Do you happen to remember the name? We (AUGMENT - office automation division) have or are close to interfacing our mail system with that of ONTYME. I did stumble across the gateway I mentioned last issue of TELECOM. I was thinking how easy it would be to interface our mail system with TELENETs mail system. It should be interesting to find out what "the prowers that be" think of it when we approach them. I see no valid reason to not interface existing mail systems. It would be like not allowing the USPS to send mail outside the US. That seems so ridiculous to me. Thanks for your note, --Bi<< ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 12:51:23 est From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: ANI Ah yes, phone systems without ANI. About 10 years ago, I lived in Durham, NC, an area served by GTE. They didn't have ANI at the time, and getting a phone bill was always an adventure. (So was dialing from a DTMF phone -- you could hear the pulse converter at the CO clicking away, and you had to be careful not to overrun it....) Once (when I was at 919-544), a call to '% Fayetteville' showed up on our bill. Now, we *knew* none of us had called Fayetteville, but we wondered about the '%' -- we'd never seen it before. So we called the Business Office, only to be told that their records showed that that was a call that had been challenged on a previous bill and found to be correct. Blatant horse-puckey, of course -- we had all our bills for the last several years, and told them so. At that point, we were told to forget about the charge. I never did figure out what was going on, but there was a rumor current at the time that they randomly assigned challenged calls to other bills.... About a year or so after that episode, they installed ANI equipment on orders from the PUC (which they fought vigorously). But it flaked out every time it rained, and the DTMF converters still weren't any better. (Some other time, I'll tell some stories of Chapel Hill Telephone, which was owned by the University of North Carolina.) --Steve ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Feb-84 14:04:57-PST,5478;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 8 Feb 84 13:53:49-PST Date: 8 Feb 84 1629-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #22 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 9 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: payment; call 0 Equal Access friends on the "inside" Interfacing mail systems Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #18 (Communication Protocols) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 84 11:05:08 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@brl-vld> Subject: payment; call 0 1983 Birmingham, Alabama phone book (South Central Bell) mentioned option of paying one's bills by bank draft plan, a free service which saves time, trouble & stamps. I have heard of this occasionally being done for apartment rents, but never before for phone bills. On Friday (3 Feb.), I called operator from pay phone for an area code. Signoff message was that I got some years ago when I called Amtrak's tollfree number: "Thank you for calling AT&T (or Amtrak as the case may be)". ------------------------------ Date: 06-Feb-1984 1129 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: Equal Access I have been told that the first equal access 1AE8 (Version 1AE8 of the ESS generic provides "equal access") will be installed in Charleston, West Virginia. I don't know the date. Here in New England, the first 1AE8 will be installed this July in the Back Bay machines, CG0 and CG1. The first update, 1AE8A is scheduled for September, which will correct several problems already discovered in 1AE8. Equal Access permits the subscriber to declare a default carrier other than AT&T on 1+ calls (the default may be a package of defaults depending upon destination) and to override the default with 10XX where XX is the desired carrier. Rumor has it that the OCCs are not terribly interested in using equal access; it will certainly cost them more and may drop their profit margins. The cost of access lines is due to be determined this week. This cost determination will be the major force in determining whether the OCCs will be able to survive. ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 19:14:39-PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: friends on the "inside" It always helps to have people inside the PUC (or wherever) who are willing to talk "off the record" occasionally. The "public" and "private" stories you get on varies issues often are a little different... But this doesn't apply only to PUC's, but to the world in general, of course... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 7 February 1984 10:50 EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: Interfacing mail systems Packet network companies are in competition. They are trying to make money. You don't make money if you don't carry the traffic. MCI mail is not reachable via Tymnet because MCI has its own packet network which it's selling as part of its mail service. Similarly for interconnecting message systems. If as Tymnet I allow my subscribers to receive mail from TeleMail users, then Telenet gets the revenue for the connect time used up in composing the message. If I don't interconnect, I may force the Telemail user to open a second mail account on my Tymnet system. But you say, there are lots of gateways betweeen Arpanet, Usenet, etc. Yes, and none of these are profit making networks. MS ------------------------------ From: hgr%inuxd@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: decvax!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!hgr@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 7 Feb 84 06:54:42 CST (Tue) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #18 (Communication Protocols) The best single source of internationally accepted data communication standards I have found is: Data Communication Standards Edited by Harold C. Folts Edition II McGraw-Hill Publications Co. 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 ISBN #0-07-021457-3 This book contains: CCITT V.1, V.3 to 6, V.10, V.11, V.21 to 29 (including V.26bis, V.27bis, and V.27ter), V.31, V.35, V.36, V.54, X.1 to 4, X.20 to 22, X.24 to 29, X.75, X.87, X.92, X.121, and X.150. ISO 646, 1155, 1177, 1745, 2022, 2110, 2111, 2593, 2628, 2629, 3309, 4335, 4902, 4903, 6159, and 6256. ECMA 40, 49, 60, 61, 71, and 72. ANSI X3.1, X3.4, X3.15, X3.16, X3.24, X3.25, X3.28, X3.36, X3.41, X3.44, X3.57, X3.66, X3.79, and X3.92. EIA RS-232-C, IEB 9, RS-269-B, RS-334-A, IEB 5, RS-363, RS-336-A, RS-404, RS-410, RS-422-A, RS-423-A, RS-449, RS-449.1, and IEB 12. Federal Standards (FED-STD) 1001, 1002, 1003-A, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1020A, 1030A, 1031, 001033, 1037, and interim 001041. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS-PUB) 1-1, 7, 15, 16-1, 17-1, 18-1, 22-1, 35, 37, 46, 71, and 78. As you can imagine, this is a very thick book. But I have found it to be a valuable resource of information. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 19-Feb-84 21:25:42-PST,14020;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 19 Feb 84 21:19:16-PST Date: 19 Feb 84 2002-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #24 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Monday, 20 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Simultaneous Three-Way calling and Call Waiting Acoustic Couplers and the CCITT Mailgrams to Congress statistical multiplexors Telephones in Yugoslavia N.E. Tel and the Acton false charging problem news from the SW: another increase news from the SW: but AT&T doesn't get their way (yet) Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #22 [Due to some technical problems, some of the submissions sent to TELECOM may have been lost. If you don't see your submission here, please resend it to TELECOM@MIT-MC. Thanks. --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13-Feb-1984 2356 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: Simultaneous Three-Way calling and Call Waiting Subscribers in No. 1 and 1A ESS have long enjoyed the ability of using Call Waiting at almost any time during a conversation. Subscribers in No. 2 ESS and many other systems, most recently, No. 5 ESS, AT&Ts new wonder office, have been unable to make as good use of call waiting, because any time a three-way conversation is in progress, a significant amount of time for many heavy telephone users, Call Waiting is disabled. Rumor has it that AT&T is convinced this is correct. It drastically reduces the usefullness of BOTH call waiting and three way calling. This apparent mistake in the design of No. 5 ESS is accompanied by some nasty bugs, including a frequent failure of Call Waiting to work properly even when the design says it should. Often after releasing one party of a three-way call, Call Waiting will not work for the remainder of the (no longer three-way) call. ------------------------------ Date: 14-Feb-1984 1736 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: Acoustic Couplers and the CCITT From time to time European friends ask why the U.S. doesn't comply with all applicable CCITT recommendations. One reason is that we usually develop technology rapidly here in the U.S. and want to apply it, i.e., bring it to market to reap the profits from the technology without waiting years for a CCITT approval cycle. Another reason is that many of the recommendations are absolutely absurd. I just had occasion to read CCITT recommendation V.15, "Use of Acoustic Coupling for Data Transmission." I always thought the strange regulation that acoustic couplers could only be used for "temporary connection of portable data transmission equipment" was specific to Germany. But those words are right in V.15, which recommends "that acoustic coupling of data transmission equipment via telephone instruments to the telephone transmission network should not be used for permanent installations." According to the CCITT, acoustic coupling should only be used "in circumstances where it may not be possible to obtain convenient access to the subscriber's line terminals." This is certainly one recommendation that I'm glad we don't follow. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 15 Feb 1984 08:14:17-PST From: (Paul Dickson, 264-3035) <decwrl!rhea!pixel!dickson@Shasta> Subject: Mailgrams to Congress The other day I received a telegram from AT&T thanking me for agreeing to let them send a mailgram to congress in my name. Funny, I don't remember giving permission for this. The mailgram I allegedly sent reads: I oppose congressional legislation that will cost consumers a 10% long-distance rate reduction now and bring higher local rates in the future. I support the plan for full competition in the telephone industry as developed by the Federal Communications Commission. According to the telegram, the senate voted 44 to 40 on 26-Jan-1984 to tabel the bill "that would have stifled free market competition". I hope none of them were swayed by such a clumsy piece of flak. Now, regardless of how I feel about the bill in question, I object to AT&T using my name like this. I sure can't remember giving permission. Was it on a stock proxy? (I still have 1 share) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 1984 1407-PST From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL> Subject: statistical multiplexors I'd like to buy one. Specifically, I want a box with some number (approx. 12) RS232 connections on one end, and some other number (say 4) on the other. I want to be able to plug 9600-baud devices into the 12-end and be able to connect the four wires from the other end to the similar plugs on a similar unit. The four wires would run at 9600 baud. The effect would be the same as if I had 12 RS232 links. Of course that's impossible because there isn't enough capacity on the four lines. The boxes should have an option of at least 4K bytes of buffering on each of the 12 lines, and should use XON/XOFF to throttle the 12 devices. Another desirable option is to be able to run on 3, 2 or 1 interbox links by setting switches. Degraded performance would be acceptable in this case, of course. Does anyone out there know of a company that makes this? Sounds like it should be an off-the-shelf item. Thanks in advance... Dick ------------------------------ Date: Thu 16 Feb 84 20:13:05-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA> Subject: Telephones in Yugoslavia UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert" I just received a call from a friend at the Olympic Games. Two interesting notes of telephony: They've had quite a bit of trouble with incoming calls. It seems that their phone rings, but when they pick it up, there's nothing there. The caller in the U.S. hears deadly silence (the whole time, never any audible ring). The phone in Yugoslavia is then dead for twenty minutes or so. The Yugoslav PTT insists the problem must be in the U.S. Even though the phone stays dead for 20 minutes. In Yugoslavia, having a phone installed results in having a bugging device installed. All the phones, when placed on-hook, still have the transmitter active. Butting-in on any phone line picks up any conversation in the vicinity of the phone. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 16 Feb 84 20:23:07-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA> Subject: N.E. Tel and the Acton false charging problem UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert" For at least the past two years I have noticed a trunk into the Acton C.O. from the Framingham toll machine which returns off-hook supervision as soon as the number is sent to Acton (617 263/264). This, of course, results in a charge for the call even if a busy signal or ring-no-answer is reached. I've reported this on a number of occasions, and at one point it was actually identified to be a specific trunk. But the problem never goes away for long. I decided to let the local newspaper know about the problem, and a rather long article appeared today. The circumstances of the problem were accurately reported, but then a N.E.Tel "community relations" person was quoted as saying that it was an isolated incident which is not affecting the entire community. And that the problem was not in Acton, but was in the point of origin, since billing is done at the point of origin. The problem is not isolated; I had someone run tests a few weeks ago. Every third call was going off-hook as the call began to ring. The community relations person, when I called to set her straight, seems to have concluded that I must "have something against the telephone company." /john ------------------------------ Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 02:33:19-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: news from the SW: another increase (AP-Feb-16-84) Austin American Statesman Bell to increase monthly bills $2.75 ==================================== Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWB) rates for residential customers will increase $2.75 a month next Thursday, the company announced Wednesday. The rate increase, which can be put into effect without the approval of the Texas Public Utility Commission (TPUC), would total $280 million. Without approval, Bell must file a bond with the utility panel providing for a refund to customers, with interest, on any amount above the final commission decision in the rate case. For Austin residential customers, the base cost of a one-party line will increase from $9.05 to $11.80. One-party business rates will increase $3.85 per month, multi-line business systems wil pay a charge of $5.10 per month, and directory assistance calls wil become more costly. The new directory assistance plan, which would go into effect in March, would reduce the monthly call allowance from 10 to 3, and the charge for each call over the monthly allowance would go up from 25 cents to 30 cents. The February increase is an addition to an interim Bell rate increase of $653 million, which is being paid only by long distance carriers like AT&T, MCI and Sprint. That increase ws approved by the PUC. The rates announced Wednesday will be paid by all customers. A commission hearing has ended on the record rate increase request by Bell of $1.3 billion, but Bell vice president Paul Roth said that the company could not wait on a decision. "We find ourselves in a situation in which we must obtain additional revenues from bonded rates, especially since SWB is now a stand-alone company," Roth said. He was referring to the Jan 1 court-ordered breakup of AT&T which made Southwestern Bell a seperate company. ------------------------------ Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 02:34:13-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: news from the SW: but AT&T doesn't get their way (yet) (AP-Feb-16-84) Austin American Statesman $115 MILLION REQUEST BY AT&T IS REJECTED ======================================== The Public Utility Commission rejected a request Wednesday by AT&T for an immediate $115.4 million increase in long-distance rates within Texas. The commission, however, instructed the staff to review the emergency rate request when the hearing on the AT&T overall revenue request for $301.4 million is completed. That hearing is scheduled March 12. Utility Commissioner Peggy Roson said she concurred in refusing the emergency rate request, but also opposed reviewing it at the completion of the full hearing. Jim Boyle of the Office of Public Utility Counsel objected to the AT&T request: "We're talking about interim relief here. We're talking about a company that says, 'I'm desperate. I've got to have more money,' and yet they want an 8 percent increase for all their management." Grace Casstevens, representing the Texas Municipal League, said: "This is a real easy case because AT&T just made a bunch of allegations that it just simply couldn't prove." Ron LeMay of AT&T said, "Certainly, while we are disappointed, the prospect of finally getting to have rates to recover our costs earlier than the typical date, which would occur sometime in June, has to be encouraging." LeMay apparently was referring to the commission decision to reconsider the emergency rate request at the end of the March hearing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 84 20:22:09 pst From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #22 Re Marvin Sirbu's comments on gatewaying commercial message systems: Certainly MCImail loses the connect charge if someone sends a message on Telemail which is gatewayed to MCImail. They can make this up by charging Telemail as the message comes in the gateway. Telemail would presumably charge that back to the original sender. In many cases, this would generate more revenue than the old policy, since a given customer will be able to communicate with more people (and presumably will do so). Presumably they would allow messages to gateway "out" into the free world (Usenet, etc), since the charges for sending have been paid. I can also see how a service like the Source might well want to receive netnews as a way to draw customers -- I bet a lot of paying customers would end up spending connect time reading it. If that makes them money, the small amount of inbound (usenet->paying customer) mail might make it feasible to just let it in for free, since it completes the connectivity. The argument that "maybe some people who need it will get an account on both systems" sounds like the old days when a town would have two phone systems which would refuse to interconnect. The smart customers will refuse to connect to either, and wait til someone offers a real mail service. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 21-Feb-84 15:49:39-PST,10990;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 21 Feb 84 15:43:38-PST Date: 21 Feb 84 1713-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #25 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 22 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Issue #23 Cure for Vadic Triple Modem Problem Statistical Multiplexors and inverse multiplexing does anyone care what is happening in the SW ? Yugoslav telephone security. Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Feb 1984 2103-EST From: Jon Solomon <M.JSOL at MIT-EECS> Subject: Issue #23 Due to a error on my part, there was no Issue #23. Sorry for any inconvenience. --JSol ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 00:39:48-PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: Cure for Vadic Triple Modem Problem So bunky, you say you got yourself a Racal-Vadic triple modem (3451-series) and you have some problems with it? You say that sometimes in auto-answer mode it seems to hang offhook, making it impossible for any new calls to arrive? You say that when this happens it refuses to respond to DTR and only resets if you cycle the power or fiddle with the mode toggle switch (if you have one, that is)? Is that what's bothering you, bunky? WELLLLL! Lift up your head and greet the sun, 'cause a solution does exist -- and it doesn't even involve hydrochloric acid or jackhammers! Seriously, though, many persons have reported problems with triple modems getting into a strange wedged condition from which it is difficult to escape. Both manual dial and autodial triples have shown this behavior, which is characterized by the modem being offhook, sending a 212 carrier, and having both the HS and DSR lights lit. Only cycling the power or performing a software reset (by flipping the toggle switch between auto and manual on the autodial modems) will clear this condition; the modem is oblivious to DTR. After having this occur repeatedly on the main Vortex dialup line, I started harassing the engineers up at Racal. Actually, they were quite helpful, once they realized that I knew what I was talking about and hadn't plugged the RJ-11C phone plug into an AC wall outlet! After talking with three different engineers and having them duplicate the problem on their test benches, we arrived at the cause of the problem and a (simple) solution. The problem is caused by a "hole" in the triple modem protocol select algorithm. Under certain random timing conditions, the modem may be "fooled" into entering a pseudo-originate mode during its answer-mode operations. The exact reasons are too complex to go into here, but the cure is straightforward: Inside the modem, option dip switch A1 is described by the manual as: "Attended/Unattended Disconnect -- Set to Attended [ON] for Auto Dial modems. (Unattended setting relates to manual originate operation only.)" DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT! This switch also affects the handling of DTR during answer mode processing. The "normal" setting of this option (as set by the "standard-options" switch A6) is ON (Attended). This is WRONG for almost all operations. For both auto-dial and non-autodial triple modems, this option should normally be set to OFF (Unattended). The only side effect of this is that if you attempt to use the modem in a MANUAL originate mode, you will probably have to supply DTR at the RS232 interface (big deal!) If you leave A1 OFF, the answer mode wedging problem should vanish! Auto-dial operations on auto-dial modems should work as always. NOTE: If your triple has switch A6 OFF, then "standard-options" mode is ENABLED and the remaining A and B switches are ignored. In order to change the state of A1 to OFF, you must also turn switch A6 ON to disable "standard-options" and make sure that all other switches are set appropriately. I recommend the following settings (some of these are NOT the default settings): A1 -- OFF (Unattended -- fixes the answer wedge problem) A2 -- OFF (Do NOT respond to remote test) [do you want everyone in the universe "testing" your modem for you?] A3 -- ON (10 bit chars -- this is normal) A4 -- ON 103 operation enabled A5 -- OFF (10 bit chars -- this is normal) A6 -- ON Disable standard-options (enables all other switches) A7 -- ON Auto-disconnect on loss of carrier enabled B1 -- OFF Local digital loopback select (ignored when not testing) B2 -- OFF DTR controlled from RS232 interface B3 -- OFF Originate and Answer modes allowed B4 -- OFF 1204 bps speed (this is normal) B5 -- ON Auto-disconnect/Abort timer enabled B6 -- OFF Asynchronous operation B7 -- ON DSR off in test (ignored when not testing) In addition, I recommend the following two jumper changes on the BOTTOM pc board: Insert jumper "r" -- enable data rate indicator on RS232 pin 12 Remove jumper "ag" -- do not tie carrier detect high (RS232 pin 8) ------ The "wedged" condition mentioned above, being related to a rather random timing window, is more likely to have been seen on modems that have a high volume of calls than on low volume incoming lines. However, it occurs frequently enough that I recommend the option change for all triple modems being used for incoming calls. Be sure to let me know if you have any questions about or problems with this info. I hope it's of some use, bunky... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 20 Feb 1984 13:27:49-PST From: (Rich Rosenbaum, Network Services) From: <decwrl!rhea!bergil!rosenbaum@Shasta> Subject: Statistical Multiplexors and inverse multiplexing To: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL> Subject: statistical multiplexors MICOM makes a box called the Micro100. This is called either an inverse line multiplexor, reverse multiplexor, or something similar. I believe it can use multiple links between Micro100's to "convert" several low bandwidth lines into one medium bandwidth line. The number of "output" (inter-Micro100) lines is switch selectable. The specific capacity I was looking for was to "spread" a 56 Kbit/sec link across 6 9600 bit/sec leased lines. According to MICOM, the box can do this, as well as handle asynchronous lines (as in your question). I never did get one, so I don't know anything for sure. I do not know if it can perform statmux (concentration) functions. It is very hard to find a description of the device. The people at MICOM had problems in describing it's exact spec's, or finding reference accounts, so I gather it is a low volume product. Good luck. __Rich ------------------------------ Date: Tue 21 Feb 84 07:14:55-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: does anyone care what is happening in the SW ? Quizzing the black void ...... I have been most intrigued by the back-and-forth in local politics, which determine our future phone-costs; but, unfortunately, only news concerning regional developments here in Texas make the news here, and little becomes known about what is going on elsewhere (outside the Texas end of Southwestern Bell). I assume that the same is true elsewhere, which is why I have been posting some of the newspaper articles describing the local developments, both for your information and amusement (tragic comedy ?? comic tragedy??) Three questions: 1) does anyone care ? if not, I'll discontinue posting. 2) can anyone report what is happening in other regions? 3) my timid attempts at becoming "active", by calling the local PUC office for information about future meetings as well as to get someone on the phone whom I could "lobby" in the consumer-interest have failed dismally, as all I get is the "run-around" and mis-information. Does anyone have some guidelines he/she might care to share for "dealing with a PUC" and becoming effective in getting information and making them feel the pressure of "public opinion"? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 84 15:04:11 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Yugoslav telephone security. All telephones have this problem to some extent. When I worked on a classified project, telephones had to be unplugged from the wall when not in use. In addition, there were two buttons on the handset. Push-to-talk was obvious. Push to listen was less obvious. However, I do remember when I was in high school, they removed the mouthpieces from the data telephones to keep the students from using them for personal conversations. When we got incoming calls, we found if you yelled loud enough into the earpiece you could be heard. Usually, it was "Hold on" while we went and dug up the microphone cartridge. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue 21 Feb 84 13:14:59-MST From: Walt <Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #24 The following is a copy of a message which I sent on 8 Feb: ----------------------------- Subject: Re: Interfacing mail systems To: Telecom@MIT-MC.ARPA Sigh. How slowly we learn. About a hundred years ago the railroads and the electric companies both pursued non-interchange policies. Cars that ran on one raiload couldn't be used on another because the track guages of competing roads were different. The result was that freight had to be unloaded from one car and loaded onto another to make a connection. Needless to say customers quickly got sick of the unnecessary breakage and expense. Finally the railroads standardized the interchange of their rolling stock, with the result that people became more willing to use railroads to ship things, and all the railroads prospered together. Shortly afterwards, the electric illumination industry got started with different sizes of light bulb bases. Each company designed light bulbs that couldn't be used in the lamps of competing companies. This was bad for everybody, and finally standards were adopted. Eventually it has to sink in to the management of Autonet, CompuServe, ITT, MCI, Telenet, Tymnet and Uninet that the industry will work best with maximum standardization and interchange. I only hope I live long enough to see history repeat itself. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 23-Feb-84 17:09:00-PST,14240;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 23 Feb 84 17:04:38-PST Date: 23 Feb 84 1921-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #26 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 24 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Re: Interfacing mail systems Inquiry: Stock of Regional Companies SWB: Attorney General says "NO" to Bell Some AT&T Calling Cards Are Less Equal than Others Cure for Vadic Triple Modem Problem ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21-Feb-84 17:12 PST From: Rich Zellich <RICH.GVT@OFFICE-3> Subject: Re: Interfacing mail systems It appears that the various network/electronic mail companies are working towards interchange. There is an organization called the Electronic Mail Association, to which many if not all of them belong, and EMA is somewhat active in the international standards arena...which, by definition, is promoting interchange. -Rich Zellich ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 84 08:37:07 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Today I received a brochure from Sprint advertising a "New Service" -- "Now you may Sprint to call any of the 9 sections of the State other than the geographic section from which you're calling." It goes on to state that I may use Sprint to call any of the 10 LATA's in California, other than the one in which I am located, and "applauds the California Public Utility Commission on their decision to allow the expanded (sic) service to our Sprint Customers". Until now, as I have noted before, you could use Sprint from any Sprint location to any point in California. Thus what they call "expanded" is just the opposite -- for I can no longer use Sprint to call across town from, say, West Los Angles to Pasadena. This latter service was extremely useful from pay phones (or restricted local lines). In addition, the LATA's are extremely convoluted, bearing an intrinsic similarity to the famous Gerrymandered district of Massachusetts. They don't seam to bare any relationship to the 10 area codes of California, or to any reasonable geographical distribution. As far as I can tell, they were set up without any notification to the vast majority of customers -- undoubtedly the large users were aware and had the opportunity to lobby for a distribution that was favorable to them. The Sprint rates are going up! up! and up! The primary advantage that Sprint has, for a small user, such as myself, is that you can place a call from a pay telephone or someone else's phone and have that charged to you, with none of the surcharges currently imposed by AT&T. Once AT&T is able to provide the same services and compete an an even basis with Sprint, MCI, etc. (i.e. pay the same fees to access the operating companies, etc.), just how competitive will these companies be? vail ------------------------------ Date: 22-Feb-84 14:08 PST From: Steve Kleiser <SGK.TYM@OFFICE-2> Subject: Inquiry: Stock of Regional Companies I haven't seen anything on TELECOM Re: the trade-offs in each regional company, from a stock holding point of view. The trust I manage has minor holdings in AT&T stock, and now, 1 share of each of the seven regional companies for every 10 common shares of AT&T. AT&T has given shareholders the option of moving their holdings around - from the 7 piles automatically owned, to any other distribution IN THE REGIONAL COMPANIES (not in AT&T itself). So I could elect to move all shares to ONE regional company (probably what I would like to do - for simplification if nothing else). So how do I pick? Ameritech has a nice name - and of course, since I'm a Californian, PacTel might be a reasonable way to go. Or how about Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Southwestern Bell, or U S WEST? Promising to hold harmless all who respond, it would be interesting to see comments on the strengths of weaknesses of going with a particular Regional Company. Thanks! -steve- ------------------------------ Date: Thu 23 Feb 84 07:16:44-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: SWB: Attorney General says "NO" to Bell MATTOX SAYS BELL MUST DELAY INCREASE ==================================== ( Austin American Statesman, Feb 21, 84 ) Attorney General Jim Mattox issued an opinion Tuesday that SWB must wait until April 22 to put higher rates into effect without the approval of the PUC. However, Bell officials said they did not know how much weight Mattox's opinion carries and said they plan to go ahead and put the higher rates into effect Thursday. Mattox said in an interview later that he would take the phone company to court if the higher rates were imposed. Mattox responded to a request from Jim Boyle of the PUC-Counsel, who asked the PUC Friday to disapprove the Bell request for an immediate rate increase. Bell told the utility panel that the company would put a $2.75 per month residential rate increase into effect Thursday, pending the commission decision on the $1.3 billion Bell rate case. One-party business rates would go up $3.85 per month under the bonded rates, which means Bell guarantees refunds to customers if the commission denies the full amount requested. Boyle argued that Bell was using the old utility law to put bonded rates into effect, but the new law, effective Sept 1, would extend the time for 60 days or until April 22. Bell first filed for the rate increase in June, but because of the divestiture of ATT it did not complete the request until October. "For those customers who must disconnect from the phone system because pf higher charges the 'refund mechanism' is a hollow defense against bonded rates," Boyle said Friday. Mattox agreed that the filing for higher rates June 24 was "incomplete and therefore did not comply with the law." He said the filing was not substantially complete until Oct. 19, which was after the effective date of the new law. "They knew their original request was incomplete when they filed it," Mattox said Tuesday. "We feel this increase would do substantial harm to senior citizens who are living right on the edge. If they go ahead and raise rates, we'll try to stop them." Bell official Jim Goodwin said company officials were still analyzing Mattox's opinion late Tuesday. However, he said the company feels it has a "strong legal basis" for raising rates and plans to do so Thursday. ------------------------------ From: tp3!nomdenet at RAND-UNIX Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1984 12:34-PST Subject: Some AT&T Calling Cards Are Less Equal than Others Just last week I received my new AT&T calling cards (three of them -- in three separate envelopes!). Accompanying each card was a letter over the signature of Charles L. Brown, chairman of the board of AT&T, touting the features of calling cards. One feature was abbreviated dialing; the blurb reads: When calling the same phone number to which your card is billed, simply enter the phone number, wait for the tone, and then enter only the last four digits of your card number. There's no need to enter your full card number. Not true for me -- nor, I would assume, for anybody whose prefix is an area code. My telephone number is (213) 202-1296, and my calling-card number is 784 166 1296 nnnn. If I begin keying in 0 784 166 ..., the exchange assumes I'm dialling 784-1661; if I key in 0 213 202-1296 from an ESS exchange, wait for the tone, then key in nnnn, the polite voice asks me to enter the card number again, because the one I've entered is invalid. The letter gave a WATS number to call if I had questions [(800) CALL ATT], so I called; I learned that cards such as mine are "specially numbered," but little more. The person who answered gave me another WATS number, (800) 222-0300. I called this second number, and was told "You should be able to do anything with a specially-numbered card that you can do with a regularly-numbered card." But apparently it ain't so. A. R. White The Rand Corporation 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90406 (213) 393-0411, x7997 ARPA: tp3!nomdenet @ Rand-UNIX UUCP: ... randvax!tp3!nomdenet ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 16:41:18-PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: Cure for Vadic Triple Modem Problem [This is a repeat article due to digestifyer screwup. --JSol] So bunky, you say you got yourself a Racal-Vadic triple modem (3451-series) and you have some problems with it? You say that sometimes in auto-answer mode it seems to hang offhook, making it impossible for any new calls to arrive? You say that when this happens it refuses to respond to DTR and only resets if you cycle the power or fiddle with the mode toggle switch (if you have one, that is)? Is that what's bothering you, bunky? WELLLLL! Lift up your head and greet the sun, 'cause a solution does exist -- and it doesn't even involve hydrochloric acid or jackhammers! Seriously, though, many persons have reported problems with triple modems getting into a strange wedged condition from which it is difficult to escape. Both manual dial and autodial triples have shown this behavior, which is characterized by the modem being offhook, sending a 212 carrier, and having both the HS and DSR lights lit. Only cycling the power or performing a software reset (by flipping the toggle switch between auto and manual on the autodial modems) will clear this condition; the modem is oblivious to DTR. After having this occur repeatedly on the main Vortex dialup line, I started harassing the engineers up at Racal. Actually, they were quite helpful, once they realized that I knew what I was talking about and hadn't plugged the RJ-11C phone plug into an AC wall outlet! After talking with three different engineers and having them duplicate the problem on their test benches, we arrived at the cause of the problem and a (simple) solution. The problem is caused by a "hole" in the triple modem protocol select algorithm. Under certain random timing conditions, the modem may be "fooled" into entering a pseudo-originate mode during its answer-mode operations. The exact reasons are too complex to go into here, but the cure is straightforward: Inside the modem, option dip switch A1 is described by the manual as: "Attended/Unattended Disconnect -- Set to Attended [ON] for Auto Dial modems. (Unattended setting relates to manual originate operation only.)" DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT! This switch also affects the handling of DTR during answer mode processing. The "normal" setting of this option (as set by the "standard-options" switch A6) is ON (Attended). This is WRONG for almost all operations. For both auto-dial and non-autodial triple modems, this option should normally be set to OFF (Unattended). The only side effect of this is that if you attempt to use the modem in a MANUAL originate mode, you will probably have to supply DTR at the RS232 interface (big deal!) If you leave A1 OFF, the answer mode wedging problem should vanish! Auto-dial operations on auto-dial modems should work as always. NOTE: If your triple has switch A6 OFF, then "standard-options" mode is ENABLED and the remaining A and B switches are ignored. In order to change the state of A1 to OFF, you must also turn switch A6 ON to disable "standard-options" and make sure that all other switches are set appropriately. I recommend the following settings (some of these are NOT the default settings): A1 -- OFF (Unattended -- fixes the answer wedge problem) A2 -- OFF (Do NOT respond to remote test) [do you want everyone in the universe "testing" your modem for you?] A3 -- ON (10 bit chars -- this is normal) A4 -- ON 103 operation enabled A5 -- OFF (10 bit chars -- this is normal) A6 -- ON Disable standard-options (enables all other switches) A7 -- ON Auto-disconnect on loss of carrier enabled B1 -- OFF Local digital loopback select (ignored when not testing) B2 -- OFF DTR controlled from RS232 interface B3 -- OFF Originate and Answer modes allowed B4 -- OFF 1204 bps speed (this is normal) B5 -- ON Auto-disconnect/Abort timer enabled B6 -- OFF Asynchronous operation B7 -- ON DSR off in test (ignored when not testing) In addition, I recommend the following two jumper changes on the BOTTOM pc board: Insert jumper "r" -- enable data rate indicator on RS232 pin 12 Remove jumper "ag" -- do not tie carrier detect high (RS232 pin 8) ------ The "wedged" condition mentioned above, being related to a rather random timing window, is more likely to have been seen on modems that have a high volume of calls than on low volume incoming lines. However, it occurs frequently enough that I recommend the option change for all triple modems being used for incoming calls. Be sure to let me know if you have any questions about or problems with this info. I hope it's of some use, bunky... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Feb-84 18:32:35-PST,6656;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Feb 84 18:29:14-PST Date: 24 Feb 84 1952-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #27 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 25 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Re: Telephone headsets for Telecom Digest AT&T Card Caller Phones Calling Cards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Feb 84 17:00:18 PST (Thursday) Subject: Re: Telephone headsets From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I visited the Plantronics booth at OAC. They have both on-the-ear and in-the-ear headsets. For info you can write Plantronics 345 Encinal St. Santa Cruz, CA. 95060 The distributor down here wants $139.95 Plantronics just came out with a speakerphone with IR wireless remote clip-on mike. I asked about when that technology would come out in a headset, and they said 3Q84, but it will wholesale for over $100 and probably retail around $300. BOO! I'm inclined to take the plunge and buy the "cheap" $50 headset that my JS&A-style catalog has advertised. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 24 Feb 1984 05:55:17-PST From: (David Ofsevit..ZKO2-2/K29..381-2665) From: <decwrl!rhea!glivet!ofsevit@Shasta> Subject: for Telecom Digest I've been reading a lot, in Telecom and elsewhere, about local phone rates going up to make up for the lost long-distance "subsidy." Could somebody please explain to me why the following line of action isn't being followed: Clearly local rates could be held at the former low levels if the local companies received income from some other source equal to what they used to receive from long-distance rates. Why don't the local companies charge the long-distance companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.) before allowing those companies access to the local network? Sure, the recent rulings have been that all long-distance companies should have equal rights of access to the local networks, but is there something in those rulings that the long- distance companies get this access at an artificially low price? After all, without the local networks the long-distance companies have no way for their customers to place long-distance calls, and it is in the interest of the long- distance companies to make sure that the local customer base is as large as possible. Therefore, they should be willing to pay a reasonable price for the privilege of being connected to the local networks. Such a situation would drive up long-distance rates, but probably to the point where the relative costs of local service to long distance would return to the ratio that has existed up to now, a ratio which (judging by the current uproar) people seemed to be satisfied with. Why doesn't the Texas Public Utilities Commission (or whatever the ruling body there is called) tell Southwestern Bell to put such a rate structure in place? They have the power to set rates for access to the local telephone network; they should exercise that power to maintain the balance of charges for that access between individual customers and the long- distance companies, both of whom need that access. In another part of the deregulation question, am I mistaken or has there been a false picture painted for the general public about why Bell was broken up? Ask the average person in the street and they will tell you that the big bad government broke up Bell because of some misguided anti-trust sentiment. But didn't Bell ask for it, at least in part, so that it could spin off its least profitable and most regulated entities (the local operating companies) and go into more highly competitive and profitable parts of the business such as building and selling computers? David Ofsevit ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1984 1803-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert" Subject: AT&T Card Caller Phones I've been told (by AT&T) that the Card Caller Phones are now appearing at various places in the New York City area, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. Locally, AT&T says there are some in the Boston area, but they didn't know where; they just said I should look in Bus Terminals, Hotels, etc. One place I won't have to look -- Logan Airport. Logan Airport has signed an agreement with the local operating company to provide "choose the carrier" service from the Charge-a-Call phones. For at least the next year, it seems Bell has shut AT&T out. Of course, "choose the carrier" service is already available from Charge-a-Calls via 950-10xx. I suppose the fact that space is at a premium at airports has caused this to happen. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1984 1844-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert" Subject: Calling Cards I think the requirement that N0/1X exchanges have Calling Cards with special numbers instead of the telephone number is a Pacific Tel-ism. This may have been caused by the fact that PaTel had this type of exchange back in the days of the 10 digit cards. With the 14 digit cards this is no longer necessary. Someone in New York or Chicago might be able to confirm the existence of the other type of number in an N0/1X exchange. In fact, newer requests for cards in California might no longer have this problem. The reason you don't want special number cards to work this way is not immediately obvious. But consider a company with 5000 special number cards all billed to the main listed number. People could call the main listed number and try a few PINs, pretty soon a valid one would be discovered. Not very useful except for calling that number, since the special number wouldn't be known. I doubt that the database that validates the PIN has the billing number anyway, since it doesn't need it. The transaction just needs to be sent to the RAO, which can be determined from the RAO on the card in the case of the special cards and from the NPA-NXX in all other cases. You've got a good case to press for a new Calling Card number, however. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Feb-84 17:10:13-PST,12820;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Feb 84 17:06:50-PST Date: 27 Feb 84 1915-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #28 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 28 Feb 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #27 More Toll Station strangeness Re: More Toll Station strangeness TELECOM Digest V4 #27 RFI fix, and bugs??? SWB - PUC reverses itself and agrees with Mattox ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Feb 1984 2000-PST From: Kelley <BOAN@USC-ECL.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #27 RE: Dave Ofsevit's comments in the Friday edition Well yes, there are charges associated with ATT and the OCC's accessing the BOC local loops, the enfila (or some such acronym) charges. The point is that the OCC's pay a lower charge than ATT Long Lines since the OCC's don't have "equal access", that is, most everyone still has to dial 24 numbers to use an OCC long line and 10 for ATT. The reasoning is that if the OCC's pay the same charge as ATT, they'll charge the same as ATT for their service, but their service won't be "equal" to ATT and people won't use them. Ergo, they fold. Would you pay the same rate for a long distance call on Sprint if they only thing it offered was an additional 14 numbers to dial to connect the call? Not me. Further, the quality of the OCC's service leaves something to be desired. As to ATT "wanting" to be divested, they sure as heck spent a lot of money fighting against something they "wanted". I think they finally woke up to the fact they were being handed a golden opportunity to streamline the company, but not until long into the fight. As to rates in general, wait until our various phone companies start implementing ISDN if you want to see some rate hikes. Somebody's got to pay for the digital revolution, and I'm guessing I know who it will be. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 84 21:22:32 PST (Friday) Subject: More Toll Station strangeness From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Maybe John Covert can field this: Deep Springs College, about 40 miles east of Bishop, CA, near the Nevada line, served by Continental Telephone, for years could only be called by asking the operator for "Deep Springs #2", a Toll Station reached via the Bishop operator. If you wanted to be fancy you could also give her the V&H numbers (887 225) and TSPS routing (619+058+181) so she didn't have to get them from some sort of routing operator. About six months ago, Continental eliminated human operators in Bishop and the party line, and so now you reached Deep Springs #2 via the Victorville operator, a couple of hundred miles away, and didn't have to listen for the distinctive one-long-three-shorts ring if you were at Deep Springs, or turn a crank to get the operator. Side note: once (only) when I tried to call, the operator said something about needing four more digits (0002) after the numbers, and about having to go through "inward routing". What does that mean? Now here's the strange part: the college recently discovered through various back-door sources (such as asking wrong numbers, "what number did you dial?"), that they now have a direct dial number! ((619) 872-2000) Why would the phone company NOT tell somebody they could be direct-dialed, and make people go through the operator? (Aside from the fact that the direct-dial number is 10c from a pay-phone in Bishop, and 50c if you go through the operator.) Is Continental just weird, or are there other places like this? In all fairness though, Continental probably spends at least $10K/ year maintaining 20 or 30 miles of lines, for which Deep Springs pays all of about $10/ month. The wonders of regulated utilities... Vaguely related question: why do "Zenith" and "Enterprise" numbers still exist? Seems like 911, 800- etc. ought to be able to take their places. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1984 0133-EST From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert" Subject: Re: More Toll Station strangeness Very simple. First -- the Deep Springs 2 toll station is at V&H 8491/7946. The 887 225 is the Mark Other Place. (It's like an NPA NXX for the accounting system, but unlike towns (like formerly Bryant Pond, Shoup Idaho, and the one non- dialable exchange in Washington State -- actually dial within the exchange, but not dialable from the network) it uses a separate billing only NPA since there are too many of them). 619+054+181 is the Toll Completing route the operator used to dial to connect with an operator who had a jack to that circuit. It's sort of like Inward (usually handled at the same position, but 181 is a "different" service). What they've done is something I've long thought should be done to most toll stations. However, the rate point of that location is the V&H, which is 8500/8017 for 619 872 (Bishop). A distance of about 24 miles. New rates would have to be filed. Now, for someone where that 24 miles didn't change the rates, it wouldn't matter how they called. For someone where it did matter, the call would have to be handled differently. They could declare the toll station to be in the Bishop calling area. The PUC might approve it -- but there might be other undesirable side effects, like providing more lines to that area. Giving the number to people and telling them they can dial it from point X, but that they have to go through the operator to get a toll ticket written from point Y (like 40 miles the other side of Bishop) is not really workable. Assigning a unique NXX is the only other solution. And that can also be costly. There are precedents -- Naushon Island, Massachusetts is a special NXX in the Falmouth exchange. The lines run across the channel at Wood's Hole. Calls within the same No. 5 XBar are toll -- in this case because each of the cross-channel trunks is a toll trunk. In fact every subscriber has his own toll circuit to his dial tone. In fact, the customer's of Naushon Island Phone Company have long been in a situation much more drastic than for the rest of the people within 617 now -- with New England Telephone ONLY PROVIDING DIAL TONE. Not even the lines, poles and Network Interfaces. By the way the place in Washington mentioned earlier is New Halem. It can actually be dialed (direct to station) by any operator on the network, but only nearby Inward knows the "secret code." Their NXX for billing is 206 397. The reason they are non-dialable is PROBABLY (I may be wrong) because of an old policy that if you couldn't dial the 7 digit number from WITHIN the exchange, no seven digit number could be published, and thus you couldn't go on the network. From inside ONLY 4 digits works; seven doesn't. Many of you may remember places where less than all 7 digits COULD be dialed. But if the place was dialable from outside, it had to be possible (even if you were told not to) to dial the call with 7 digits. All this from a network standards organization, where truth is stranger than fiction. ------------------------------ Date: 25 February 1984 16:35-EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #27 The reason the local operating companies can't just charge the long distance comapnies a lot of mony for accessing the local loop is that the local loop can be bypassed. For example, if New England Telephone raises its rates to AT&T for connecting to the local network, AT&T will have to raise its long distance charges. However, If I run a microwave link directly to AT&T then I can make long distance calls without any payoff to NET. There are other alternatives besides microwave: cable TV, new fiber optic links, etc. So raising the charge to the long distance companies doesn't work. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 84 18:05:08 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: RFI fix, and bugs??? And while you're at it, bunky, how about getting rid of that radio station that keeps playing in your phone? While trying to rid myself of incoming garbage on my Vadic 3405 [yes, that's one of the old ugly green ones!], I came up with the following: ------------*------------- Tip | = .001 uF | *------------- to AC Ground | = .001 uF | ------------*------------- Ring This effectively reduces or eliminates RFI in modems or phones. I now live near the transmitter of a completely useless AM station, and it walks all over the lines in the area. We all know that anything having to do with phone lines and AC ground creates problems, but if you use two of them and balance the pair, you shouldn't get any hum [and the .001's are too small to transmit that anyway]. While on technical subjects, re: Yugoslav phones. As soon as I saw that message, I realized why in Gorky Park, they would always cock the dial of the office phone and stick a pencil in the finger hole before talking about something private! **However**: The way U.S. phones are wired, this is pretty much impossible. All the handset parts are electrically removed from the line when the thing is hung up. Unless you shout loud enough to vibrate the ringer coil [an unlikely prospect] you can rest assured that when your phone is on the hook, no one can hear ambient sound through the line. _H* ------------------------------ Date: Mon 27 Feb 84 02:54:09-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: SWB - PUC reverses itself and agrees with Mattox UTILITY PANEL BARS BELL RATE INCREASE ===================================== ( Austin American Statesman, Feb 24, 84 ) SWB was barred by the PUC Thursday from giving itself an immediate $280 million rate increase that would have added $2.75 to monthly residential bills. The commission, conceding its decision was just a stop on the way to the courthouse, voted 3-0 to concur with Attorney General Jim Mattox's opinion that the increase would have been illegal. After the decision, SWB lawyer Jon Dee Lawrence said he was headed for the courthouse to find a judge. The company hopes to get its case heard within a few days. Dale Johnson, a Bell representative, said the utility panel decision will cost the company more than $700,000 a day. The battle is over bonded rates - the temporary, refundable rates that utilities are allowed to charge while their rate increase requests are pending. Bell has a $1.3 billion case pending at the commission. When Bell first filed the rate case in June, state law said companies could collect bonded rates 125 days after filing. But the 1983 Legislature, in a law effective Sept 1, extended the period to 185 days. Now the courts must decide which law applies to the Bell case. Although the rate case was filed in June, the request was not completed until Oct 19. That is the date used by the commission as the start for counting the days. .... Jim Boyle, counsel for the utility panel, went to court Wednesday after the commission initially approved the bonded rates. .... John Cunningham, the acting general counsel for the commission, said Mattox's opinion should be followed, wether it is right or wrong. "It's been our practice to follow the att. gen.'s opinion relating to the PUC Regulatory Act," he said. "I don't particularly agree with the opinion in this case." Commission Chairman Alan Erwin said Cunningham was right about sticking with the att. gen.'s opinion. "There's no doubt this issue will end up in court," he said. "He who goes to court has the burden of proof. I think it's appropriate that the utility have the burden of proof. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 29-Feb-84 17:28:22-PST,4788;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 29 Feb 84 17:23:02-PST Date: 29 Feb 84 1856-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #29 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 1 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Email in Canada Technical Difference of Opinion on No. 2 & 5 ESS Call Waiting Design New Newsletter on Telecommunications & the Handicapped ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 84 07:22:16 pst From: jmrubin%ucbcoral.CC@Berkeley (Joel Rubin) Subject: Email in Canada Ad from 2/84 TPUG (Toronto Pet User's Group) Magazine: Now from Telecom Canada The Individual User Service for Personal Computer Users Envoy 100, the National Electronic Messaging Service Envoy 100 the messenger of the 80's. For more information about Envoy 100 call our toll free numbers 1-800-267-4747 (112-800-267-4747 in British Columbia) (full page ad, with flying bird Envoy and Telecom logos) (N.B. I haven't tried it, but I assume that, as with other Canadian 800 #'s, this one won't work from the states.) ------------------------------ Date: 28-Feb-1984 1111 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: Technical Difference of Opinion on No. 2 & 5 ESS Call Waiting Subject: Design The designers of No. 5 ESS and I have a "technical difference of opinion" (as it is sometimes politely called). Subscribers in No. 1 and 1A ESS have long enjoyed the ability of using Call Waiting at almost any time during a conversation. Subscribers in No. 2 ESS and many other systems, most recently, No. 5 ESS, AT&Ts new digital office, have been unable to make as good use of call waiting, because any time a three-way conversation is in progress, a significant amount of time for many heavy telephone users, Call Waiting is disabled. It seems that AT&T is convinced this is correct. It drastically reduces the usefullness of BOTH call waiting and three way calling. When I complained that my No. 2 ESS service did not work as well as my No 1. ESS service, i.e. did not provide the same functionality, even though priced the same, the replies which I received from the local operating company (at that time a part of AT&T) were that it wasn't supposed to work, and that the behaviour in No. 1 ESS was better than advertised. Here is what the latest advertisements for Call Waiting say: Never miss an incoming call because your phone is busy. With Call Waiting, improtant calls get through, even when you're talking on the phone. Because if someone else is trying to reach you, you'll hear a "beep" -- and you can put the first call on hold while you answer the second one. If the first call is a three-way call, in No. 2 and No. 5 ESS, this advertisement is not correct. ------------------------------ From: deepthot!julian%watmath@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: Mon, 27 Feb 84 05:21:25 est From: Julian Davies From: <decvax!clyde!watmath!deepthot!julian@BRL-BMD.ARPA> Subject: New Newsletter on Telecommunications & the Handicapped The IFIP WG6.5 Subgroup on "computer message systems and the communication impaired" is publishing a newsletter to appear quarterly. I am the editor (de facto) and the first issue has just been mailed out to those I am aware of as likely to have a significant interest. (Significant enough to pay $5 a year for a subscription, that is!) I have names of those with IFIP involvement with computer message systems. Anyone else who would like a subscription is invited to send $5 to Handi-Communications Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario London Ontario CANADA N6A 5B7 I suspect that this column is mainly read by people with the computer - telecommunications interest. If anyone can put me in touch with organizations specifically dealing with the 'Communication Impaired' (Blind Deaf etc) that would be concerned with computer message systems, please send me mail. (To forstall a lot of redundancy, I do know about the SRI/Gallaudet Deafnet, the GTE Deafnet, and the Trace Research Lab.) Organizations with interests covering electronic mail, etc and the handicapped OUTSIDE North America and Britain I would particularly like to learn of. Thanks, Julian Davies UUCP {decvax etc}!watmath!deepthot!julian Envoy-100 dj.davies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 4-Mar-84 21:38:04-PST,6758;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 4 Mar 84 21:33:40-PST Date: 4 Mar 84 1946-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #30 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Monday, 5 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Newhalem Washington. 950-xxxx from Charge-a-phones strange phone problem Court rules in favor of Attorney General. SWB will not appeal. Canada's Envoy 100 service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 29 Feb 1984 16:34:05-PST From: decwrl!rhea!wilbur!pollack@Shasta Subject: Newhalem Washington. The Newhalem (not New Halem) Washington "exchange" is actually a privately maintained system owned by the Seattle City Light utility. Once a thousand phone exchange (when the power dams were under construction) it now serves only the few utility families, county sheriff, and forest service. The "secret code" is much simplier than that. Unless it was changed within the last year, it is actually a cord board ring down circut. However behind the plug is modern technology. The circut travels via GET out of Mt. Vernon to a remote microwave station. The microwave path is via 4 passive reflectors to Newhaven. The first switch there uses a second microwave link to Diablo and hence via a third to Ross. Residents in the valley use "81", "71", etc. access codes to get flatlander dial tones and various toll free services. They don't have to exit via the cord board operator. A side note is that there is a resort on Ross lake at the end of all these links which has a "outside" 206 area number that also skips the cord board. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 29 Feb 1984 21:14:12-PST From: (Dave C., 289-1690, APO-1/C8) <decwrl!rhea!nuhavn!cantor@Shasta> Subject: 950-xxxx from Charge-a-phones I was recently in Atlantic City, and after having made a normal call from a Charge-a-Phone, I got to wondering if 950-xxxx calls were considered to be free calls from such a phone. The instruction card listed a few kinds of free calls which could be made from the phone (800-numbers, Operator, &c), but not 950-xxxx. So I tried it. I dialed 950-10xx (I don't remember which last two digits I used) and got the recording "...is not in service". Had the number not been a free call, I would have expected "...cannot be completed as dialed". Dave C. (Dave Cantor) Digital Equipment Corp. Andover, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Feb 84 23:43:47 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: strange phone problem Every night at 11:21 pm, my phone bell gives a single, not too loud "ding". If I pick up the instrument, the line has a normal dial tone and functions correctly. I am afraid to report this problem to Repair Service because (1) they probably will have a great deal of trouble comprehending what the problem is and (2) in attempting to fix it, they will undoubtedly completely foul up my service, which aside from this, works as well as can be expected from General Telephone Company. Can anyone suggest what might be happening at 11:21? I should note that the line in question is a foreign exchange line -- the exchange is the "Topanga" (455) exchange and the telephone is in the Malibu exchange (456), both area code 213 ted ------------------------------ Date: Fri 2 Mar 84 06:15:02-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Court rules in favor of Attorney General. SWB will not Subject: appeal. BELL TO ACCEPT RULING AGAINST RATE INCREASE =========================================== (AP - Feb 29 ) SWB officials decided Tuesday not to challenge a court order that bars the company from immediately raising rates $280 million. State District Judge Mary Pearl Williams Monday upheld the PUC decision against the temporary increase that would have added $2.75 to monthly residential bills. Paul Roth, a Bell VP who has said the company will lose $46 million by not putting bonded rates into effect, said Tuesday, "We don't believe the law is being interpreted correctly." "However, to pursue the point further would be time consuming and it is highly unlikely the legal issue could be concluded before the entire rate case is resolved." A final utility commission order in the $1.3 billion rate case is expected in April. [ for more details on the matter see other articles posted recently ] ------------------------------ Date: 02-Mar-1984 1607 From: (John Covert) <decwrl!rhea!castor!covert@Shasta> Subject: Canada's Envoy 100 service I called Telecom Canada to find out more about Envoy-100. The service is built on top of Canada's public packet switched network. There is a plan to interface it with Tymnet in the future. (Since I can call local Ottawa numbers I would probably be able to use the service now; most users in the U.S. would have to wait for the Tymnet connection to be established.) For individual users there is a C$25 account establishment charge and a C$5 per month charge. Businesses pay C$50 to establish the account and C$20 per month for the first userid; C$3/month for additional userids. There are two parts to the message charge. There is a 5 cents per addressee charge and a 30 cents per kilocharacter charge. Thus there is a minimum charge of 65 cents for a 1000 character message. 30 cents for the characters as the message is entered, 30 cents to transmit the message, and 5 cents for the address. The person I talked to was pretty vague on the transmission charges. At first she said there were none, then she said there were. Sending the same message to multiple addresses saves while entering but not while sending. Reading the message to edit it costs money, changes cost money, etc. When a message is received, it may be read once for no charge, and then charges are incurred if it is read again. Messages can be sent for paper delivery, or to the U.S. for E-Com delivery. Additional charges are incurred by doing this. I'm expecting more details in the mail. Maybe some of our Canadian readers will also provide additional info. All this makes MCI Mail's prices seem quite reasonable. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 6-Mar-84 00:45:04-PST,6100;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 6 Mar 84 00:41:17-PST Date: 5 Mar 84 1944-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #31 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 6 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Request for information ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 5 Mar 84 00:34:48-EST From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: Request for information Random queries, shortest first: Does there exist a comprehensible document that will tell me what each of the USOC RJ- designations means? That is, what it is physically like, how it is wired, what it is used for. What operating company covers Memphis, TN (If non-obvious, what is their affiliation, and whose equipment do they use for stations)? More involved: GTE (yes.) makes a series of modular jacks that are distinguished by using punch down insulation displacement terminals instead of screws. Has anyone had any experience, good or bad with the reliability of these terminations? Now the poser: Does anyone know the official GTE supply order # for the 6Wire version, both surface and flush mount? The 4 wire ones are available blister-packed at Sears. I managed to get a couple of the 6 wire ones from a friendly installer, and then spent a frustrating month calling all over the country trying to find where to buy them. (I started by calling a number I had for GTE supply in Illinois, and got shunted to Colorado, Alabama, Florida, New Jersey, and even back to Pittsburgh, and nobody knew nothin'.) Even if you don't know about GTE, does anyone else make an insulation displacement 6 wire (or even 8 wire) modular jack? Most of the standard names (Suttle, Siemon, I don't know yet about Armiger) seem to be screw terminals. For those of you who are curious by now, the interest is for small key systems (Crest 2 line, TIE[or others] n line over 6 wire) AND for separate installations of serial lines. Being basically lazy, and overfond of gadgets, we've decided that Mod-Tap is one of the neatest things to come to the rescue of facilities folk in oh, at least 2 or 3 weeks(at least the idea-their delivery is awful)(Mod-Tap makes a line of adapters and break-outs to use plug-ended 25pair cable and modular drop cables for distributing and patching serial lines). Thanks Gene ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 84 07:47 EST From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Massachusetts Research Institute Program on of Technology Communications Policy THE EFFECT OF REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THURSDAY, MAR. 22, 1984 MARLAR LOUNGE, 4 - 6 PM BUILDING 37-252 70 VASSAR ST. CAMBRIDGE STANLEY BESEN, THE RAND CORPORATION CAROL RISHER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS MARIO BAEZA, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON/HARVARD LAW SCHOOL New reproduction technologies -- photocopiers, videocassette recorders, computers -- threaten copyright owners with loss of control over their product. But it is difficult to calculate actual or potential losses, or to determine whether these losses actually impair the incentive to create intellectual property. Regulatory solutions, such as redistribution of compulsory license fees on copying equipment and materials, have been proposed but involve additional costs and raise difficult administrative and policy problems. Dr. Besen is finishing an NSF-funded project that develops economic models for the problem of "home" copying and analyzes the production, distribution, and pricing policies of firms that face the problem.. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1984 1642-EST From: Timothy J. Shepard <SHEP at MIT-EECS> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 84 23:43:47 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS> Subject: strange phone problem Every night at 11:21 pm, my phone bell gives a single, not too loud "ding". If I pick up the instrument, the line has a normal dial tone and functions correctly. I am afraid to report this problem to Repair Service because (1) they probably will have a great deal of trouble comprehending what the problem is and (2) in attempting to fix it, they will undoubtedly completely foul up my service, which aside from this, works as well as can be expected from General Telephone Company. Can anyone suggest what might be happening at 11:21? I should note that the line in question is a foreign exchange line -- the exchange is the "Topanga" (455) exchange and the telephone is in the Malibu exchange (456), both area code 213 ted ------------------------------ I have heard that some exchanges run a diagnostics routine during the night that takes a look at the various tip, ring, and ground resistances (impedances) of evey outgoing pair. The collected data is then analized to try to find where cables or individual lines are going bad (due to moisture or whatever). It could be that the test signal that your exchange uses manages to `ding' your bell. Since you say that it is `not to loud', I would try adjusting with the ringer's loudness control or try bending the clapper a bit. Tim Shepard Shep%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 8-Mar-84 01:27:02-PST,6671;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 8 Mar 84 01:23:26-PST Date: 7 Mar 84 2107-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #32 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 8 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: TELECOM Digest V4 #30 Re: 950-xxxx from Charge-a-phones USOC list Things that go "ding!" in the night... Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #31 RJ11 jacks with punch-downs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 March 1984 00:29-EST From: Richard P. Wilkes <RICK @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #30 Note on MCI-MAIL: To send an electronic message between two people costs $1, regardless of how long it takes you to compose, edit, address, and send your 7500 character message. Whether you use 300 or 1200 bps doesn't matter. Let's compare that to CompuServe: At 300 baud, the price is $6/hour. That gives you roughly 10 minutes to get into EMAIL, address, compose, and send your message. No biggy if you are uploading, but tough for the typical typist. At 1200 bps, the price is $12.50/hr. You now have only 5 minutes. This is the price of sending the message only. You can, of course, address it to more than one person at no additional cost. But, it will cost your recipient to read your message. At 30 cps, it will cost someone roughly $.40 to read the same 7500 character message, assuming that he doesn't need to pause, file, or reread the message. 1200 should be less, but few people can read at that speed and would need to pause the output. Add to this the fact that you can only use non-prime time for these rates. Prime time is substantially more. For $1 per message ($2 delivered on paper), MCI mail seems to be quite a bargain. My only concern is whether they will end up making money. Each welcome pack costs $1.87 to mail plus materials (at least $1). Connect time is not charged. They are going to have to send a lot of mail to make a reasonable return. We'll see. -r ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 1984 02:50:43-EST From: ima!haddock!johnl@CCA-UNIX From: John Levine, INTERACTIVE, 441 Stuart St, Boston MA 02116 From: (617-247-1155) <johnl@haddock.UUCP> Subject: Re: 950-xxxx from Charge-a-phones I've found pretty inconsistent results when trying to call 950-1088 from pay phones, either the kind with or without coin slots. For example, at the Boston airport (617-569) pay phones ask for a dime if you dial 950-1088 or 1-950-1088, but the calls go through directly if you dial 0-950-1088. I was in New Haven last week, and found that calls went through on phones in 203-789 but asked for a dime in 203-785. (I thought those two were physically the same exchange. They're both all over downtown New Haven. Hmmn.) I also found that SBS considers New Haven to be part of New York city, since my New York validated SBS number worked, and dialing random digits got a recording that said it was in New York. They're certainly not in the same LATA, so I'd be interested in what might be going on. If I called somewhere in Connecticut, would that make it an interstate call since they "think" I'm in New York? I assume that 950 numbers get supervision, but can they tell the calling number and other CCIS goodies? John Levine, cca!ima!johnl, Levine@Yale.ARPA PS: To those who asked for SBS signup cards, I haven't forgotten you. I'm just very disorganized. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 6 Mar 84 00:46:03-PST From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC> Subject: USOC list Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 I have been told by someone at AT&T that AT&T publication 47101 contains a descriptive list of all the USOC's. The address I have for ordering AT&T publications dates from 1979 with on-the-fly updates from an AT&T customer service technical representative and is: Business Premise Engineering Data & Special Systems AT&T Communications 295 N. Maple Ave Baskenridge, NJ ------------------------------ Date: Tue 6 Mar 84 09:48:36-MST From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Subject: Things that go "ding!" in the night... Ever since we bought a cheapy electronic phone, which we use in parallel with the old rotary-dial model on a rotary-only line, we have heard the chirp of its ring at odd times of the night, mostly at 2AM or so, and sometimes during the day. I always figured that it was some sort of CO battery switch-over or the like, sending a transient down the line which wasn't enough to overcome the mechanical inertia of the bell ringer on the old phone, but which triggers the electronic ring circuit for a single chirp. Another odd thing about this set-up is that on SOME, but not all calls, the old phone will ring, and the new electronic one will not. On most calls, both ring. Every fifth call or thereabouts, the electronic one remains silent while the old phone rings away merrily. We don't use the ringer cut-off switch on the electronic phone, so it isn't that it has been left turned off. I have sometimes let the ringing continue to see if the electronic phone will begin ringing sometime during the series of rings, but it will never start if it didn't start at the beginning. I cannot explain this at all... Will Martin ------------------------------ From: jhh%ihldt@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: decvax!ihnp4!ihldt!jhh@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 6 Mar 84 09:57:28 CST (Tue) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #31 For what its worth, 8 wire modular Jacks should be available through AT&T Technologies or AT&T Informations Systems, with screwless installation. Our office, attached to a Dimension* PBX uses the 8-wire jacks, with two outlets in each receptacle. I am sure that other 8 or 6 wire jacks are available. John Haller AT&T Bell Laboratories * Dimension is a trademark of AT&T Information Systems ------------------------------ Date: Wed 7 Mar 84 12:18:11-PST From: Doug <Faunt%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: RJ11 jacks with punch-downs 3M , Telecom products division makes these and other pieces that work very nicely with the Mod-Tap stuff. Your closest is probably (215)728-5300. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 9-Mar-84 16:08:36-PST,3196;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 9 Mar 84 16:04:51-PST Date: 9 Mar 84 1749-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #33 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 10 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: phones catching fire TELECOM Digest V4 #32 Odd MCI behaivior ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 84 08:51 EST Sender: Wegeng.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: phones catching fire From: Don Wegeng <Wegeng.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> On last night's news there was an short segment which mentioned that many of the inexpensive phones on the market today may present a fire hazard. Aparently AT&T puts a fuse into the phone to protect against a short between the phone line and the power line which the low cost phones lack. When AT&T recently simulated such a short all of the units which did not have the fuse caught fire! My questions: Does anyone on the list have any more information about this? Should I consider adding some sort of protection to the phones which I now have in my house? If so, what is the best solution? Finally, if this is indeed a problem then why is the protection placed in the phone, and not on the phone line itself before it enters the house? Thanks, Don Wegeng (dw) Wegeng.Henr@Parc-Maxc.ARPA rocks34!dw ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 84 11:28 EST From: "Richard Lawhorn Jr." <RLL%SCRC-STONY-BROOK@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #32 I know that I might be asking for trouble, but would any one care to send me there comments/flames on the following PBX systems. Northern Telecom SL1-N Rolm MCBX NEC NEAX 2400 I am interested in hearing from people who have one of the above PBXs. Please send replies directly to me. -Rick ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 1984 15:24:50-EST From: cutter at mit-ccc at mit-mc Subject: Odd MCI behaivior Today, while trying to call someone, I noticed something wrong with MCI, something I've never encountered before. When I called the local access number (617-262-7775), instead of the normal tone, I discovered I was attached to a trunk line -- rather, instead of the tone, there were conversations there. When I punched a button, it stopped. In other words, it was as if the tone had been replaced by other MCI users conversations. In fact, as long as I kept hitting a number and then '#', I could stay on as long as I wanted to.I didn't get full conversations, too. After while I would be switched to a new call. These were full calls, too -- ringing and all. Sometimes even the person dialing his/her code! Is this common? Can it be fixed? Isn't it an invasion of privacy? I listened to two people talking in very intimate terms, at one point! Any comments? Joe ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 11-Mar-84 16:23:32-PST,9283;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 11 Mar 84 16:18:56-PST Date: 11 Mar 84 0024-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #34 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 11 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: station equipment, intellectual property, etc. Fire prevention ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 84 17:10:48 pst From: dual!george@Berkeley Subject: station equipment, intellectual property, etc. Responding to some of the more recent topics and questions raised: GTE jacks and plugs. I have had no experience with GTE insulation- displacement modular jack terminals, but have seen them and they appear to be made of sufficiently thin plastic as to raise serious doubts as to durability. I recommend Northern Telecom or any of the other units wherein the jack is integral with the terminal strip. Time saved via punch-down terminals is flexibility lost in modifying connexions at a later date. The Western-Electric 42-A with modular jack cover is a poor compromise; jack wires get pinched between cover and block, or under the cover mounting screw. Unfortunately, GTE seems to have suffered from "cheapification" to a degree I find extremely distressing. Compare one of their standard dial phones (NC-802-000-CSA) of fifteen years ago with the present day equivalent (80-E, sold as "fashion plate") and you will see a stark illustration of the decline of the phone industry. Better yet, check out some of the new AT&T carrier, which does the half-duplex routine on voice. If my correspondent and I both say something at the same time, one of us gets cut off intermittently. I'm paying for a full-duplex two-way channel, but get something vaguely reminiscent of the worst of the private carriers. Bill Martin and anyone else out there who has a similar problem with a cheapie electronic phone (ringer doesn't respond to C.O. ring voltage every fifth call or so) should go strait to the FCC and file a formal complaint. The proliferation of absolute garbage telephone equipment these days is infuriating, all the more so because consumers are conned into believing that anything having an FCC number must be O.K. The biggest offenders are the "one-piece" phones which sell for from $6 to $40. Typical problems I have encountered with these (no, I don't own one; I work as an independent phone installer part-time and see these things on customers' lines): --Hookswitch jams due to dirt plus moisture --hookswitch breaks if hung up too roughly --line left open if not hung up on perfectlyu flat, hard surface --electronic "ringer" goes ping-ping-ping on dial pulses from other extensions on same line --electronic "network" burns out on relatively minor voltage surges --rotten reception --earpieces that are not shaped to fit human ears (one wonders about the shape of the ears of the people who design them, and consequently what planet they came from!) --inadequate ringer volume, etc., etc.,.... What's the point of FCC regulations if crap like this passes? So I suggest perhaps a class-action suit of some kind or, on a more practical level, filing formal complaints about crappyphones. I don't see Ma Bell's daughters complaining any more about "harm to the network," so perhaps it is our turn to do so. Re wiretaps on Yugoslav telephones: Don't be so sure that similar things aren't possible in the U.S. Certain high-frequency signals may in fact be able to penetrate the insulating layers in hookswitches in our phones. A friend of mine knows an engineer who did some debugging and claimed that signals in the 22,000 Hz range could do it. I was unable to verify this claim. If it does work, it must do so by taking advantage of the fact that telephone recievers can act as dynamic microphones. However, only a truly important target would be tapped in this manner. The most common form of surveillance practiced these days is "broad- spectrum interception," otherwise known as the "Vaccuum-cleaner approach." In simple terms, individual lines are not tapped but the interoffice trunks and long distance carriers are. The National Security Agency is responsible for this kind of stuff; they have the Supreme Court's explicit authorisation to do it on all channels entering or leaving the U.S. They are supposedly not allowed to do it domestically, but cases have come to light in which they either did so or came very close. According to some accounts, they have developed real-time voice recognition systems that will respond to keywords heard on phone lines. Grenerally they restrict their scope to material bearing on foreign intelligence or the activities of foreign governments and their representatives... but in times past they have also targeted domestic dissidents such as civil rights and anti-war activists. Given the extreme ideological fanaticism of the Reagan regime, it is probable that the NSA is presently being used to gather political intelligence domestically. For further information on the NSA, read "The Codebreakers" and "Kahn on Codes," both by Herman Kahn; and "The Puzzle Palace" by James Bamford. l984 came a long time ago. Finally, with regard to the subject of "intellectual property" raised by that paragraph from a RAND report: It will be a sad day in the history of many of our most cherished freedoms if published information is no longer regarded as the lifeblood of learning and democracy, and becomes simply "property" and "product." First, the question of "incentives to create." There are a number of incentives to create new information (nonfiction, fiction, art, music, scientific discoveries, inventions, etc.). One incentive is the pure joy of creation. Another is the desire to inform people or enrich their lives. Another is the desire to earn financial or other rewards. For society and its policymakers to hold forth any one of these incentives as being of singular and complete importance is not only ethically unsound but unrealistic as well. At one extreme: to hold that joy of creation or urge to improve peoples' lives be the only standard by which to make policy is to ignore that people need to earn a living; is to squelch some of our most brilliant minds by denying them the chance to enjoy profits from the fruits of their labors. At the other extreme: to hold that private profit be the only standard on which policy is made is to stifle the free exchange of ideas that is essential to democracy; is to foster a vertically-divided society of informational "haves" and "have nots" that is ripe for being plucked by demagogues and abused by totalitarian elements. It would seem that America is rapidly moving toward the latter extreme. How would you like to have a bureaucrat or a surveillance device attatched to every copying machine, telling you what you can and cannot photocopy? Sounds like the U.S.S.R, doesn't it? How would you like to be subjected to copyright penalties for reading a story out loud to an audience, since each listener would be the recipient of information without having paid the author and publisher? How would you like to have video recorders and eventually audio recorders subjected to licensing, with penalties for posession of unlicensed equipment? Sounds like Nazi German regulations against private use of radio recievers, yes? If you think this is a bit paranoid, look back on that bit about the NSA and read Bamford's book. A few years ago it would have been considered paranoid if you thought the Government was listening in to your overseas phone calls. Now the NSA admits it does just that to all overseas communications, the Supreme Court grants them the equivalent of a "Writ of Assistance" to do so (look that term up in your American history!), and the public scarcely raises a peep of protest! Penalties for copyright infringement are obviously deserved by "boot- leggers" and anyone else making an illegitimate profit on someone else's work. But let us not place any restrictions on non-profit dissemination of information from whatever sources. We are in danger of becoming a truly closed society. "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, nor of the press..." Let us not have private corporations sneakily doing what Congress was wisely forbidden from doing. "We have", to rephrase Marx, "nothing to gain but our chains". signing off for now... George Gleason. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 84 22:36:53 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Fire prevention One good way to handle this is *not* to wire your AC power into your phone system. Pshoosh. Just about anything with a low resistance will catch fire if you plug it into the wall! Unfortunately the safety people do not give much regard to common sense. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 15-Mar-84 22:49:09-PST,16591;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 15 Mar 84 22:39:55-PST Date: 15 Mar 84 2100-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #35 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 16 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: My Experience with LMS "Too large, too heavy, to send through the mail." Re: station equipment, intellectual property, etc. Re: Fire Prevention Bell's National Security Group In Operation Mrs. Landenberger wasn't the only one in NY to get zapped. AC Power vs. step by step ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 84 11:36:59 EST From: "John W. Kinch (VLD/REB)" <kinch@brl-voc> Subject: My Experience with LMS I live by myself, am home little and use the telephone at home only for a few calls, so I decided to try Local Measured Service when it was offered here in C&P land. I opted for the service in which one pays a charge for the dial tone and all calls are charged at .035 for the first minute and at .015 for subsequent minutes. I was assured that calls prefixed by 1 or 0 (long distance) or to certain exchanges (TPC for example) would not be charged as local calls. I was also assured that not just a count of the calls would be made, i.e. answer supervision would be available to the local equipment. I received my first bill last week and was rather surprised. By my records which were kept quite carefully, I made 24 calls during the billing period. I did not time each call, just made a record of each call made. I was billed for 36 calls!. I was also billed for 26 additional minutes which is reasonable. I have talked to TPC billing about this and got nowhere. My exchange (301-728) was installed in the early 60's as a replacement for the old MADison exchange which was the last cordboard exchange in Baltimore City. From this date and the fact that I know it is not an ESS exchange, I assume it is a #5 Crossbar. Does anyone have any idea what kind of equipment is available for installation in this kind of exchange to provide LMS? From the numbers above, it seems likely that I am being charged for all calls to all points and whether they are answered or not, but I can't prove it now. I am keeping much more careful records this month. Since we are allowed to try LMS for four months at no charge for change in service class or for a change to another class during that time, I though it would be an interesting experiment. If anyone has any ideas on this matter I would be interested in hearing them. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 1984 10:14-PST Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: "Too large, too heavy, to send through the mail." From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> n084 1827 11 Mar 84 BC-PHONE Woman Gets a $109,505.86 Phone Bill By ROBERT D. McFADDEN c. 1984 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - For weeks, Jane Landenberger had been receiving unusual telephone calls in her Bedford, N.Y., home. Then, last Monday, she got the oddest call of all - she was talking on the phone with a friend when an operator broke in to say that the telephone company was trying to reach her, and that it was urgent. ''It was a supervisor - a Mrs. Gackstatter in the business office in White Plains,'' Mrs. Landenberger recalled Sunday. ''She wanted to talk to me about my February phone bill. She said, 'It is excessive.' '' ''I was a little flip,'' Mrs. Landenberger said. ''I said: 'It was excessive last month, too. How excessive is it?' ''She said, 'It is $109,505.86.' '' As if that wasn't enough, Mrs. Landenberger said, she was told that ''the bill was too large - too heavy - to send through the mail, so they were going to send it by United Parcel Service.'' ''I thought, Oh, my God. This is something else!'' The next day, a UPS truck delivered the bill - all 2,578 pages of it, wrapped in five elastic-bound bundles that were nearly too heavy to lift. The bill recorded about 15,000 calls to and from Europe, South America, Africa, the Far East and points across the United States. All had been charged to Mrs. Landenberger's telephone credit card - the one she cuts up each year so it will not be lost or stolen - in what New York Telephone Co. security officials Sunday called one of the biggest frauds of its kind ever. It was done, apparently, by a host of people - no one knows yet how many - all of whom had to have known both Mrs. Landenberger's home telephone number and her telephone credit card number. How the call thieves got the numbers is unclear. An investigation is under way to catch the culprits, who may have been involved in anything from college pranks to multi-million-dollar drug deals. But the malefactors' bogus credit has at least been cut off. Telephone company officials have issued a new credit card to the dazed Mrs. Landenberger. And to ease the shock of her bill somewhat, they have issued her a credit for $109,457.83, leaving a balance to be paid of $47.03, the total for her legitimate calls last month. Still, the experience has left her a little unnerved. ''I have a feeling my phone number is up in every rest room from here to California,'' she said Sunday, as she leafed through the stacks and stacks of charges. ''Here's a four-hour call from Miami to Caracas for $200,'' she said. ''There are lots of calls to South America. There are calls to Libya, Nigeria, England, Italy, France, Alaska, the Philippines. They're from the United States mostly, the great majority of them from the Miami area.'' The strange tale of Jane Landenberger's telephone bill began last January, she said, when more than $300 in excess charges appeared. ''I called the company,'' she said. ''They were very nice about it. They called me back and said they had credited the $300 to my account.'' Then, early in February, the weird telephone calls began coming in at all hours of the day and night, leaving Mrs. Landenberger sleepless and puzzled. Some of the calls, she said, were placed by ''a man with a foreign-sounding voice.'' ''He would ask for Magdeline or Sandra or Teresa or he would say 'Who is this?' '' she said Sunday. ''One night there were 19 calls. I got no sleep at all. I believe they were long-distance calls because the connection was kind of crinkly. ''I also began getting calls from telephone operators asking authority for third-party calls from Miami to Haiti, or Cincinnati to Mexico or Quebec to the United Kingdom. Of course I always refused permission, but that apparently didn't stop them.'' To stop the mysterious calls, Mrs. Landenberger eventually used a ruse suggested by telephone company security officials. The last time the stranger called, she flashed the operator and said - so that the caller could hear - ''Please trace this call.'' ''That ended my receiving any more crazy calls, but apparently they were still charging calls to my account through February,'' she said. A telephone company spokesman, Lon Braithwaite, said that a new credit card number was issued to Mrs. Landenberger on Feb. 21, but Mrs. Landenberger noted that many of the calls listed on her huge bill were dated after that. When the phone company finally notified her of the size of her bill, Mrs. Landenberger said she got ''a tiny bit frightened.'' ''I know I'm an honest person, and my friends all know that I'm an honest person, but what does the telephone company know about me,'' she said. ''As far as they are concerned, I'm not above susupicion. I could be running a numbers operation or something.'' The phone company evidently had no doubts about Mrs. Landenberger. But until further investigation, the spokesman said, it was unclear whether her case represented an aberration or a serious flaw in the security of telephone credit cards. Unlike credit cards used in stores, telephone credit cards need never be shown to anyone. A credit-card caller on a Touch-Tone phone simply punches in a personal identification number that is printed on the card. On rotary phones, the caller tells the number and some other information to the operator. Mrs. Landenberger said she got her telephone credit card a decade ago so that she could call and receive calls from her children while they were away at college. Now, she said, she sometimes uses it to call or take calls from her children, who are in France, the Philippines, New York City and Providence, R.I. nyt-03-11-84 2126est *************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 84 13:20:45 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Subject: Re: station equipment, intellectual property, etc. You should know that the FCC compliance regulations on the telephone are to protect the phone company from the phone, not the phone from the phone company. This was done to counter the claim form TPC that allowing phones other than theirs to be hooked up would degrade the central system. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 84 08:51 EST From: Wegeng.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Fire Prevention I guess that I should have clarified that the AT&T concern was with power line shorts on the telephone pole itself, not with plugging the phone cord into the wall outlet. I'm still wondering if this is a serious problem. ==dw ------------------------------ Date: 12-Mar-84 18:40 PST From: William Daul Tymshare OAD Cupertino CA <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2> Subject: Bell's National Security Group In Operation Location: <AUGMENT,107234,> From MICROWAVE SYSTEM NEW (Feb. 1984) The Central Services Organization of the seven Bell Regional Holding Companies said that its National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) Group, located in Washington D.C., is now operating to meet the nationwide telecommunications planning and response needs of the Bell companies. In order to meet NS/EP requirements after the split-up of the Bell System the federal court agreement requires that the company establish and maintain a centralized communications group as a single point of contact for all national security and emergency preparedness matters, Marvin Konow, director of the group said. The group will advise and provide coordination to the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) in the development of national security and emergency preparedness technical standards and nationwide telecommunications planning. An emergency alerting and respone center has been formed to alert the BOCs in the event of an emergency or crisis, the spokesperson said. The group will also participate in national industry-wide groups sponsored by the government to coordinate emergency and crisis communications activities and nationwide network planning. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 1984 13:51-PST Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: Mrs. Landenberger wasn't the only one in NY to get zapped. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> n013 0747 13 Mar 84 PM-PHONE By ROBERT D. McFADDEN c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - While the culprits who ran up $109,504.86 in global calls on a Westchester (N.Y.) County woman's telephone credit card remained unidentified Monday, three more instances of similar fraud totaling more than $114,000 came to light. The New York Telephone Co. said Dr. John Weinstock of Golden's Bridge got a 505-page bill for more than 4,000 fraudulent long-distance calls in February totaling $61,180.55. It also said a subscriber in Chappaqua, who asked not to be identified, got a bill for $18,399.77 in fraudulent February credit-card calls. In yet another case, Barbara Zerzan, a resident of Manhattan, was reported to have received a 710-page bill for more than $35,000 in bogus credit-card calls during February. The telephone company said last night that it could not immediately confirm the report. Meanwhile, investigators for the telephone company pored over the 2,578-page, 15,000-call February bill of Jane Landenberger, of Bedford, whose case was reported over the weekend. The fact that three of the four cases involved Westchester County subscribers suggested that someone in the telephone company's White Plains office, which is the headquarters for the area, might have been the conduit for the subscribers, numbers. This possibility was under investigation, company officials said. A company spokesman, Tony Pappas, said that telephone credit-card fraud was an increasingly serious problem. ''The problem of fraudulent calls has become a major concern of the company to a point where we have asked all employees to cooperate in protecting credit-card numbers and to let us know of abuses they might be aware of,'' said Pappas, the company's director of press relations. With more than six million subscribers and one million credit cards in circulation in the state, the telephone company now confronts more than $14 million a year in fraudulent credit-card calls, Pappas said. In the last two months, 29 people have been arrested on charges of misusing credit-card numbers. The charges are misdemeanors, meaning that they are punishable by fines and no more than one year in jail, Mr. Pappas said. Unlike credit cards used in stores, telephone credit cards need never be shown. A caller using Touch Tone phones punches in a personal identification number printed on the card, and callers using rotary-dial phones give the number and usually some other information to an operator. In each of the cases currently under investigation, Pappas said, the calls were evidently made by many people who had somehow obtained a subscriber's home telephone number and telephone credit-card number. The calls were made to and from numerous points in the United States, Europe, South America, Africa and the Far East. The pattern of calls - often hundreds a day from widely separated points - suggested that the subscribers' numbers were circulated to many people quickly, before the volume and pattern of calls could become known to the authorities. In each case, the credit cards were canceled by the subscribers, but, as the subsequent bills noted, the calls continued to be put through on those cards for some time afterward. The frauds will not cost the subscribers anything. Mrs. Landenberger will be assessed only $47.03, her actual charges, and the other subscribers will be accorded similar consideration. Dr. Weinstock, a physician, and his wife, Connie, a psychotherapist, were taken aback by their bill, which listed calls to Ecuador, Peru, China, Japan, Sweden and other places. The Weinstocks and Mrs. Landenberger did not know each another, but spoke by telephone over the weekend. ''I spoke to her Sunday night after we heard about her having the same problem,'' Mrs. Weinstock said. ''We were at a party, telling our fantastic story, and somebody said, '$61,000? That's nothing. There is a story about this woman who had $109,000.' '' nyt-03-13-84 1046est *************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu 15 Mar 84 01:39:23-EST From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <RALPHW@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: AC Power vs. step by step Last night some real winners connected the AC power line across one of our Dormline instruments. (Dormline is the local MIT phone system connecting the dormitories. It is a step by step system). This had the unfortunate effect of blowing out the first line finder for 100 phone numbers (the 6300 series), so many people had no dialtone. (Incoming calls could still be received.) Several instruments were damaged or destroyed by the excessive voltage, and started smoking. Is this a 'normal' occurence with step-by-step (could it happen anywhere? - the MIT dormline system is ~30 years old)? Also, is there any way to protect against this happening in the future? - Ralph Hyre ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 19-Mar-84 06:28:49-PST,4931;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 19 Mar 84 06:26:11-PST Date: 18 Mar 84 2127-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #36 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Monday, 19 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: And who pays for all that? Security and fraudulent calls. Re: station equipment, intellectual property, etc. MIT Research Program on Communications Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 16 Mar 84 12:06:59-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: And who pays for all that? Security and fraudulent calls. RE: Bell's National Security Office. When I heard about the size of that outfit (thousands of employees) I started wondering ... Who has been paying for this in the past (before the break-up) and who will get to receive the bill in the future? RE: fraudulent phone credit card use. I happened to overhear a conversation in a bar recently, where people boasted of making daily hour-long international calls. They would pass on the numbers to lots of friends and receive new ones weekly from others. That way they would only use them for a few days and avoid getting caught. They'd also never use their own home-phone, but only public ones, never the same for long periods of time. There seemed to be no cost involved, but sounded like a network, cooperating to find security in the fact that there are so many to make catching them impossible. As boasting about such a thing is not illegal, I could not think of any way to do anything about the matter (call the cops? phone company? with a bar-rumor? nothing would come of it, other than that I'd risk to get harrassed by the 'bad guys') Nope, there really wasn't anything effective I could do. What makes me angry, however, is that I have the feeling that the phone companies are handling this most ineptly. Couldn't they use their computers to keep a running total of calls billed to a certain number? If Visa and MC can have rules requiring phone-in verification, and a limited credit-line, why not BELL/ATT ??? Could it be that the phone company doesn't care, as they recoup the cost by billing it as overhead at the next PUC rate request, being guaranteed a percentage profit over cost ??? ARE WE ALL GETTING BILLED FOR THIS ???? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 84 16:57:52 pst From: dual!george@Berkeley Subject: Re: station equipment, intellectual property, etc. Ron-- Thanks. Now that you mention that, I did see it at one time. Howsoever, it would seem that the average person somehow thinks that an FCC number means that a phone meets some kind of quality evaluation. What is needed is a bit of education on this, so people don't get rooked so easily. Who knows? AT&T got themselves a nice little arrangement, yes? Most of the stuff that people hooked up back in the "illegal extension" days was a hell of a lot less likely to cause harm to the network than some of the crappyphones that are being sold these days. Signing off. 2600 --george. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Mar 84 13:10 EST From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: MIT Research Program on Communications Policy MIT Research Program on Communications Policy Seminar "THE EFFECT OF REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" THURSDAY, MAR. 22, 1984, MARLAR LOUNGE, 4 - 6 PM, BUILDING 37-252, 70 VASSAR ST. CAMBRIDGE STANLEY BESEN, THE RAND CORPORATION CAROL RISHER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS MARIO BAEZA, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON/HARVARD LAW SCHOOL New reproduction technologies -- photocopiers, videocassette recorders, computers -- threaten copyright owners with loss of control over their product. But it is difficult to calculate actual or potential losses, or to determine whether these losses actually impair the incentive to create intellectual property. Regulatory solutions, such as redistribution of compulsory license fees on copying equipment and materials, have been proposed but involve additional costs and raise difficult administrative and policy problems. Dr. Besen is finishing an NSF-funded project that develops economic models for the problem of "home" copying and analyzes the production, distribution, and pricing policies of firms that face the problem. For further information call 617-253-3144. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 26-Mar-84 22:12:15-PST,8338;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 26 Mar 84 22:06:16-PST Date: 26 Mar 84 2210-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #39 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 27 Mar 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law RFI fix, and bugs??? Charge-a-call plus ATT cuts international credit card calls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Saturday, 24 Mar 1984 20:03-PST Subject: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law From: lauren@Rand-Unix (Lauren_Weinstein) a239 1443 24 Mar 84 AM-Phone Evidence,390 State Court Says Cordless Phone Conversations Not Private By BILL VOGRIN Associated Press Writer TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Police can lawfully monitor and record cordless telephone conversations heard over an ordinary FM radio and use the recordings as evidence in court, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled Saturday. In overturning a Reno County District Court judge, the high court decided that cordless telephone conversations are the equivalent of oral communications and not subject to wiretap laws. Attorney General Robert Stephan hailed the ruling as ''a great decision for victims and for law enforcement.'' ''The Supreme Court has obviously plowed new ground and, in my opinion, they plowed the furrows straight and true,'' Stephan added. The state Supreme Court sent the case - involving charges of possession of cocaine and conspiracy to sell marijuana against Timothy and Rosemarie Howard of Hutchinson - back to court for a new trial. Justice David Prager, in writing the decision for the court, said, ''Owners of a cordless telephone located in a private residence who had been fully advised by the owner's manual as to the nature of the equipment, which involves the transmission and reception of FM radio waves, had no reasonable expectation of privacy.'' In other words, the Howards had no valid expectation of privacy when they decided to use a cordless telephone which was advertised as having a range of 50 feet and is basically a radio unit. Prosecutors alleged the Howards used their cordless telephone for drug dealing. The conversations, which Judge William F. Lyle ruled were inadmissible as evidence, were recorded in 1982 after a neighbor of the Howards picked them up while he was randomly tuning a standard AM-FM radio. The neighbor told police about the conversations and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation provided a tape recorder and tapes and asked the neighbor to record more communications. A similar case is pending in Rhode Island, but is not expected to be resolved until later this year. During oral arguments before the court last month, Herbert R. Hess Jr., attorney for the Howards, urged the court not to set an ''illogical precedent'' by allowing the use of the recorded conversations. He contended that what occurs in the privacy of the home is protected constitutionally and statutorily and said a 1968 federal law governing wiretaps applies in this case. ap-ny-03-24 1742EDT ------------------------------ Date: 25 March 1984 12:13-EST From: Peter J. Castagna <PC @ MIT-MC> Subject: RFI fix, and bugs??? Well, well. I was reading my old mail, and I came across your RFI fix. It is very elegant. However, you neglected to mention the voltage rating on your .001 uf capacitors (I forget the exact numbers, but the FCC demands that the connection to the phone line be able to stand a certain surge voltage), and you also neglected to mention that your fix negates your modem's FCC acceptance, since it is on the telco side of the connection. Basically this would seem a legalistic rather than academic point; however, there is a very real reason for FCC acceptance. If there is a 300 volt common-mode surge (for instance, if there is a short to a power-line, or a lightning-strike in the neighborhood) it takes time for the .001 uf capacitors to charge. Therefore, for a short period of time you will be demanding a very-large current to charge your capacitors, and where will this current have to come from? From the telco amplifiers and connections. The normal capacitive load of a phone to earth ground is on the order of a hundredth to a tenth of what your fix demands. This depends partly on the telco line layout, but mostly on the phone itself. I don't know about the practical(legal) aspects, but it seems to me that the fix you suggested will possibly cause excess damage to the phone network in case of ground potential surges. ------------------------------ Date: Sun 25 Mar 84 16:20:23-PST From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC> Subject: Charge-a-call plus Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 The following appeared in the Peninsula Times Tribune, Saturday, March 24, 1984: WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge, resolving a dispute between the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and one of its ex-subsidiaries, ordered the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. to provide AT&T the connections it needs to install coinless credit-card phones in California. In a strongly worded, 10-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene told Pacific neither it nor the California Public Utilities Commission may take any step to deny AT&T the right to install the special phones. The dispute between AT&T and Pacific Telephone began early this year when AT&T tried to arrange connections to install a new type of advanced, credit-card pay phones at such locations as the Los Angeles airport and the Olympic Games sites. The phones do not accept coins, but rather operate by having the caller insert an AT&T Calling Card or an American Express card. Pacific said that the matter came under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission, and that it could not provide the hookups without an order from the state agency. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 26 Mar 84 16:09:33-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: ATT cuts international credit card calls AT&T CREDIT CARD CALLS TO BE CUT FOR 18 NATIONS ================================================= Washigton (AP) - March 22, 84 - AT&T, faced with a growing problem of telephone fraud, received special permission Friday to stop accepting credit card phone calls to 18 nations. The AT&T request for "special permission" to withdraw and modify international tariffs, or rate schedules, was filed Friday with the FCC. The commission prompty approved the request and authorized AT&T to make the changes on just one day official notice. AT&T said the company will probably file the modified tariffs Monday. The restrictions could take effect Tuesday. The countries singled out by AT&T were identified as receiving an unusual amount of fraudulent calls in recent months. They are: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Trinidad, and Venezuela. ... ATT will block credit card calls only from specific area codes in the US where a high fraud rate has been noted, which ATT would not identify. .... "In addition to having an advers effect on ATT revenues, toll fraud burdens the general body of ratepayers" [ HAH, didn't I suspect it !!! Hello, AT&T were you out you out there and were you reading my last article ??? ] ... AT&T said there has been an alarming increase in telephone fraud, from $71 million in 1982 to $108 million in 83. [ They talk as if the 82 figure is a good excuse for not having done something then. I still think, they simply charged it to overhead and didn't care much. Now, that AT&T can't do that anymore, we see action. Ver strange. I think I'll sue them for negligence with my money. (-: ] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 31-Mar-84 23:58:11-PST,8012;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 31 Mar 84 23:51:02-PST Date: 31 Mar 84 1801-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #40 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 1 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Issues 37 and 38. danger to telephone equipment from rfi filter Credit fraud reply to telecom digest v4 #39 article 4 Need info on Channel/Data Service Units Re: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law Re: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 1984 1242-EST From: Jon Solomon <M.JSOL at MIT-EECS> Subject: Issues 37 and 38. Due to a fluke in the processing, issues 37 and 38 never got sent. Sorry about the inconvenience. You are not missing any digests if you have issues up to 36, and 39 and beyond. Cheers, --Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 84 23:29:15 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS.ARPA> Subject: danger to telephone equipment from rfi filter Peter J. Castagna states "[h]owever, there is a very real reason for FCC acceptance. If there is a 300 volt common-mode surge (for instance, if there is a short to a power-line, or a lightning-strike in the neighborhood) it takes time for the .001 uf capacitors to charge. Therefore, for a short period of time you will be demanding a very-large current to charge your capacitors, and where will this current have to come from? From the telco amplifiers and connections. The normal capacitive load of a phone to earth ground is on the order of a hundredth to a tenth of what your fix demands. This depends partly on the telco line layout, but mostly on the phone itself. I don't know about the practical (legal) aspects, but it seems to me that the fix you suggested will possibly cause excess damage to the phone network in case of ground potential surges." The above is utter nonsence. If lighting strikes, it will do the damage -- not a couple of .001 micro-farad capacitors across the line. Similarly, if there is a short to a power-line. Even if it is a "common-mode" surge. The current will come from the lighting surge or power line. In any case, what about non "common-mode" surges? what about "ground-start" lines? what about ringers connected in series with .47 micro-farad capacitors between one of the lines and ground? There is no doubt that if this rfi curcuit were given the FCC tests it would pass. The danger to the phone networked posed by this circuit is nil. Of course, the capacitors should be rated at 1500 volts so that the high-voltage ciruit tests the telco sometimes makes won't short them out, but even if they do short out, they won't damage the network. It is true that this circuit is in violation of the tarriffs and FCC regulations (but it's not "illegal" -- i.e. not a criminal offense -- to use it). For many years the telco thundered that allowing customer owned equipment would damage the network and destroy its integrity. Of course that hasn't happened. Indeed, the most likely source of problems, these days, is the telco installers who are often inadequately trained and completely uneducated. ted ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 84 23:33:37 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Credit fraud I'm utterly baffled at this point by all the reports of calling card fraud and how AT&T is up against a tree about it. What the hell did they implement PINs for, anyway??? Back in the ''good ol' days'' it was quite possible to synthesize valid card numbers by simply applying the check digit algorithm to any old number; but nowadays things should be much tougher. What is going on out there? What is the likelihood that some clown is going to ''guess'' mine and start calling Brazil with it? I would think the best thing for the future is to move to a system like bank cards, wherein you would have to insert the card *and* type in a *different* PIN. Also, the database should be a piece of cake to modify, so stolen cards can quickly be disabled [or better yet, trapped!]. _H* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 84 10:42:20 pst From: Gary K. Sloane <sloane%cod@Nosc> Subject: reply to telecom digest v4 #39 article 4 After reading the TELCOM digest v4 #39 (article 4) concerning the court decision to allow AT&T to modify their tarrifs- It is interesting to note that the countries that AT&T does not have to honor charge card calls to all seem to be the big drug suppliers. Perhaps they should attempt to track the originators of such calls... Gary K. Sloane c/o Naval Ocean Systems Center COTD Building 1 Room B205 San Diego, California 92152 MILNET: sloane@nosc UUCP: ...{sdcsvax}!nosc-cc!sloane DDD: (619) 225-8401 x391 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 84 15:28:25 est From: cbosgd!djb@Berkeley (David J. Bryant) Subject: Need info on Channel/Data Service Units I'm interested in installing a 56KB link from here (Ohio) to a sister site in New Jersey. I can take care of the phone lines fairly straight away, but I am in a quandry over what Channel Service Unit and Data Service Units to use. I have a list of a few products that are available (from Amdahl, AT&T IS, General DataComm, ITT Telecom, Rixon) but I have no real detailed per-product data. I'd appreciate any advice or comments from folks that have used or are currently using CSU/DSU's. In paticular, I am concerned about availability (the AT&T IS CSU/DSU units have a lead time of 17 weeks!). Price is not really a problem. Thanks, * * David Bryant AT&T Bell Laboratories * Columbus, OH 43213 * (614) 860-4516 * . : djb@cbosgd.UUCP cbosgd!djb@Berkeley.ARPA * * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 84 18:33:05 EST From: Brint <abc@Brl-Tgr.ARPA> Subject: Re: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law Clearly, the Kansas Supreme Court is quite misinformed as to the nature of telecommunications protected by wiretap laws. Otherwise, many long distance conversations could be intercepted under the same ruling by intercepting a microwave or satellite trunk group and extracting the desired baseband signal. When, oh when, will the legal profession realize that there is expertise other than theirs? ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 17:09:08 PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: Re: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law I think that the issue is "reasonable expectation of privacy." The line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is really "reasonable." For example, if some bozo company decides to broadcast telephone conversations on the 27 Mhz CB band (some do!) it isn't clear to me that it's the same situation as talking over a telco point-to-point microwave link. If conversations are showing up on the FM broadcast band (as they were in the Kansas case) in an unscrambled format, it's pretty hard to argue that any sort of privacy was really intended. However, as I've pointed out over on Usenet, anybody who discusses illegal activities on wireless telephones certainly deserves to be caught -- it might help to lower the number of mental defectives in the general population. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 5-Apr-84 15:12:15-PST,8918;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 5 Apr 84 15:09:46-PST Date: 4 Apr 84 0014-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #41 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 5 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: phone bills calling card fraud New multiple-carrier phones A new form of divestiture Cordless on FM broadcast? [Geoff at SRI-CSL: A new form of divestiture.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 84 21:19:45 EST From: Liz <SOMMERS@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: phone bills Has anyone noticed that their phone bills are not arriving on time? Our past two bills covered 2 and 3 months apiece (respectively). Are the mini-bells having problems or what? liz ------------------------------ From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Sun, 1-Apr-84 17:15:21 PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX> Subject: calling card fraud Someone asked what the probability was that somebody would "guess" their calling card number and start using it. Very low. Unfortunately, that's not how people get those numbers. I strongly suspect that most numbers are ripped off by people who hang around airports and watch people punching in (or listen to them reading out) the numbers. Remember that: a) The new style payphones most frequently seen in airports (i.e. the exposed vertical pedestals) offer virtually no privacy. Especially in a busy airport, a person seemingly waiting for a free phone can often look over your shoulder and note the number being entered. b) Most people make no attempt to cover the number that they're "dialing", and often punch slowly and clumsily -- giving the crooks plenty of time to see what's going on. I've noticed similar behavior with people entering PIN's at Automated Tellers. If people would take some modest precautions to avoid having people see what they're entering on those phones, I'll bet that calling card fraud could be drastically reduced quite quickly. The magstripe AT&T cards will help (though it indeed would have been better not to have the PIN on the card) but people have to take some responsibility onto themselves as well. --Lauren-- P.S. I recently got a phone bill from Pacific*Bell with a calling card call ($2.50 or so) that I had not made. This was particularly interesting since there is no calling card associated with that particular phone line. The poor billing rep couldn't figure out how the call could have billed to me. My own suspicion is that some operator on a manual cordboard somewhere made a mistake while making out a billing ticket. Apparently the tickets are never checked against the existing calling card database. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 1984 1321-EST From: Robert Scott Lenoil <G.LENOIL at MIT-EECS> Subject: New multiple-carrier phones Upon arriving at Boston's Logan airport yesterday, I noticed that new multiple-carrier public telephones had been installed. They had all the usual functionality of regular credit card only phones; but they also allowed you to place long-distance calls with other carriers, by first pressing the appropriate button for your carrier. Feeling curious, I picked up the handset, received a dialtone, then pressed the button marked SPRINT. I then heard some muted tones, and several seconds later, the SPRINT dialtone. Obviously, the phone simply dialed the local SPRINT access number. Oddly enough, I don't recall seeing a button for AT&T; it seems that it is the default carrier. Also, the instruction card said that alternate carriers could also be chosen by dialing the appropriate 10xx prefix. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 84 18:59:13-PDT (Mon) From: Larson @ Sri-Unix Subject: A new form of divestiture ***** sri-unix:net.jokes / pyuxn!rlr / 7:11 am Mar 30, 1984 April 1 1984 - Washington DC After the huge success surrounding the divestiture and reorganization of the Bell System, the Justice Department has sought to expand the logic to other public service functions. As a first step, the postal system will be reorganized in a similar fashion to the new Bell System. Under the new scheme, the currently existing US Postal Service will be divided into regional post office companies (RPOCs) serving the local communities. The RPOC will service customers solely on a local basis, moving letters only between the mailbox and the local postal facility (central office). If the point of delivery is within the scope of the local central post office, then delivery is the sole responsibility of the RPOC local office. However, if the item is to be sent to a location outside the realm of the local post office, the customer must be given a choice as to which non-local carrier service he/she wishes to use. The choices will include USMail (a fully separated entity from the RPOCs), UPS, Federal Express, Emery Air Express, and the Pony Express (which will be divested from the USMail corporation). The RPOCs may not show any favoritism toward their former parent organization, now called USMail, and must allow other carriers complete accessibility to their customer base. This is being done to foster a free market environment in the mail industry, and to promote competition and free enterprise amongst the carriers, many of whom felt that USMail had limited such practices in the past. The question arose as to which organization, the RPOCs or the national postal service, would retain the name 'U. S. Mail', especially in light of the widely held reputation surrounding that name. In the end, the issue was settled by a coin toss, which the national postal service lost. Since they get to keep the name, the national postal service has been compensated by allowing them to divest themselves of the Pony Express service, which has been a great burden on them what with having to feed the horses and all. This will make the Pony Express a fully separated service from USMail, and will allow the Pony Express to venture forth into new technological areas previously unentered by the Postal Service due to governmental regulation. These areas will include the use of modern equipment for sorting and filing pieces of mail employing new technologies such as electricity, the use of well-trained and literate personnel to route mail to its proper destination, and the development of a new service which will guarantee (for a fee) that the mail you send will arrive at its intended destination in readable/usable condition. (No guarantee is made regarding how long it takes for the mail to arrive, and trampling or other mutilation of the mail by horses is not covered under the guarantee.) One problem with the new scheme is that, without the financial support of the national postal service, the RPOCs may not have enough capital to survive in the new marketplace. Thus local mail rates will probably increase in the near future. However, long distance mail rates will generally fall into line with the rates of competing carrier services, which means that, more than likely, they will go up as well... -- "I'm not dead yet!" "Oh, don't be such a baby!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 84 00:21:23 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Cordless on FM broadcast? I'd love to know how this was done. According to some dude at the local Rat Shack, and a little research of my own, cordless fones use the 49.8 MHz FM band [''new'' CB, also used by those little headset communicator frobs] handset -> base, and 1.75 or so *AM* ???? base -> handset. I can't verify the latter part since my ghetto blaster only tunes down to 2.something, but I *have* heard the origination half faintly on the scanner, on the same channels as the toy walkie-talkies. Anyone owning one of these suckers care to comment further? I don't see, except via vicious harmonics, how the neighbor could hear it all on FM. _H* ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 3 April 1984, 13:47-PST From: Marc Le Brun <MLB at SPA-NIMBUS> Subject: [Geoff at SRI-CSL: A new form of divestiture.] I've heard that as part of the Mail Service disvestiture there will be new "Mail Center Stores" springing up in shopping malls around the country, where you can buy designer mailboxes shaped like Mickey Mouse, and stamps in decorator colors! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 5-Apr-84 16:01:47-PST,5942;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 5 Apr 84 15:57:17-PST Date: 5 Apr 84 1733-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #42 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 6 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: RFI fix revisited 201 folk take note: Using phone credit cards in Switzerland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Apr 84 02:21:08 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: RFI fix revisited Actually in practice, I wound up using something like 6200 pf polystyrene caps. When I'm not hacking, the modem [where the caps are] is disconnected completely from the line, and I imagine if lightning ever did strike so as to cause any damage, it would take out a good deal more than the telco line interface - like *my* *equipment* [which I would be a good deal more upset about!!]. Telco will fix their end on their $$, so that isn't really such a concern of mine. You'd be surprised how robust the ESS line interface is, anyway. If it detects anything abnormal it will promptly shut down, isolating your pair, and check it some delta-time later. Pshoosh. The last time lightning struck anywhere near me, it took out half my stereo, but the fern never saw a thing. I agree that ringer capacitances are significantly more ''dangerous'' in this respect than my RFI fix, too. Furthermore, it turns out that the Telco RFI filter is just about the same thing as mine, perhaps with some series RF chokes too. Some telco guy was supposed to drop one off over here, but naturally never showed up... _H* ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 84 04:39:08 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: 201 folk take note: The other day, I attempted to call a place in Long Island collect. I was told, before any connection attempt was made, that this was impossible and that the other end would not accept the call. Momentarily puzzled, I asked the op how she knew that, and she gave me the old ''flashing button'' story [this is the only error code they teach you at TSPS!!]. Upon further investigation and talking to the super, I found that some folks have this automatic rejection ''wired'' on their line. I then started a long and involved process of finding out how it was done. I discovered first that only NYNEX offered it, and it just plain wasn't so in NJB territory. I called various places in Nynex to try and clarify it. Along the way, I came up with the following suspicion: The MCCS database is not just for credit cards. Along with your PIN, it contains various bits that tell TSPSen all over the country about your line, and two of these bits are the ''reject collect'' and the ''reject third #'' control. What other pool does TSPS reference to find out these things other than the MCCS database?? If my reckoning is right, any time you place a call via operator, the forward number gets its status word yanked from somewhere for reference, and your card number if necessary. Naturally, no one anywhere even knew what MCCS was, or wouldn't admit it. And no one knew where the wizards were. It is really frustrating trying to get technical info out of any Telco. Therefore, two questions: Is my theory about MCCS right, and where is the best place to turn to ask technical questions whose answers do *not* jeopardize the company? And don't say ''President's office'' - they know less than anyone else. All I found out was that the service is called Billed Number Screening, and covers collect call and/or third-number billed call rejection. I finally gave up in disgust, after talking to about 10 Bell people *and* the PUC, and assumed that NJB just plain wasn't offering it [yet!], and started thinking up an angry flame to send out to Telecom. Then the next day, some lady from the Consumer Advocate office called me. She said that she had gone home that night and ''thought about it some more'', seemed to remember mumbles about such a system in some billing meeting, made some inquiries, and found out that billed number screening actually **does** exist in Jersey!!! They just won't admit it, or they haven't announced it to the general public yet. The biz office doesn't have any provision for it in their work order forms, either. But the service *is* available, and costs nothing [just like the credit cards, hey??? - I bet *any* service that uses the MCCS database doesn't cost anything.] I promptly ordered both for my line. Obviously the service has been in effect for some time, and they are holding back on announcment. The PUC doesn't even know about it. Why, *Why* are they doing this? MCCS is already tried and true, and this is just another use of it. What are they holding back for? _H* ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 5 Apr 1984 11:15:18-PST From: minow%rex.DEC%decwrl.ARPA@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: Using phone credit cards in Switzerland While on vacation in Switzerland recently, I was with a friend who tried to make a credit-card call using his AT&T card. The Swiss PTT refused to accept the card from a pay phone, saying it was only valid from a private phone. So, at 1 AM, he got into a long discussion with the hotel manager who was most unwilling to permit using one of the hotel phones. (He eventually succeeded, but noone was home.) The next day, he was able to place his call from the local post office, but I forgot to ask whether they accepted the credit card. Martin Minow Thu 5-Apr-1984 14:14 Maynard Time. Martin Minow MLO3-3/U8,DTN 223-9922 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Apr-84 19:36:03-PST,13799;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 7 Apr 84 19:31:53-PST Date: 7 Apr 84 1758-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #43 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 8 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #41 RFI and Lightening Protection Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #41 Rose Bowl Story MCCS and collect calls. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 5 Apr 84 16:28:29-PST From: Chris <Pace@USC-ECLC.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #41 Regarding message about bills: I am in the PACIFIC BELL province and they have had no trouble at all in sending the bill. Of course, that seems to be their priority ...sending the bill and *then* providing telephone service. I havent really checked this, but it seems like they are usually the ones who ask for rate increases to the PUC in California and the others follow suit (although GTE asked for the last one first I think). Chris. ------------------------------ From: vortex!dave at RAND-UNIX Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 23:04:07 PST Sender: David H. Siegel <vortex!dave@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: RFI and Lightening Protection There has been a discussion lately in this digest about RFI and Lightening protection for some poor fella's modem. It seems that one guy would like to add a few capacitors to the line connection and some other guy is sure that Sergeant Friday is going to charge Mr. Capacitor with the dreaded Part 68 violation. (The penalty for this one is death but some prefer to pay the fine.) Wellllllllllllll Relax. One of those wonderful computer accesory companies is selling a protection device that plugs into your RJ-11 modular jack. Your phone or modem's modular plug connects to the protection box. This little wonder when properly grounded now provides a fairly reasonable amount of lightening and surge protection. (By the way a surge is usually experienced when the fellow from the power company accidently drops his 660 volt wires across your service drop.) As an added bonus the protection box also comes with a powerline surge protector too. This is helpful. Make sure you have the device well grounded. If you do not you have wasted your money. RFI suseptability is another problem. A few years ago, when the phone company used to make housecalls, this guy that I knew was receiving the SSB broadcasts of his Amateur operator neighbor on his kitchen phone. Well the Pacific Telephone craftperson whipped out his how-to book and inserted the proper .15 uf 200V foil job right across Tip and Ring! Holy part 68 Batman! Guess what? It worked. Granted, you might not find this to be so easy if your modem has a cheap line coupling trans- former in it. The cheap ones have a significant amount of capacitance between Primary and Secondary that passes the RF better than audio. If a capacitor is strategically placed across the secondary of the coupling transformer, say .1 uf @ 50 volts this coupled RF energy should be sufficiently absorbed. What you do on "your" side of the transformer is your business as long as the signal levels are not increased. As always Mr. Phelps if any of your RFI capacitors are caught or kill by a warranty agreement the secretary will disavow any knowledge of this message. Good Luck. Life is tough enough without these problems. David H. Siegel ------------------------------ From: pyuxbb!hoxna!klc@Eagle.UUCP Date: 5 Apr 84 13:29:25 EST (Thu) From: decvax!pyuxbb!hoxna!klc@BRL-BMD.ARPA This is regarding the comments someone on this list made earlier about toll phone fraud (I'm not sure if the person was serious or not, but I'll assume so.) The implication was that toll fraud is somehow directly costing the ratepayers money and that AT&T had been "negligent" by not doing something about it earlier - that the "costs" of fraudulent calls were being passed directly on to the ratepayers. There is not really any "cost" associated with making a single phone call. A single phone call does not consume any nonrenewable resource. When you are charged for a long distance (or local, for that matter) call, you are paying for the facilities needed to handle not that particular call, but the aggregate load of all calls. If the total *average* (phone facilities aren't engineered on averages, of course, but pretend they are) offered load increases, additional facilities will be required. That's why you are billed on a usage basis, and why it costs more to call at the busy times of day. The bigger the share of the average aggregate load you generate, the more you pay. The "cost" of fraudulent calls is the cost of additional facilities that are required JUST because of non-billable calls. The amount passed on to you would be proportional to the amount of the total load YOU are responsible for. Very small indeed. Now think anthing that can be done about fraudulent calls. This DOES cost money, and pretty much directly. It would cost money to track down EACH fraudulent call. It also costs more per call to have more reliable (difficult to defraud) verification methods. SOMEONE would have to pay those costs. Obviously it's easier and cheaper to accept a certain level of fraud than to try to prevent all of it. But when non-billable calls increase to the point of being a "significant" fraction of all traffic, it becomes cost effective to try to do something about it - which was obviously the situation when AT&T asked for, and received, permission to deny credit card calls to some countries. Ken Calvert AT&T Bell Laborties Holmdel, New Jersey hoxna!klc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 84 10:04:08 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@Brl-Tgr.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #41 Actually, I think the problem is worse than people eavesdropping on you making calling card calls in airports. In several of the cases I read either the person who was burned by the card abuses didn't have a calling card or didn't ever use it (and it was home in a relatively secure drawer under last year's tax forms). I actually met one of those people with a 3000 page long distance bill. She came from the Boston area. She never used her card, so it is doubtful that she ever let the number out. There has been considerable suspicion that someone in the Boston billing offices has been distributing the numbers. The one thing that's really amazing is that the telephone company never realizes that there is anything out of the ordinary when a residential phone suddenly accumulates over ten thousand long distance calls in one month. Most of the calls were to Haiti, it's a good thing that ATT stopped honoring CC charges for those places. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 84 13:43:44 PST (Friday) From: Halbert.PA@Xerox.ARPA Subject: Rose Bowl Story Two messages about the Cal Tech hack: ------- From: tew181@cit-vax.ARPA (Ted Williams) Subject: Re: Rose Bowl Story Throughout the last few months, we have been dismayed at the number of factual errors in newspaper stories related to this year's Rose Bowl stunt. ... we, the Caltech students responsible, would like to clear up some points which have been misrepresented. We installed a device to take over control of the Rose Bowl scoreboard weeks before the actual game without the knowledge of any Caltech staff or faculty. Our only modification to their equipment was a splice in the cable to the scoreboard where we attached our microprocessor. During the game, we placed several messages such as "Go Caltech!" on the scoreboard. The frustrated stadium officials responded by turning off the power to the scoreboard before the game was over. There was no malfunction of either the stadium computer or our device. In the days following the game, we contacted the Rose Bowl officials and offered to remove our device and to explain how we had gained control. This offer was ignored by the Rose Bowl officials and the city of Pasadena. Unfortunately, the Rose Bowl officials did not understand that our project had made no modifications to their computer, as we would have told them. They needlessly spent $1200 in shipping costs to have it checked out. There was, of course, no damage and hence no repairs necessary to either their computer or scoreboard. All that really had to be done was to unplug a connector we had installed. The figure of $4000 printed by newspapers was an exaggerated estimate from the start. Weeks later the City Prosecutor of Pasadena, against the recommendation of the Mayor and the City Council, charged us with four misdemeanors. We read this news on the front page of the Los Angeles Times five days before we received actual notification by mail from the city clerk. When articles questioning the city's sense of humor appeared in local papers, he tried to defend his actions by writing to local newspapers. Apparently the city did not consider this appropriate; his office, previously independent, has since been placed under the authority of the City Attorney. In cooperation with the city of Pasadena, Caltech agreed to share half the amount needlessly spent by the Rose Bowl on their computer. This amount of $660 was paid by Caltech to the Rose Bowl. It was mentioned in court, and the newspapers erroneously reported it as a fine to us as individuals. The City Prosecutor dropped every charge against us, except for the insignificant "loitering in a public place after midnight." We pleaded no contest to this charge, and there was no sentence. It was agreed that this also will shortly be dropped from our record. We have been surprised by the amount of attention which several newspapers and television stations have given to these events regarding the Rose Bowl. We have been disappointed that there have been several misconceptions and misquotes conveyed to the public. We hope that with more serious matters, journalists will take more care to report stories accurately and to avoid sensationalism. Conclusion: Don't believe everything you read in newspapers. Sincerely, Ted Williams and Dan Kegel Seniors at the California Institute of Technology ------ The following comes from the current issue (?April) of Byte Magazine: --- Rose Bowl Scoreboard Snafu Done With Portable Computer During January's Rose Bowl, a scoreboard prank by two CalTech students was made possible by two computers and radio modems. The students, who are now being prosecuted for trespassing, used an Epson HX-20 notebook-size portable computer with an RF modem to tap into an 8086 breadboard they'd attached between the scoreboard and its operators. The students put several messages on the scoreboard's scratch-pad area and finally changed the names of the teams to show CalTech trouncing rival MIT, instead of UCLA beating Illinois. The students later held a seminar called "Packet RF Control of Remote Digital Displays." ------------------------------ Date: Fri 6 Apr 84 23:49:59-PST From: C.CRONIN%LOTS-A@SU-SCORE.ARPA Subject: MCCS and collect calls. Your suspicion about the MCCS database having bits for refusing collect calls and third number billing is correct. (Apart from private service this is useful for preventing collect calls to coin phones. NJB used to lose lots of money to inmates at the state prison accepting collect calls, or so they told me.) What gets looked up in the database is the number that is being billed, whether it your card number, the called number for a collect call or the third number (if they still let you bill to a third number). The operating companies got MCCS from Bell Labs via Western Electric (which supplied the hardware it runs on), so any wizards are probably in the Central Services Organization or whatever its now called. Usually, I think, the traffic intercept database is kept on the same machine. The systems are run by Operator Services and they see them from an operational point of view, rather than a technical one and in any case they probably wouldn't talk to you if they did have technical answers. If the business offices don't have a USOC (uniform service order code) for this that would explain why they don't publicize the service. The service orders that affect MCCS are sent to a system that extracts the appropriate data from the service order and generates updates for MCCS automatically. If the service doesn't have a USOC etc. then the service order has to be printed out for operators to manually enter the change in the database. They may not want to generate the volume until it can be automatically handled. As to why they don't have a USOC that may be because divestiture slowed down the process of standardizing USOCs across operating companies and NJB is waiting for the dust to settle. (This is all speculation.) Jonathan Cronin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 10-Apr-84 16:45:22-PST,4200;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 10 Apr 84 16:41:03-PST Date: 10 Apr 84 1919-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #44 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 11 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Speed dialing eavesdropping cordless phones AMEX card and the New AT&T Telephones Competition for Long Distance in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Speed dialing Date: Sun, 8 Apr 84 15:45:34 EST From: Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE.ARPA> I'm curious about the technology behind speed dialing -- the feature that lets you store frequently used phone numbers and use them later simply by pressing 2 or 3 buttons (I'm not talking about the kind where the phone itself remembers the numbers). How are the numbers stored and retrieved? What kind of memory is used? What kind of backups are done ("we're sorry, we've lost all your stored numbers; we hope you remember them all so you can re-enter them" just doesn't seem like a Bell thing to do). -- Nat ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1984 07:27-CST Sender: SAC.ADR@USC-ISIE Subject: eavesdropping cordless phones From: SAC.ADR@USC-ISIE It seems both sides of the conversation can be heard on FM. True, the owner of the cordless phone is very distinct at 49.8 - 49.9 MHz; however, the other party can be heard faintly. The other party can be heard better at AM 1.7 MHz, which is just above 1600 KHz on the AM dial or on most shortwave radios. Frankly, I'm amazed anyone would own a cordless. The opportunity to reveal sensitive information is great. In a couple of hours of monitoring in a suburban neighborhood (hence not too many folks have a cordless), I found out when a neighbor is going on vacation, where someone stores bonds at home, and all the details about a messy divorce. What worries me more, though, is that, although I don't own a cordless, I may talk to someone who does. Seems I should first ask about the type of phone he's using before divulging any secrets. But microwave signals can be tapped also, can't they?? George Rezac SAC.ADRRP at USC-ISIE ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1984 1922-EST From: Philip A. Earnhardt <S.PAE at MIT-EECS> Subject: AMEX card and the New AT&T Telephones What code is being transmitted from my AMEX card on these new phones? Is this some arbitrary code unrelated to my account number, or could I concievably use some permutation of my AMEX card number from other phones? Have AT&T and American Express been planning this functionality for several years? ------------------------------ Date: Tue 10 Apr 84 09:25:01-EST From: covert%castor.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA Subject: Competition for Long Distance in Massachusetts Sender: RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA.ARPA Reply-to: covert%castor.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA UUCP-Address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert" Five companies, MCI, GTE/Sprint, Western Union, First Phone Corp, and New England Digital Distribution Inc have applied for permission to offer long distance service in competition with New England Telephone WITHIN the Massachusetts LATAs. New England Telephone opposes the sudden entry of competitors, favoring a gradual phase in of competition. This is required, says N.E.T., to prevent a rapid increase in local rates, which are heavily subsidized by long distance. For example, a call from Boston to Gloucester costs the consumer three times what it costs N.E.Tel. However, a call from the North End to the South End of Boston costs N.E.Tel three times as much as the consumer pays. (For those unfamiliar with Boston Geography, the North End and South End of Boston are one and a half miles apart. Measured service lines pay about two cents per minute for a call.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 12-Apr-84 15:00:49-PST,14223;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 12 Apr 84 14:53:55-PST Date: 12 Apr 84 1708-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #45 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 12 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: "empty" satellites Cost of calls Re N.E.Telephone's alleged costs Speed dialing. Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #44 Blocking credit card calls to "the black list" of countries ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 21:43:49 PST Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: "empty" satellites n008 0644 10 Apr 84 BC-SATELLITE By ANDREW POLLACK c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - It is not easy owning a communications satellite these days. Cable television, long-distance telephone service, video teleconferencing and other forms of sophisticated electronic communications have not produced the bonanza of customers that was predicted by the satellite industry. After several years of intense demand and relatively tight capacity, there is now too little demand for too much satellite transmission capacity. Welcome to ''transponder glut'' as the industry calls it. This oversupply, analysts say, is likely to continue for the next two or three years because demand is expected to continue to lag as more satellites are fired into space. Of the 17 communications satellites now orbiting in fixed positions above the earth on a band 22,300 miles above the Equator, most have 24 transponders each, linked to a network of earth stations sprinkled across the continents. They cost about $100 million apiece and take about three years to build and launch. According to the most recent study by the Federal Communications Commission, carried out on a weekday afternoon in December 1983, only 54 percent of capacity on communications satellites was in use. Of the 14 satellites studied, 143 of 312 transponders were idle. Six months earlier, before 48 new transponders had been introduced, 36 fewer were idle and capacity utilization reached 59 percent. There is so much excess capacity now that when Western Union's Westar 6 and Indonesia's Palapa B-2 satellites were misfired on the 10th Challenger space flight in February, there was still plenty of room on existing satellites for those needing transponder time. And those who needed it could purchase satellite time at discount rates, the analysts say, since the transponder oversupply has also produced intense competition for customers. What troubles some analysts is the cyclical way the industry has grown. ''It's a pendulum,'' said Pollie Rash, director of marketing at Satserv, a Washington-based agency that leases transponders from common carriers for a range of customers. ''Way back in the 70's, transponders were going begging, then it became very, very tight,'' she said. ''Now there are more satellites and transponders than there is a need for.'' The reasons, while easy to understand, are difficult to solve. Jonathan Miller of Satellite Week, a Washington-based newsletter, noted: ''Because of launch and construction schedules, they go up in flurries and bursts. Often two or three - with 24 transponders each - may be launched in a three-month period. You can't add incremental capacity. Every time you put one up, you have to add quite a bit.'' Despite soft demand, companies keep applying for licenses to send up additional capacity. Nineteen satellites are scheduled for launching by 1987. ''The applications come in bunches, but the bunches are getting bigger,'' said Ronald J. Letkowski, chief of the FCC's licensing section. What may appear to be a lemming-like rush to launch does, however, have some strategic planning behind it. David Williams, senior editor of Satellite News, a Washington-based weekly newsletter, said, ''People want to get their satellites in orbit before all of the available slots are assigned by the FCC.'' Yet there are to be more slots available in the future as the result of a recent move by the communications agency to cut by half the space between satellites, from 4 to 2 degrees, doubling the potential available spots in space. As an a argument for some unused capacity, carriers sometimes recall RCA's Satcom 2, which lost half its transponders through a mishap several years ago. ''Just because you have some idle transponders doesn't mean you're on your way to federal bankruptcy court,'' said Williams of Satellite News. Spare capacity of 15 percent or 20 percent ''strikes me as not being excessive,'' he said. ''Don't forget you want some idle transponders, just because some of them die.'' Even so, some carriers are cutting their prices and adopting more aggressive marketing strategies. Hughes Communications, now the third-largest carrier behind RCA American Communications and Western Union, did a notable job of selling three-quarters of the transponders on its Galaxy 1 satellite, before it was launched in June 1983. The satellite, serving cable television programmers, is now totally booked. The only satellite showing no inactive transponders when the FCC conducted its December 1983 study was RCA's Satcom 3R, the satellite serving programmers in the cable industry, such as Home Box Office. Most of the others, such as the three Hughes-built satellites owned by Satellite Business Systems, used primarily for corporate communications, are the most underused. Analysts say that these are also the most expensive because they were designed to carry super-sophisticated communications for big corporate customers. Satellite Business Systems Inc. has lost more than $360 million in the last three years for its joint owners, the Aetna Life and Casualty Co., the International Business Machines Corp. and the Communications Satellite Corporation. The FCC's so-called open skies, or open-entry policy, adopted in 1970, opened the communications industry to a potentially unlimited number of carriers with the funds for satellite construction and launching. ''You might say the FCC gave the industry the rope with which it has hanged itself,'' said Miller of Satellite Week. nyt-04-10-84 0938est *************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 84 8:28:20 CST From: Will Martin -- DRXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1> Subject: Cost of calls Interesting; one digest we get a contributor stating that it doesn't really cost the telco anything when a call is made -- in the next digest, another contributor states that a call from one end of Boston to another "costs N.E.Tel three times as much as the consumer pays." Are we just talking creative bookkeeping here? With the right cost-assignments, any call could be said to be completely free or cost an enormous amount. Is deregulation going to end up with every telco unit using bookkeeping practices that differ to slant things in its own favor? This could be a more severe impact than any of the technical issues! (I wonder what the ratio of accountants to engineers is amongst the Telco industry?) Will ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 11 Apr 1984 06:43:17-PST From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: Re N.E.Telephone's alleged costs Sometimes TELECOM reminds me of the Month Python game show, "Spot the "Loony". John Covert's message relaying a Boston Globe article warrants some follow up. In the article, New England Tel asserts that a call from the "North End of Boston to the South End of Boston" costs three times what they charge for it, while a call from Boston to Gloucester costs them a third of what they charge. Hmmm. Does that mean that it costs about the same? That it costs more to call 1 1/2 miles than 25 miles? (The toll route is 20c/min days and less at night; the local route is ca. 11.44c/5min. day and night. Implied cost: < 7c/min toll, > 6c/min local.) A few likely reasons why this is a royal crock. Odds are the speaker didn't mean South End and North End, two Boston neighborhoods served by contiguous 1ESS central offices within the Central Exchange. If so, then how could he run a 6c/minute cost to go over one hop, less than 2 miles, of copper? Only if he charged for the "Non-Traffic Sensitive" portion of the call (i.e., usage covers the fixed cost of everybody's local loop) the same way toll does. But if he charged the same for local calls as for toll calls (i.e., 6c/minute), then he'd recover the entire cost of everyone's local service from usage about ten times over (rough guess). The MARGINAL cost of calls, i.e., traffic-sensitive, can't be more than a penny a minute, unless they are pulling platinum wires beneath the streets of Boston. I live here, and they ain't. Of course, if he *implied* 1 1/2 miles while *meaning* "from the northernmost to southernmost point in Boston", then he really means from East Boston to Hyde Park. Those COs are more like 10 miles away, and connect through the Cambridge tandem. That's a 2MU call for anyone without "suburban" or "metropolitan" residence service. No, that can't cost them 12c/minute either. He must, therefore, be talking about what it costs flat-rate Metropolitan Service residential customers. Huh? If I recall, about a decade ago NET did an "embedded direct cost" study of Massachusetts rates vs. costs. It turns out that they lost money on private line, barely paid their way on toll, and made profits on local exchange (or is my memory fading). I remember it because it was so surprising. But it shouldn't be: NET has the highest (yep) local usage rates in the country ALREADY. Business MUs are all timed, and run about 11 1/2 cents apeice. Anyone paying more in an area where there's no flat rate option for busienss? A fair number of studies have already shown that local costs (exclusive of toll) are more than 75% non-traffic-sensitive. If you have measured local service, it should therefore recover less than a quarter of total costs via usage, to be truly cost-based. I.e., if the total cost/line is $20/month (flat), than less than $5 is attrib- utable to usage. (New York is an exception.) Yes, toll is overpriced. But let's not spread disinformation about imputed high costs of local usage. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 84 10:58:41 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@Brl-Tgr.ARPA> Subject: Speed dialing. I have had both 8 number and 30 number speed dialing from the phone company at different times (8 number from C&P in MD, 30 number from Mountain Bell in CO). The way you store the number is you pick up your phone, dial a two digit code, dial the single digit speed number, then dial the number you are storing, then optionally press "#." To dial them just press the speed number and them press "#." It's really amazing for local calls as as soon as you remove your finger from "#" the other phone is ringing. Also, the "#" is optional. If you don't push it, or you dial the speed digit on a dial phone which doesn't have it, when a timeout period expires it says "OK, speed call, put it through." Most people know by now that "#" is just a "I'm done dialing-no need to wait anymore" signal to the phone system. If you have 30 digit codes, you have to dial two digits (obviously) to get all the numbers. As I recall the two digit code to enable the programmings of the various custom functions were 72, 73, and 74. One for setting up forwarding, one to cancel forwarding, and one to set up speed dialing. I don't remember which one is which but it's in the phone books here. I never had the phone company "forget" my speed numbers and my parents have it and it's never happened to them, but I would expect that maybe one day you would pick up your phone and it wouldn't work, and you'd just have to set them all up again. Mountain Bell gave me a little book to write down my numbers in. The one bad problem a friend had was when we discovered that call waiting beeps cause modems to go away. So when ever we noticed he was logged in, we'd call him up. He quickly called in and had call waiting removed from his phone, but alas the phone company left call waiting and canned his speed dialing by mistake. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 84 11:00:36 EST From: Ron Natalie <ron@Brl-Tgr.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #44 I believe what they are getting is probably just information that is the same as what is printed on the front of the card. There is probably room for a PIN or something, because when you apply for use of the traverler's check dispenser in the airport, they send you a new card with the same number (the old card won't work). -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 12-Apr-1984 1101 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Blocking credit card calls to "the black list" of countries As permitted by the recent filing with the FCC, in order to reduce telephone credit card fraud, certain countries can no longer receive credit card calls from the U.S. The first implementation of this we have seen is in the Northeast Region. So far, only calls to 809-5xx, 6xx, and 9xx (several Caribbean countries) are blocked. The method used is interesting. All calls through TSPS are blocked, so a side effect is that collect, person-to-person, requests for time and charges have to go through an inward operator. But the operator seems to have the wrong routing for some places. (Presumably this will get straightened out). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 13-Apr-84 16:54:23-PST,3751;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 13 Apr 84 16:52:21-PST Date: 13 Apr 84 1927-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #46 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 14 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: re: speed dialing letter, Vol4#44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 84 19:58:30 pst From: marc%B.CC@Berkeley Subject: re: speed dialing letter, Vol4#44 In regards to Nat Mishkins inquiry about how speed dialing is stored, I can relate this: The tradtional #1ESS Machines have two types of memory. One is magnetic cards (beleive it or not) and the other is tape. This does not include the memory, which is generally core, that is used for call processing. This relates to the #1ESS that I am fmailiar with, and I realize that on later generics, disk memory was planned. However, I imagine the scheme that I outline below hasn't changed much. The mag cards are divided into two groups: *temporary* and *permanent*. The mag cards caontain the attributes specific to each line or seven- digit number assoicated with the given ESS computer. Periodically, Telco transfers the information from the temporary cards onto the permanent cards. This system was set up so that the least amount of service interuption would occur when new service was established, or when a customer changed some form of his/her service. Although this may appear to make little sense, and I was never familiar with the operating systems that the ESS machines used (not UNIX I assure you); however, I do know that periodically the ESS switchmen would do a kind of *backup* from the temporary to the permanent cards leaving the temporary ones empty for new additions. The timing of this transfer depended on the level of changes within a given CO. My guess is that this method presented certain economies so that every time a single customer had some service change, the switchmen (strange name for 'computer operator', but then some people can't get away from electromechanical!) wouldn't have to run this transfering program and disturb the main function of the ESS program: handling calls. I'm sure that this stemmed from poor software, but it worked, so that was the Bell Way. Now what this means is that if you had a service change or you were a new customer, your information was stored on the temporary cards initially. If these cards were somehow erased or became corrupted, then your were gone as far as telco was concerned. My understanding was that the permanent cards were much less volatile-perhaps because they were accessed less. Anyway, for any custom calling service, it is possible for telco or rather your ESS computer to *forget* that you have it. I know of many cases in the CO in LA where I lived when this happened. We would call up the ESS switchroom and ask about it, and they would say, "sorry, we're just going to input all of the last month's service orders over again" or something like that. The other interesting thing was that it was possible for one to lose his/her custom calling or new service just during the period when the electronic transfer was being made. I had several occasions myself where I lost my custom calling from evening-morning of the next day. And upon checking with the switchroom, I discovered that that was the approximate time period of one of these transfers. So there's a long answer to a short question. -Marc O'Krent ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 17-Apr-84 15:39:09-PST,7906;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 17 Apr 84 15:33:17-PST Date: 17 Apr 84 1822-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #47 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 18 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: American Express access to the AT&T telephones telco pricing Backups and other doc AT&T (marketing!) Rate INCREASES for this week (via CommunicationsWeek) news from the SW. rate struggle in Texas continues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13984 1941-EST Subject: American Express access to the AT&T telephones Well, I don't suppose AT&T is using the traveler's cheque machine PIN, since quite a few folks don't have that service. Either there's a third PIN, or they're using some permutation of the account number. I'm having some trouble believing that they would using the raw account number, since stores, restaurants, etc. could steal my number easily. AMEX would be exposing me to a liability that I did not ask for (and haven't been notifie of). Another thing that comes to mind is that criminals would have relatively safe method of finding out whether or not a stolen card had been reported, since there is probably some automagic way that AT&T is notified by AMEX when lost cards are reported. Is AT&T sending the credit card number in 3 by 4 tones over the line? Does anyone in an area that has the new phones have equipment to display what number is being sent? Finally, will MCI and others who offer VISA and Master Card run into the same problems with their new phones? ------- 15-Apr-84 14:03:40-EST,2290;000000000000 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Apr 84 11:04:14 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS.ARPA> Subject: telco pricing ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 84 20:57:09 EST From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Backups and other doc I was under the impression [from observing a Dimension system and random other equipment] that in addition to periodic backups, every transaction that ensues in the office is logged on tape. This way they have sort of a journal file of the changes since the last backup, and can plug them back in to reset things. I occasionally hear mumbles of items in the Bell System [ahem] Technical Journal. Where does one obtain this publication on a regular basis? _H* ------------------------------ Date: 16-Apr-84 13:44 PST From: William Daul OAD / TYMSHARE / McDonnell Douglas From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA> Subject: AT&T (marketing!) From COMMUNICATIONS WEEK (Monday, April 9, 1984, pg. 6) AT&T's efforts to transform itself into a marketing company suffered another black eye when the WALL STREET JOURNAL reported that a building the telecommunications giant sold for $104 million was resold one week later for $110 million. A real estate industry source said the quick resale indicated that AT&T could have gotten a higher price for the building if the company had better publicized its availability, the newspaper reported. The 31-story building, located at 222 Broadway, was the former headquarters for AT&T's Western Electric Co. ------------------------------ Date: 16-Apr-84 14:17 PST From: William Daul OAD / TYMSHARE / McDonnell Douglas From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA> Subject: Rate INCREASES for this week (via CommunicationsWeek) Panel Proposes $457M Rate Hike For N.Y. Telephone (pg 7) Southern Bell Seeks $112M Hike (pg 19) ------------------------------ Date: Tue 17 Apr 84 10:35:07-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: news from the SW. rate struggle in Texas continues $855 MILLION INCREASE RECOMMENDED FOR BELL (Tuesday, April 3, 84) SWB is entitled to a rate increase of $854.8 million, or less than half the amount the utility first sought, PUC officials said Monday, April 2, 84, in result of rulings by 2 administrative law judges, Angela Demerle and Jacqueline Holmes. The full commission will rule April 30 on the request, which was shaved from $1.7 to $1.3 billion after the FCC ruled that Bell could not increase total depreciation by $400 million. PUC staff had proposed that Bell receive $933 million in additional revenues. Bell has been operating since Jan 1 under a $653 million interim increase [which would be in line with past decisions, where about half of the requested amounts were granted.] The bulk of the recommended increase would come from access charges to long-distance carriers which would pay $784.7 million to Bell. Under the recommendations, free directory assistance calls would be lowered from 10 to 5 a month, with each additional information call costing 30 cents. Bell wanted a limit of 3 and charge 35 cents. In a related report, hearing examiner Mary Ross McDonald recommended Monday that no access charges be imposed for residential or commercial customers in Texas, including businesses with more than 1 line. Bell initially wanted to charge $4 a month in access charges, which 'represented the cost of hooking into various long-distance systems'. AT&T STOCK COULD TUMBLE AS LOW AS $10 A SHARE [ excerpts from an editorial by Dan Dorfman during early April ] A pretty shocking statistic appeared in the latest issue of the Granville Market Letter. In brief: The 964+ million shares of Ma Bell have been stripped of more than $4.5 billion of their market value (or 22 percent) since December, from $20.2 billion then, to today's $15.7 billion. This raises some critical questions: (1) what caused the recent tumble from 21-1/4 to below 16 (2) what is the stock likely to do in the future Joe Granville is forecasting a decline to the $10 level. George Dellinger, Paine Webber's AT&T specialist in Houston expects more favorable developments, with chances of stock values close to $25 during the next 12 to 18 months. BELL STUDIES BOOST BEFORE AGENCY ACTS ON RATE PROPOSAL (Wednesday, April 4, 84) SWB is considering imposing bonded higher rates 8 days before the state PUC rules on a proposed $1.3 billion rate increase, a Bell official said Thursday. Bonded rates could result in a temporary increase until the commission rules April 30 on a recommendedation Monday by 2 administrative law judges that Bell be given an $854.8 million rate boost, said Bell. A decision by Bell on bonded rates is expected in mid-April. ... The staff has recommended that a $933 million increase be approved for Bell, which has been operating under a $653 million interim increase since Jan 1. Bell failed in February when attempting to impose a $2880 million in bonded rates. The law would allow Bell to bond rates starting April 22, 185 days after the company filed for a $1.7 billion increase that has since been trimmed to $1.3 billion. (Friday, April 13, 84) SOUTHWESTERN BELL Corp. in its first quarterly report since splitting with AT&T, said Thursday it made $205 million in profits, or $2.12 a common share, for the latest quarter. Revenues and sales for the quarter totalled $1.7 billion, the company said. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 20-Apr-84 20:09:30-PST,3541;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 20 Apr 84 20:04:34-PST Date: 20 Apr 84 2255-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #48 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 21 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 84 16:11:23 EST From: dca-pgs <dca-pgs@ddn1> Subject: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Telecommunications magazine, Apr 1984: (p. 12) "LAN VIA CPE ... Bell Atlantic is entering the emerging market for local area networks through its customer-premises equipment and system subsidiary. Bell Atlanticom Systems plans initially to market two local area networks: proNET (TM) (Proteon, Inc.) and DATAKIT (TM) (AT&T Technologies, Inc.). Letters of intent have been signed with the manufacturers, and contracts are being negotiated." Does anybody have any further details on this? My understanding of the Proteon LAN is that it is a TCP/IP ring LAN. Does anyone out there have one connected to the Arpanet or Milnet? Replies appreciated. Best, -Pat Sullivan DCA/DDN/PMO ------------------------------ From: Christopher A Kent <cak@Purdue.ARPA> Date: 19 Apr 1984 1742-EST (Thursday) Subject: Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Yup, we have a proNET (network Purdue-CS, 128.10), and are pretty happy with it. It's a 10Mb token passing ring; the nicest thing is that hosts can enter and leave the ring without disrupting communications for the other hosts. There's a mailing list for proNET users: v2lni-people@MIT-MC. Cheers, chris ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 84 1926 EST From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Subject: Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic I think the Proteon folks hang around MIT or used to... CMU has the stuff in its Computation Center. The stuff has different characteristics (read failures) but at least you know what the minimum transition time is....no random back offs like ethernet. -Rudy ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 84 1929 EST From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Subject: Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic Chris, It turns out that the connectors or whatever you call them act like repeaters...you turn off a machine that happens to be between to long pieces of cable and things get worst....the current trick is to turn on power to the board but disable the rest of the machine. No perfect solutions in a hostile non-homogenous enviroments that tends to cheat on specifications because everything is on backorder. -Rudy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 84 21:34:08 EST From: Bob Hinden <hinden@BBN-UNIX> Subject: Re: Proteon proNET and Bell Atlantic We have gateways to Proteon ring nets at several sites: U. of Wisc, Purdue U., Aerospace Corp., and NTARE. They run at 10Mbits and seem to work well. One major advantage they have over Ethernets is that they can run over a variety of media, ranging from twisted pairs to fiber optics. Bob ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Apr-84 18:42:20-PST,11603;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Apr 84 18:36:32-PST Date: 27 Apr 84 2126-EST From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #49 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 28 Apr 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: phone call monitoring Re: Proteon proNET => "no random back offs like ethernet" Long periods of ring signals Re: Proteon proNET => "no random back offs like ethernet" Re: Proteon proNET 976-XXXX Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 84 13:53:38 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA> Subject: phone call monitoring This just came as a newswire. (Interesting to see how it fits in with the tariffs governing recording devices which transmit the beep.) Why, of all places, did it come from Baltimore? Date: 23 Apr 84 1001 PST TODAY'S FOCUS: Computers Count the Seconds as Employees Chat BALTIMORE - The next time you call an airline for a reservation or a magazine company for a subscription, there may be a third party monitoring your call: a computer. In a growing number of service industries, phone calls are monitored by computer to gauge employee efficiency, and some workers resent it. Slug AM-Focus-Work Time. By Carol Bowers. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 84 03:11:11 PST From: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: Proteon proNET => "no random back offs like ethernet" Have you ever worked with a network where you would notice the randomness introduced by the backoff time? There is a critical engineering concept that isn't mentioned in the ethernet specs. If you expect your ethernet to have an AVERAGE throughput of anywhere near 10 megabits/sec, you are asking for trouble. If you set things up so that the normal peak load (as averaged over a few seconds) is below 3 to 5 megabits/sec, then collisions are rare enough so that they can almost be neglected. There is a lot of screaming and shouting going around about rings vs etherents. I think most of it is pure religion. From what I've seen, the critical step is not the high level architecture, but rather how carefully the small details are handled. Your next message ("you turn off a machine that happens to be between two long pieces of cable and things get worse") is a good example. We had another example out here a few years ago. We have an ethernet under the street to another building. Lightning hit the hill out back. It zapped a handful of transcievers. Unfortunately, they died shorted, so the whole net was dead. A 100 ohm resistor in the right place is all it takes to make a transciever immune to problems like this. The way I look at things, it doesn't make much difference how the packets get from my machine to the next one as long as they get through reasonably reliably. The details of the actual transport mechanisim are all contained within one module for each specific type of hardware. Some problems are easier if the hardware supports broadcasting, but there are usually ways to fake it somehow if you can't do that. The interesting question is what protocols will Bell Atlantic, or any other part of the established "phone" system support on high bandwidth LANs? Can you picture them using IP/TCP? At least they would solve the naming/addressing problems - just send my mail to 415-494-4452. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 84 9:40:48 CST From: Will Martin -- DRXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1> Subject: Long periods of ring signals The following paragraph is extracted from a recent submission to sf-lovers regarding an author's appearance on a radio call-in talk show: If you want to call in to ask a question the phone number is (703) 685-2177; if you get a ring, hold on, they will answer when it is your turn to save on your phone charges; this may take 45 minutes if a lot of people are calling in. This brings to mind the earlier discussions in this digest regarding the practice of Sprint, MCI, etc., the alternative LD services, who did not get the data from the telco switching equipment which indicates when a call is answered, so they used a timing algorithm instead -- calls were billed when they lasted more than "n" seconds. Obviously, in the case of someone holding on "ring" for 45 minutes, as mentioned above, if they used the alternative service instead of AT&T, they would be billed for a call of duration {45 minutes + actual talking time}. Equally obviously, they had tied up the service's lines and equipment for that duration, so the service has a legitimate basis for charging them for this entire period. However, what the service can charge is determined by the tariffs in force and the contract between the service and the buyer. So, to quote the sign that hung on the wall of my wife's former office (she was a government contract specialist), "What does the contract SAY?" If I have alternative LD service, and I use it to call one of these talk shows, and hang on "ring" for 45 minutes and then talk for 2 minutes, and am billed for a 47-minute call, do I have legal justification for demanding that the record and billing be changed to a 2-minute call? (How would I PROVE this, by the way?) Or does the service have the right to charge me for the full 47 minutes? [In this case, I think I lean toward the service's side -- the caller should realize that this is a case where using AT&T is the most economic mode!] This problem will go away when all the LD carriers are put on an equal footing, of course, but it exists now, and will exist for some period until this change is implemented nationwide. I would forsee that a time will come that no carrier will allow an indefinitely-long period of "ring" with nothing charged to the caller (or callee); it does cost them to provide this connection, after all. Would it be likely that they would institute special charges against the callees who cause such a situation by setting up the call-in show in the first place, thus enticing more callers to call in than can be answered or handled by the lines provided? I recall that telcos have acted against "Dial-A-Joke" and similar services in the past, who have created a congested load on the equipment by providing a service desired by more callers than they can accomodate. This seems to be a similar situation. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 84 0312 EST From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Subject: Re: Proteon proNET => "no random back offs like ethernet" Gee. Let's see: 1) I don't care about which is better. CMU has got token rings, RS232 lines, ethernet (3MB and 10MB) and a bunch of other "networking" technology. The point about "random back-off" was based on how the product was being presented. I know what is going on and understand the issues but I am not out there buying the now-famous "LAN" hardware and I am not selling it....How the ethernet people "fight back" when they sell the stuff is not my problem...only time will tell and how well the people that put the systems together get things working. Remeber that IBM does alot of "customer service" after their products are installed. This is what makes "winning technology"....how well it works for the guy on the street who tells his next friend over...[or how well it works for company A's EDP director who meets a friend at a conference and talks to company B's EDP director...] 2) I don't expect the phone company to mix digital data and voice data over the same piece of hardware. Of what I know from what I hear from the people doing network phones at Xerox...it is a bad move...too much data and gateway contention problems. The current Xerox system uses a seperate 1MB cable for the voice stuff...because the ethernet chip was available. I suspect in the long run that the telephone company will have a non-NS, non-IBM, non-TCP/IP and definitely BELL protocol that runs on some much faster network system. The current LANs don't cut it but then I am not familiar with "ESS 5" to know if the "long run" started a few years ago. 3) I live in a high turn over "college" area...My two phones in my house get an average of one "wrong number" a day for each phone...real irritating when I sleep during the day...I would really dislike sending mail to a phone number address....I wouldn't want to encourage the use by my friends. The way to go is still what the postal system does... except bring back the old postman who knows who you are and can figure out mail to "Ed Nesbed" is probably for me.... -Rudy ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 26 Apr 1984 12:03-PST Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta Subject: Re: Proteon proNET From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa The Proteon ringnet, whose product name is PRONET (with suitable capitalization) was developed in conjunction with members of the Computer Systems Research Group at MIT's Lab for Computer Science. MIT's involvement was funded by DARPA as I understand it. The ring has been refered to in some MIT documents the ``V.2 LNI'' or ``Version 2 Ring'' (don't ask about the version 1 ring). It is a forrunner of the Zurich Ringnet, which (rumour has it) is being turned into IBM's LAN product for SNA. PRONET, like Ethernet, is a link-level transport mechanism. It can accomodate any number (i.e., 2**8 or 2**16 I think) of different higher level protocols. Thus its description as a `TCP-IP ring' is incorrect. The ring runs as 10Mb/s. It uses a token contention scheme. There is no ring master; instead all stations in the ring cooperate to replace the token if it is lost. In this way, it is possible to add and remove hosts from the ring without disrupting existing communications. An important part of the pronet scheme is that it is a so-called `star-shaped ring'. All stations connect to the ring via a passive wire center which splices stations that are powered on into the ring. Thus, `pulling the plug' on a host (either the electrical plug or the network plug) will not destroy the ring (it will probably cause it to reinitialize). I have pulled out hosts' connectors while telnet and FTP connections were running over that host and other hosts. No one noticed; the higher level protocols simply retransmitted any lost packets. I have heard that IBM's ringnet is also star shaped. I have worked with a non-star shaped ring and it is annoying. - Geof Cooper Imagen ------------------------------ Date: Fri 27 Apr 84 16:29:44-PST From: MYERSTON@SRI-KL.ARPA Subject: 976-XXXX Numbers Does anyone know the story on 976-XXXX numbers?. Apparently the are like local (900) numbers used to access recordings of various kinds. Apparently they will work in more than one location like the 950-XXXX numbers for ENFIA C access. Directory Assistance in this area claims there is no such office code but both Jeanne Dixon's horoscope service and a heavy breathing/talk-dirty young lady can be dialed without going to (900). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 4-May-84 15:46:19-PDT,10324;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 4 May 84 15:41:03-PDT Date: 4 May 84 1829-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #50 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 5 May 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: telephone wiring Re: Long periods of ring signals 800-xxx-xxxx, except in Nebraska proNET ring Call monitoring by computer 950-xxx Who Pays? MCI Mail Telex Dispatch challenged by RCA & ITT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 84 22:36:15 PST From: Theodore N. Vail <vail@UCLA-CS.ARPA> Subject: telephone wiring From the Los Angeles Times (April 27, 1984): The FCC said consumers may install some phone wiring Stepping in where only 20 states have acted, The Federal Communications Commission voted 5 to 0 to authorize all consumers to install telephone wiring inside their homes. The agency said it saw no reason for residential and small business customers to be forced to pay their local phone company for the simple wiring of one and two line phone systems. Local telephone companies may continue to offer wiring servie to the public as well, at rates set by state regulators, the FCC said ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 84 22:56:40 PST From: Matthew J. Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Subject: Re: Long periods of ring signals In reply to the following: ''I would forsee that a time will come that no carrier will allow an indefinitely-long period of "ring" with nothing charged to the caller (or callee); it does cost them to provide this connection, after all...'' Since most telephone switches will be digital within the next ten years, there'll no reason to tie up bandwidth between `here' and `there' in order to determine when a phone is answered. A simple request-wait-reply protocol works quite well. Thus ringing is a low-cost event (local loop equipment is tied up, but you'll probably be paying for that anyway). For an example, look into AT&T's Common Channel Interoffice Signalling, described in a BSTJ a while back. - Matt ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 84 14:26:30 PST From: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: 800-xxx-xxxx, except in Nebraska Is there any good reason why anybody needs a second 800 number if they want service both in and out of state? I can understand tarrif complications, but I'd expect that the billing computer could sort things out. ------------------------------ Date: Sun 29 Apr 84 22:08:58-EDT From: David C. Feldmeier <DCF@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: proNET ring I am a graduate student at the MIT Lab. for Computer Science where the version 2 10 megabit token ring (proNET) was developed. I have worked with the ring for about four years and my undergraduate thesis was an analysis of ring operation and traffic levels. I tend to perfer the ring over the Ethernet for several reasons, although I am somewhat biased. 1) The proNET is easier to wire and maintain than the Ethernet. The proNET uses either twisted pair (cheap) or fiberoptic cable (cheap over long distances). The Ethernet uses coaxial cable (more expensive, but less needed to wire all stations). The proNET is easier to maintain because it is star-shaped - all stations connect to a wire-center, a box containing relays that allow stations to switch themselves into the ring. The advantage is that manual switches allow stations to be quickly switched out of the ring from a central location to isolate a misbehaving node - only the cables run in the ceiling, active components are either in the host computer or in the wire center. It is more difficult to find offending Ethernet components. 2) The proNET interface is easier to program. 3) The proNET hardware is cheaper. I think that this is true in general, but it is certainly true for the IBM PC. 4) The proNET has less analog components than the Ethernet. This makes the ring easier to adjust and to convert to VLSI. Many more minor points of comparison exist for the proNET, the Ethernet and the IBM experimental ring. Both the IBM and the Apollo rings are similar to the proNET. I believe that the worries that people seem to have about the Ethernet collision/exponential back-off system are unjustified. Sure, it's theoretically possible for the Ethernet to deadlock forever, but not likely. Although any token ring works well at 100% load, the Ethernet seems to go to about 95% load rather gracefully. Anyway, a LAN is not meant to run at 100% load. At MIT, the peak second netload over a week measuring period was only 66%, and wee have a fairly active LAN. Peak minute netload was 5.6%, peak hour netload was 1.4% and the peak daily netload was a mere 0.26%. Moral - if your LAN is running at 100% load, you need a faster net. Anyway, here at the lab, we have about 35 stations on the proNET, gateways to a 3 Megabit experimental Ethernet, 10 Megabit Ethernet, and the ARPANET. A VAX 11/750 can use only 5% of the net at maximum speed anyway, so unless you have a lot of computing power, you'll probably not take your LAN over 50% load, which is no problem for the Ethernet. This is just a quick introduction and I hope it has answered some questions. More specific question can be directed to dcf@mit-comet.arpa. -David C. Feldmeier MIT LCS ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 30 Apr 1984 11:11:48-PDT From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: Call monitoring by computer Maybe the Baltimore paper's circulation or ad department just put in a new Automatic Call Distributor, and one of the order-takers didn't like it, so he complained to a reporter. That's the only sensible explanation for the non-news story reported in V4I49. Heck, ACD systems have been keeping statistics for years now. Any serious incoming call operation that doesn't have one is still in the proverbial stone ages. The problem comes in how the statistics are applied. Most systems (of which Collins, Teknekron Infoswitch (nee Datapoint), AT&T Horizon CMS and Rolm ACD are among the best known) keep some degree of agent stats, along with trunk group and "split" or "gate" (agent group) stats. The idea is to know how long the average caller has to wait, how busy each agent is, etc., so you can balance the load, moving agents between groups or overflowing calls between groups. Now if an agent happens to have an unusually long amount of "post-call work" time, or an exceptionally long average call duration, the supervisor (who gets the stats) may wish to intervene. A bad attitude towards one's nominal subordinates may result in unhappy agents their being watched. (Of course, most sytsems also allow supervisors to silently monitor calls! Not all companies use that feature.) I'd be surprised to see any of your major "800" numbers without agent statistics gathering. It's becoming more common now, as ACDs become cheaper, but the airlines pioneered it eons ago. The main point of an ACD, to be sure, is to evenly distribute calls among agents (sets) based on who'se been on hold the longest, but statistics make it manageable. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1984 16:00-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: 950-xxx Who Pays? From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> Recently, while staying at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC which charges $1 flat rate per local phone call placed from your room, I got to thinking what a loser it was that I had to pay $1 each time I dialed up SPRINT -- especially when the line I called via SPRINT was busy or didn't answer! So, this got me thinking. What about SBS's Skyline service on 950-1088 and did it count as a local call or a free 800 type call? My answer came when I went to a few pay phones in DC and VA and just dialed 950-1088 without depositing any coins. Low and behold I got the SBS Dial tone! Thinking this might be a bug in the DC area, when I got home, I tried it, and I am able to do the same thing here on a PacBell pay phone! This leads me to the following question: Is this a bug or a feature and WHY? If its a feature, who is paying for the cost of carrying my traffic from the phone I'm calling from to the OCC which is carrying the long distance traffic. Surely not me, since I didn't have to put in any coins or incur any local message unit or hotel type charges for calling these numbers. g ------------------------------ Date: 04-May-1984 1613 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: MCI Mail Telex Dispatch challenged by RCA & ITT A friend of mine (not on the net) sent this to me: From Telecom Reports 16 April 84 (edited) RCA Global Communications and ITT World Communications have asked the FCC to stop the parent co of WUI, MCI, from offering access to WUI's intl telex service thru its new domestic MCI Mail service at end-to-end rates whcih RCA says are 10cents lower per minute then WUI's through telex service rates to the 10 "most significant intl destinatgions". In a letter to the FCC says MCI mail access to the telex network on untariffed basis violates comm act requiring access to 50 baud telex be based oin carriers domestic component as fixed by tariff. ITT says since MCI digital info systems has not 214 authority to xmit over intl lines it is violating act. They say the "new service" is the same as traditional record services under the guise of a new service and evades the FCC's 1981 IRC Competition Act and are therefore untariffed and illegal. rgds jk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 9-May-84 01:33:10-PDT,7463;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 9 May 84 01:27:03-PDT Date: 8 May 84 1752-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #51 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 9 May 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Re: Long periods of ring signals Re: 800-xxx-xxx, except in Nebraska Q: will US-phone work on German phone-system? Paying for 950- calls AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 05-May-1984 1220 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Re: Long periods of ring signals Though it is theoretically possible to avoid tying up circuits during the time a phone is ringing, there is one rather serious problem with this approach: What happens if there are no circuits available when the person whose phone is ringing picks it up? The probability of there being no circuits available when a phone is answered is exactly the same as there being no circuits when the call is made. Thus the circuit still needs to be reserved at the point at which the call is set up. I think consumers would not be willing to deal with a service where the phone rings on Mother's Day (or during any other busy period), but where the person who picks up the ringing phone gets a recording "We're sorry, all circuits are busy now. Maybe your caller will try to call later. This is a recording." It is possible to provide busy signals which don't tie up the circuits. In fact, on any call to Germany from the U.S., if the distant TELEPHONE is busy, the DBP provides the SAME signal back to the international gateway that is provided if the CIRCUITS are busy. So the recording "We're sorry, due to circuit congestion in the country you are calling we are unable to complete your call now" -- in the case of GERMANY only, can mean either circuits within Germany busy or just that the person you are calling is talking. CCITT Signalling system No. 6 (the CCITT version of CCIS) provides different messages for "National Network Congestion" and "Called Station Busy." Unfortunately, the German network, internally, doesn't differentiate. I find this particularly inappropriate, since most people will try a call repeatedly when circuits are busy, whereas if the called telephone is busy they'll usually wait a little while. Back to the original question, ringing; due to the reasons I've already stated, it will be impossible to not tie up a circuit during ringing. It may, however, become common for circuits to be released if the call is not answered after a certain amount of time. ------------------------------ Date: 05-May-1984 1239 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Re: 800-xxx-xxx, except in Nebraska For about a year it has been possible to obtain nationwide 800 numbers. For tariff reasons, the access lines are still handled as before, with separate in-state and out-of-state (and in some states, separate bands within the state) numbers. The nationwide 800 numbers are an added cost option, and provide several additional features such as time-of-day routing, automatic band-advancement, and so on. So if someone in Nebraska doesn't think it's a problem to have two numbers, they can continue to do so. A couple of examples of Nationwide 800 numbers are 800 CALL ATT, 800 222-0200 (the AT&T business office FOR YOUR REGION), 800 EASTERN, 800 DIGITAL, etc. /john ------------------------------ Date: Sun 6 May 84 03:18:08-CDT From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Q: will US-phone work on German phone-system? The German phone system is a government monopoly, and all equipment is very expensive to rent, buying is, probably, impossible. A phone answering recorder costs a forbidding amount of money plus extra to the phone company to be allowed to use it. Some visitors are inspired by our relative freedom and the availability of 'cute gadgets' to ignore the monopoly and hook up some of what can be bought here ... IF the technology is compatible !!! Will pulse and/or frequency devices work? Can they install modular plugs on German phone lines? Will cordless phones work? Of course, it's probably illegal, but then so should be monopolies ....... thanks, werner "Ja, ja, of course, ya can get a new fone! Will ya be home at this time two years from today ??? " I am not kidding you .... ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 7 May 1984 06:08:37-PDT From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: Paying for 950- calls Calls via SBS using its 950-1088 number are paid for by SBS. The 950 prefix is a special one, reserved for use by the so-called ENFIA-B and ENFIA-C "trunk side" connections by Other Common Carriers. Sprint, MCI and the other John's Bargain Store telephone companies use ENFIA-A connections, which are really just plain local lines, and billed to you accordingly. (They pay more, though, since they have to pay about 40% as much a subsidy to local service as AT&T does.) In the coming "equal access" world, there are four types of connection, each with its own rates, between L.D. and local carriers. MCI et al use Feature Group A, "line side", where the call in to the system is billed to the caller and line quality is catch as catch can. It's the cheapest. Interstate Foreign Exchange lines may also be billed this way, which means you pay more than local rates for local calls, and less than toll rates for intra-LATA nonlocal calls. But that's another story. Feature Group B is "950" service. This costs more than FGA for the carriers, which is why most don't use it, but the intra-LATA calls are billed only to the carrier. These lines also get honest supervision, so SBS probably won't bill you for calls that didn't go through. Even long ones. Feature Group C is AT&T's unequal access, on a "1+" basis. They pay the highest fare, of course, but this goes away in a given area when Feature group D, "equal access", is offerred. Then, every carrier can get trunk side, 4-digit (10xx) access, with subscriber presubscription to the carrier of his choice for "undesignated" (1+) calls. See how slowly equal access develops. The telcos will offer it but most of the snit carriers don't want to pay for it, since much of their competitive edge comes from the Feature Group A vs. C rate differential. Eventually they may have to... ------------------------------ Date: 08-May-1984 1613 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal You should be able to find the AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal (note the new name) at any good technical library. If your library doesn't subscribe, a year's subscription costs $35, and is available from AT&T Bell Labs, Circulation Dept., Room 1E-335, 101 Kennedy Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078. Or call 201 564-3946. /john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 16-May-84 14:35:46-PDT,5245;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 16 May 84 14:29:21-PDT Date: 16 May 84 1715-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #52 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 17 May 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: U.S. Telephones in Germany Phone-A-Friend video signals over the phone Sprint Exhausts System Capacity; Stops Adding Customers In Key Cities RacalVadic Retail Market Modems? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 08-May-1984 1926 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: U.S. Telephones in Germany U.S. Telephones (both rotary dial and tone-dial) will work just fine in Germany. (By the way, the tone dial standard is CCITT Q.23, used worldwide.) I think it would be extremely foolish to use a cordless phone in Germany, however. Those little trucks that run around looking for unlicensed television and radio receivers are quite likely to catch a cordless phone, and there are fairly strict penalties for violating the Fernmeldeordnung. Answering machines could also cause problems for you if, for example, the DBP has to call you for some reason, notices that you have one connected, and notices that you don't have a registration certificate on file. Answering machines are one of the very few devices which you ARE allowed to purchase on your own -- they must, however, be approved by the DBP. Machines made in the U.S. probably aren't going to be approved. Most of the other goodies are unlikely to be noticed. If they are noticed, the Post will take swift action. The blind couple who purchased an audio-only television receiver and were caught by the DBP using an unauthorized receiver were fined and had the receiver confiscated. Remember the Fernmeldeordnung went into effect 1 January 1940, and still looks much the same. /john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 84 21:24:13 edt From: krovetz@nlm-mcs (Bob Krovetz) Subject: Phone-A-Friend I noticed the following blurb in the shareholders report from NYNEX: Phone-A-Friend For telephone users who might wish to talk - or listen - to others at random, New York Telephone is testing a new kind of reach-out service. It's called Phone-A-Friend (TM) service. This "talk show" works in an open-to-all manner. Participants can call a designated telephone number - and get in on a free-flow conversation with up to four other people. They talk back and forth as they wish, for as long as they choose. As one caller drops off the hook-up, a new one is connected. Participants are charged according to their time on the line. Some 170,000 residence customers are included in the trial, which is taking place this spring. Similar services have proved popular in Brazil, France, Great Britain, and Sweden. Market research will determine how Phone-A-Friend may be developed. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 May 84 21:32:32 edt From: krovetz@nlm-mcs (Bob Krovetz) Subject: video signals over the phone The first quarter shareholder's report from Ameritech mentioned that Ameritech Development Corporation bought a minority interest in Northern Information Technology Inc. It mentioned that this company is developing a new communications system which will transmit individual video frames over any telephone line. Anyone know anything more about this? ------------------------------ Date: 10-May-84 14:12 PDT From: William Daul Softmark/McDonnell Douglas From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA> Subject: Sprint Exhausts System Capacity; Stops Adding Customers In Subject: Key Cities From: COMMUNICATIONSWEEK May 7, 1984 ...GTE Sprint, surprised by consumer demand that exceeded forecast by more than 50 percent, has run out of capacity on its network and has stopped adding new customers in more than 35 locations. ... Sprint's network currently serves about 356 cities in the US. Most of the company's transmission is terrestrial microwave augmented by leased satellite capacity, which parent GTE Corp. this year plans to upgrade through a $1 billion expansion plan, the spokesman said. GTE Spacenet will launch its first satellite, Spacenet I, a C- and Ku-band craft. Three additional satellites are scheduled for launch in late 1984 and early 1985. The total cost for the four satellite programs and one reserve satellite is over $300 million, the company said. ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat 12 May 84 11:18:43-PDT From: Charles Garthwaite <CRG@WASHINGTON.ARPA> Subject: RacalVadic Retail Market Modems? Has anyone seen details (or units) of the 8 new desktop and inboard (PC and Apple) 300/1200 modems from Vadic (CommWeek 7May p.19). Curious about: price, 1200 protocol (34xx&/212A), does employ recently rumored TI/Vadic developed single chip for 34xx protocol? Thanx. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 30-May-84 16:18:53-PDT,18988;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 30 May 84 16:15:41-PDT Date: 30 May 84 1852-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #53 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 31 May 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Equal Access Implementation Greencastle Phone Settlement. long coiled phone cords a COUNTY surcharge? New Toy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 May 84 12:22:56 edt From: Steven Bellovin <ulysses!smb@Ucb-Vax.ARPA> Subject: Equal Access Implementation How is "equal access" being implemented? For folks served by ESSen, it seems straight-forward enough (though the database update problem is formidable). But what about folks served by crossbar exchanges? How will such COs store the data on that subscriber's default carrier? ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1984 16:41-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: Greencastle Phone Settlement. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> a221 1233 18 May 84 AM-Phone Service, Bjt,530 AT&T To Restore Special Phone Service To Elderly Couple GREENCASTLE, Pa. (AP) - An elderly couple who found they would have to pay hundreds of dollars a month to talk to friends, stores and firefighters a few miles away have won their battle for restoration of a special phone service. For 38 years, the $4-a-month service connected Arthur and Carrie Grove with friends in neighboring Hagerstown, Md., allowing them to make unlimited toll-free calls. The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland disconnected the Groves' service after the couple decided they could not afford to pay the new $222.32 a month charge, The Maryland company said the antitrust settlement that resulted in the breakup of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. restricted such private lines when the customer lived in a state served by a different phone company. The retired couple said they felt ''cut off from the world'' they had known for so long. Pic Wagner, AT&T Communications spokesman in Washington, said the Groves' service would be reconnected ''at the same rate'' the couple paid before divestiture. ''There is a tariff (rate schedule) on file covering this service, and we will honor that tariff,'' said Wagner. ''In fact, if the Groves had contacted us in the first place, we would have provided them the service.'' Mrs. Grove agreed she had not contacted AT&T in her efforts to retain the service. ''We did everything through C&P,'' she said. ''At first I was numb,'' said Mrs. Grove, of her reaction to the news AT&T would restore the service. ''Then I was elated. Then there were tears. But now I feel as if I am in a sense of suspension, because I don't know if they are going to follow through on what they already said.'' Mrs. Grove said the service had not been restored by mid-afternoon Friday, but she said AT&T notified her that the telephone would be working by Monday. Mrs. Grove, 65, and her husband, who is 67, have lived on a fixed income since Grove retired on disability in 1977. He has Parkinson's disease, a degenerative nerve disorder. The Groves live in Pennsylvania, about 100 feet from the Maryland line. To receive the special service which linked their phone with an exchange in Hagerstown, the Groves' phone was tied to a telephone pole located in Pennsylvania, 45 feet from the Maryland border. The couple said all their friends were in the Hagerstown area, and they received their groceries and fire protection from Maryland. After the old service was disconnected, the Groves got a new phone from United Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania. But their phone bills were ''astronomical,'' Mrs. Grove said. Part of the big bill involved calls to Washington to appeal for the old rate to be restored. In March, the couple took the matter to the Federal Communications Commission, which on April 25 ordered C&P of Maryland and AT&T to explain why the special service was stopped. Beverly Baker, an official with the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau, said the agency was still reviewing the responses filed by the two companies. She also said no decision had been made on whether the phone companies should be ordered to reimburse the Groves for the time they did not have telephone service. ap-ny-05-18 1531EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon 28 May 84 17:25:27-PDT From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: long coiled phone cords Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 Some time back people were looking for a source of long coiled cords that would run from the phone to the wall, as opposed to running from the handset to the phone. First of all, Radio Shack has started carrying them now. But when I just needed several, and the handset variety were on sale for half price, I tried using a modular crimp tool to replace the plugs on the handset cords with those for the line cord, and found that it worked perfectly. RS also carries the modular crimp tool which is useful for adjusting lengths of cords, etc. We're connecting up computer terminals now with modular telephone line cords, and the coiled style comes in handy in some situations. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 84 10:38:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA> Subject: a COUNTY surcharge? I have just seen Harford County insert to this past Sunday's Baltimore Sun (in Maryland). It has article about the County Council's voting on 25-cent surcharge on phone bills for the funding of 911 emergency service. (It says all Md. counties will be required to have 911 within the next year or so.) I don't know what situations there are in Md. of phone prefixes crossing county lines. (I wrote here a long time ago about such occurring in Del. & Pa.; 302-653 Smyrna, Del. had a problem with 911 installation because not all of it is in Kent County.) Harford County is bounded by Pa. state line on N, Susquehanna River on E, Chesapeake Bay on S. To the west is Baltimore County, and I have seen a map showing some zipcodes hitting both sides of that border. ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 84 21:38:13 EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: New Toy To: Telecom@RUTGERS.ARPA I recently bought myself a dialer, and seek to share my experiences with it. This is a pocket-size unit with a flip-open case, and doubles as a clock, calculator, memory or manual dialer. Officially, it is the Dictograph Dial-It II, and can be had for ~60 clams from DAK inc. [The other catalog houses wanted $70!] Now, *I* have no real use for a memory dialer, since I am reasonably good at remembering numbers and can easily outstrip this sucker for speed. This thing has 100 ''locations'' capable of holding 32 digits each [but see below]. Why so many digits, I ask?? I still haven't figured that one out - do you know anytime you would dial 32 numbers to call somewhere?? So the sucker finally showed up in the mail, and if it had a personality and wanted peace and quiet, it came to the wrong place. What do any of us do when we get a new machine? We hack away at it until we discover first its weaknesses/shortcomings, and then the workarounds to overcome those [meanwhile submitting SPR's]. I removed it from its box and examined it. Click, the case opens from the *top* - weird! Actually it turns out that this configuration makes it easier to hold and type buttons with one hand. The display was blank. I pressed a likely-looking button and got a ''d'' in the rightmost digit. Then I figured What The Hell, they gave me this nice manual along with it, might as well read it. The documentation told me the basic syntax of commands, and I took it from there. The unit does indeed produce touch-tones from a very small speaker built into the bottom. This unit is a tad thicker than a typical clock of its type; its batteries are somewhat tall and there must be room for the speaker. A small array of holes cut through the bottom of the case lets the tones out. They are the typical tones generated by that dialer chip - more square-wavey than a regular TT pad and mixed up with clocking glitches. This tends to reduce performance because the Bell tone parsers are touchy and want tons of volume. Because this must pass through the carbon mike, acoustic interfacing and tone volume/purity become somewhat important. The manual claims that if you hold the handset such that the microfern is sitting in a vertical position, it will work better - and indeed, this is the case. Holding a carbon mike that way does increase its transmission capabilities - How, I have no idea. They also mention the well-known trick of pounding the handset on the wall to break up the carbon particles. So, as I was playing around with it, storing things, deleting them, trying to do recursive invocations, whatever... I discovered lots of shortcomings, which I will not hesitate to pass back to the manufacturers. Neato things include a password you can enable to turn it on, a downcount timer, an upcount timer, 24-hour mode, 24-hour alarm, a slow-dial hook for flakey fern systems, and a Manual mode in which you press button, unit sends that tone just like a regular TT pad. Following are excerpts from the resultant flame I sent off to these people. ----------------- The unit is a really good idea, and can be quite useful even to one such as I who doesn't need 100 memories for phone numbers. With some minor fixes and improvements, this thing could be far and away the best dialer concept on the market. Let me, therefore, run down what I found wrong with it. You will see that I am using this approach because what I have to say will never fit on your Warranty Registration Card. I got your 800 number in Buffalo [the one you so thoughtfully *didn't* supply in the manual] and talked to someone who knew all about the 99 bug. He informed me that the designer resides overseas and is hard to reach; perhaps this can be forwarded to him through whatever channels?? The 99 bug is the one that bites when you attempt to modify Location 99 with a digit string of *shorter* *length* than the current contents. If you use a longer or equal string, it works okay. Otherwise the unit does really strange things with memory, loses your current storage, creates one or more locations containing *extremely* long strange sequences, and basically crashes, the only fix being power removal. You'd have to look at the microcode for the thing to begin to fix this one; I assume the aforementioned designer is responsible. The unit could use a Date register as part of the clock. This may not be built into the processor you use - but a suitable software workaround could probably be created without too much trouble. You advertise the capacity of the thing as 100 locations of 32 digits each. [That length, although *very* handy for some things, is a tad longer than most people would utilize for telephone numbers.] 100 x 32 4-bit digits is 3200 possible stored digits. Memory is kept in a 1Kx4 RAM, and allowing for location-pointer overhead, you actually get somewhere around 930 digit capacity across all the memories. This works out to around 30 *true* 32-digit locations. I notice that memory is used in dynamically-allocated chunks instead of fixed partitions - *nice* feature, but to live up to the advertising, it should have a 4K memory or so in there. The manual also fails to mention that an attempted SET returns the ''d'' in the display if memory is full. I find it regrettable that one cannot use the * and # tones within stored numbers. I would greatly favor using other keys for SET and PAUSE, and allow the * and # equivalent tones to be stored in a location as well as 1-0 and L and C. 4 bits will address 16 possible keystrokes, so bus capacity for the extra keys shouldn't be any problem. You may not believe it but this has its uses, just like 32 digits do. A somewhat blue-sky idea: Why not, instead of making 99 and 98 special, allow the in-stream insertion of *any* other location?? That way, if you have more than one long-distance carrier service, you can program more than one access code. With Bell's divestiture, there will come a day when each call will be cheapest via a certain carrier. The Dial-it could not only store a number, but using the ''insert-location-XX-here'' feature, the user can program the cheapest calling method in on top of it. Once you get people to understand what this feature could do for them, they would *welcome* a dialer with the capability. Added security would be provided by the fact that someone else wouldn't know where the person stored his personal access codes. When more of these things hit the market, all someone has to do is say ''oh neat, let me look at that'', type 99 or 98, and remember the person's access numbers, unless they are stored in some other place selected by the owner. I like the ''lock'' feature, but its usefulness diminishes when all I want to do is check the time. I therefore would only use the lock if I *know* I'm not going to be looking at it for a while, or there's a chance it would fall into the wrong hands. I haven't come up with a defeat for a locked unit yet, but give me time.... The tones leave something to be desired. The dialer chip is known for imposing a lot of clocking glitches on the signal and producing something less pure than the sine waves from a good ole Western Electric touch-tone pad. The fact that the signal must pass through the carbon mike compounds the difficulty. I found that my unit, as shipped, would not *reliably* dial my home phone [which has a brandy-spanking-new mike in it], and was completely useless on public fones. Bashing the handset and holding it vertically helped a *little* but I'd still have trouble. In an effort to fix this, I did the following: First, I installed a resistor in parallel with the one going to (-) for the output transistor. Halving the supplied resistance makes the tones louder [that's 50 ohms, supplied by you, down to 20 or 25 now. I suppose it'll drain the batteries faster!], and this somewhat improved matters. But after the carbon mike, the key to success is not just noise, it's still purity. I noticed that when I held the dialer atop a roll of electrical tape which in turn sat on the mike, performance was very good. The inside of the roll created sort of an acoustic chamber which did the right thing to the tones. I can't carry a roll of electrical tape everywhere I go, so I did the next best thing. As supplied, the configuration of holes in the back of the unit is flat and tends to rock around on the middle of the bulge of the mike piece. Since the edges therefore are open to the air, the tones escape. I sat the unit down on a small round object and bent the center of the hole pattern upward [into the unit] enough to clear the mike hump. Then I made a ring on the back out of string and duct tape. Although public phones still give me trouble, the unit works better than stock. I therefore offer the following suggestions: Build, into the back, some kind of rubber gasket that will seal around the microphone and create the right kind of resonant chamber between it and the dialer. This, if done right, won't add *too* much to the thickness. Perhaps there is an even flatter speaker out there in the market that will help? Increase the tone volume, and, if possible, high-filter the output so it's more ''pure''. I haven't figured out how to do that last bit yet; fiddling around with capacitors and things didn't work. Look into the chip that Rat Shack uses in their pocket dialer - I haven't checked but it may be different than the one you use, and I know that one does a *real* good job on any phone held in any position. I'm considering replacing the dialer chip if they are pin-compatible. Also, Rat Shack does have a rubber gasket on the back of theirs which lies quite flat and greatly aids transmission. The calculator section needs some work. Just about any $9.95 LCD calculator you pick up today will do constant holding on at least multiply and divide. That is, if you type 2 X = = = = you will see building powers of 2. This thing doesn't do that, requiring more typein, and if that wasn't bad enough, typing = twice is an implied *minus*!! Try typing 5 = = 3 =; you'll get 2. This is a definite *bug*. While you're at it, at least one memory on the calculator would be a real convenience. If you upgrade the memory to 4K, you could hold *lots* of extra numeric memory. I mentioned that the memory is dynamically partitioned. This is fine as far as capacity goes, but if you have lots of numbers programmed into it and try to read 99 or some higher-number location, the unit takes a *long* *time* to find that location. Fixed partitions might actually be more efficient and would fit in 4K, including length and insert-loc-here headers. An extra window should be installed in the lid, to keep dust out of the display. There should be a way to abort a long sequence, for those times where the phone missed a digit or something and you must otherwise wait for the entire sequence to play out [including pauses, etc]. This will become necessary, if you enable the insertion of any other location in a true recursive manner. For instance, if location 12 has 4 6 2 <insert-12> 5 in it, you'll get 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 ..... As it stands right now, 99 and 98 are recursive only one level deep, and only for the duration of *digits* within the invoked location. That is if 99 has 4 2 L 3 3 in it, invoking 99 will produce 4 2 4 2 3 3. True recursion would be more desirable [and more fun!], as long as there's an abort key. The stronger you make the case, the better. These pocket toys often get sat on, bent, and thrown around. The case as it stands is reasonably tough, but you can never be too safe, especially when they want $60 of my hard- earned green stuff for it. --------------- My inclination is to say Go Out and Buy One. It is a neat toy and has its uses, the discovery of which is left as a reader exercise. I wonder if I should have included a copyright notice along with all those ideas??? Yar, har. _H* ------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 6-Jun-84 20:05:27-PDT,5790;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 6 Jun 84 20:03:18-PDT Date: 6 Jun 84 2253-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #54 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 7 Jun 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Re: New Toy Area Codes and Prefixes Needed for Ill. Counties reminder: 212/718 split coming this month long-distance dir.asst. charge is here! International "wrong numbers" A New Old AT&T? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 May 84 22:50:58 EDT From: John R Ellis <Ellis@YALE.ARPA> Subject: Re: New Toy Do you know anytime you would dial 32 numbers to call somewhere?? When I'm in my office at Yale University and I want to make a credit-card call to a long distance number, I have to dial 33 digits: 123 a 5 digit authorization code 0 ddd ddd dddd my 14 digit credit card number (You can't make an operator-assisted or credit-card call from the sleazy Yale centrex without having an authorization code.) ------------------------------ From: Larry Seward <lseward@rand-unix> Date: 31 May 84 15:09:28 PDT (Thu) Subject: Area Codes and Prefixes Needed for Ill. Counties I need area codes and prefixes for the following Illinois counties: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Carver and Scott. I understand I can get these through my local telco (GTE), who will contact the Illinois RBOC. As this may will take several weeks if not months, I was interested in a more direct route. The numbers are needed for a local random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey. Please reply directly to LSeward@Rand-Unix Larry Seward ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jun 84 10:08:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA> Subject: reminder: 212/718 split coming this month 212/718 split was scheduled sometime this month, right? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 84 9:57:33 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA> Subject: long-distance dir.asst. charge is here! I called (from area 301 today) directory assistance in 215, and got message about 50-cent charge! I have been hearing about such charge, but am not sure what announcement was made in local phone bills. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 04:32:22 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: International "wrong numbers" a076 0704 01 Jun 84 PM-Long Distance Mystery,410 Michigan Police Department Baffled By British Callers DEWITT, Mich. (AP) - Officers at the DeWitt Police Department at first didn't mind being goodwill ambassadors to some errant telephone callers from Great Britain, but now the sound of British accents is annoying. The department has been plagued since early March with between 10 and 15 telephone calls daily from the United Kingdom, including some callers who said they were trying to reach a brothel. ''I wasn't going to answer the phone for a minute there when you called,'' DeWitt Police Chief Wendell Myers told a reporter who telephoned him from Detroit. ''I usually hear that beep-beep (long-distance signal) and then some jolly chap starts in,'' he said. The overseas calls to the department - which has four full-time and four or five part-time officers - are becoming a nuisance, Myers said Thursday. A week ago his officers began hanging up on the overseas callers, fearful that while a Briton was on the line, a local emergency call might not get through, he explained. He said the department's first responsibility is to DeWitt, a city of 3,400 residents about four miles north of the state capital of Lansing. Myers admitted that his officers enjoyed their roles as goodwill ambassadors when the calls first started. ''We've got names and addresses,'' Myers said. ''They want to send letters.'' The callers have told police they were telephoning from London, Liverpool and other U.K. cities, Myers said. ''We tell them who they're calling, but they don't seem too concerned,'' he said. The trans-Atlantic calls have baffled local telephone officials. ''This is a real strange one,'' said Mark Triewieler, a spokesman for American Telephone & Telegraph Co.'s communications division in Lansing. AT&T technicians were checking international lines to determine whether the calls were being placed fraudulently or resulted from crossed satellite circuits, Triewieler said. Dispatcher Marjean Pelky said 42 telephone calls from Great Britain arrived one day, including one from a man who thought he was talking to a bordello owner. ''What can I get for $400,'' the man asked. ''A good back rub,'' Ms. Pelky replied. The man said th price was pretty expensive and then hung up Ms. Pelky said. ------------------------------ From: <tp3!nomdenet@rand-unix> Date: Tuesday, 5 Jun 1984 16:53-PDT Subject: A New Old AT&T? The scene: Several executives clustered around a paper-strewn table. The caption: "Then, when our Bell Atlantic takeover of Pacific Telesis is complete, our leveraged buy-out of Ameritec, US West, Southwest Bell, NYNEX, and Bell South positions us to subsume the new AT&T." From the cartoon series "Keeping Up," by Wm. Hamilton. Published Friday, June 1. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Jun-84 17:45:15-PDT,4201;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Jun 84 17:38:38-PDT Date: 24 Jun 84 2031-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #55 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Monday, 25 Jun 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: ROLM PABX Trick for Penetrating a Busy PBX CallAmerica Pack ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jun 1984 20:43:03 EDT (Thursday) From: Jeffrey Edelheit <edelheit@mitre> Subject: ROLM PABX We've got a ROLM PABX that we're also using as a digital switch. (It's the newest model, not one of the older ones that had some really bad problems.) Anyway, we have had it now for about one month and have found that it has a couple of no-cost additional features such as: 1. Dropping your session without the least warning. Under this scenario, your host session gets dropped, you recall the host and can re-login. 2. Dropping your session without the least warning but when you manually reconnect, it puts you into someone else's session without you having to login! As you are going into a LAN, you can find yourself in any number of different hosts. (It's interesting to find yourself in the middle of your Dept. Head or Division Head's PROFs acct.) When you log-off of the "bad" acct. and try to login on your own acct., and if the system will not allow multiple concurrent accesses under the same user id (a la IBM VM/CMS) you can't get in unless the person who may now have your session logs-off or your you call the machine operator and request that you get forced off. All-in-all, I think the ROLM is the pits. Worse yet, I think I am stuck with it for at least 2 more years. I am sort of curious if any other Netlanders have had ane experiences with this wonderful device. I'll summarize all responses and post them for those who might be interested. Thanks in advance, Jeff Edelheit (edelheit at mitre) ------------------------------ Date: 8 June 1984 04:49-EDT From: Eliot R. Moore <ELMO @ MIT-MC> Does anyone out there use 4800bps full duplex dialup modems such as the Anderson-Jacobson 4048? Reactions and comments appreciated. Regards, Elmo ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 84 16:46:53 EDT From: dca-pgs @ DDN1.ARPA Subject: Trick for Penetrating a Busy PBX I was trying to call K-Mart Automotive today and kept hitting a busy signal. My wife suggested dialing all but the last digit, waiting 10 seconds, and hitting the last one. Worked like a charm. Why? Does the first sequence block out incoming calls? That would seem to be part of it, but I'd love to know what the whole answer is. Best, Pat Sullivan <dca-pgs@ddn1> DDN/PMO and DSN/PMO ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 84 20:15 EST From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: CallAmerica Pack I called AT&T today about some billing problems, and they gave me a commercial: it seems that I missed the news (it wasn't announced here) that the tarriffs for the $10 for one hour anywhere in America has been approved. Since I am in a Sprintless/MCIless area, I jumped for it. NET is a little behind in updating their billing programs, so it will not be till June 29 that I am officially enrolled. Also they informed me of what I have been calling "the S&L gift package". The more Long distance calls you make via them, the more credits you get towards their gift catalog. The NYT described this as being especially neat for them, since it does not cost AT&T anything, companies are freely discounting their merchandise so that they can appear in a gift catalog that will reach 100 million customers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Jul-84 20:19:02-PDT,5542;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 7 Jul 84 20:13:11-PDT Date: 7 Jul 84 1616-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #56 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Sunday, 8 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: Modern Times. TELECOM is dying "Captain Crunch" and AT&T Dialing the "1" New Pac Bell rates ~= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jun 1984 10:45-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: Modern Times. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jun 84 09:33:09 PDT (Wednesday) From: Gunther.pa Subject: Modern Times To: AllWhimsy^.pa Reply-To: Gunther.pa Footnote to program notes for the San Francisco Symphony:- "Please be sure the electronic signal on your watch or pager is switched off before the concert begins." ------------------------------ Date: Wed 27 Jun 84 19:26:32-EDT From: Jon Solomon <M.JSOL@MIT-EECS> Subject: TELECOM is dying Due to lack of input. Digests are occurring sporadically at best. Please, if you have something newsworthy, don't hesitate to publish it in TELECOM. --Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4-Jul-84 20:37:15 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: "Captain Crunch" and AT&T Greetings. There's a television commercial now floating around the networks that has some real "hidden" humor. It's from AT&T, and starts off with a super that says, "AT&T is in cereal." It then proceeds with a voiceover: "When the makers of 'Captain Crunch' cereal decided to put a treasure map into their boxes of cereal, they also put in something else that turned out to be a REAL treasure!" The commercial then goes on to explain that the "treasure" was an 800 service number for kids to call. Now, why is this commercial funny? Well, the key goes back to the dim, early days of the phone phreaks back around 1970, when the makers of Captain Crunch put something in their cereal boxes that turned out to be a treasure for lots of potential phone phreaks, and the start of major problems for AT&T. The treasure? The infamous Captain Crunch whistle. This was a small plastic whistle which happened to precisely emit the proper tone for forcing a "clear forward" on the standard toll circuits. While the phreaks quickly advanced to more sophisticated devices (the famous "blue boxes") the distribution of the Captain Crunch whistle probably serves as a good marker for the start of the phone phreak era, which is now finally drawing to a close as CCIS circuits replace the old voice-frequency controlled trunks. It was from the Captain Crunch whistle that one of the more "visible" phone phreaks, who called himself Captain Crunch, took his name. His actual name was John Draper, and his name still pops up from time to time since he seemed to have considerable trouble learning when to stop playing his games, and was repeatedly arrested. Anyway, I thought the promotion of a "treasure in the Captain Crunch box" by AT&T was worthy of note. If this doesn't demonstrate that we're in a new era of telecommunications (for better or worse) nothing does. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 05-Jul-1984 1009 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Dialing the "1" Bell Atlantic has advised the public that it will convert all end offices in New Jersey (NPA's 201, 609) to mandatory use of "1" preceding NPA-NNX-XXXX in long distance dialing. This will become effective 7/1/84. Use of 1 + 10D dialing is currently optional in these NPAs. That was last Sunday. Can our New Jersey readership comment on the successful implementation? The places without the 1+ requirement are dwindling. /john ------------------------------ Date: Fri 6 Jul 84 15:22:02-PDT From: Jim Celoni S.J. <Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: New Pac Bell rates ~= I just discovered that the 1 July '84 Pacific Bell rate increase pinches me more than I thought. I have the ORTS (Optional Residential Telephone Service) special calling plan to the area where the computers I call are (same LATA, some 20 mi away). Dialing in is more expensive now: Old New DDD first/additional min .21/.13 .23/.14 ORTS usage discount off DID 50% 30% Flat fee/month 15.75 16.50 Allowance/month 43.35 33.00 Night time incl. in allowance 27h46m 19h37m Mininum cost of 40hr nite calls 34.82 77.61 In addition, intrastate calls used to be at the rate in effect when the call began; now, when the rate period changes, so does the per-minute rate for calls in progress. Are you customers of other operating companies getting similar increases? +j ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jul 84 19:38 PDT From: Jim Celoni S.J. <celoni@Navajo> Sorry--there's an error in the note about new ORTS rates I just sent to Telecom. The NEW amount of night time included in the allowance is only 14h1m (not 19h37m as in the original). +j (Celoni@SU-SCORE.ARPA) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 10-Jul-84 16:17:35-PDT,6799;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 10 Jul 84 16:13:25-PDT Date: 10 Jul 84 1856-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #57 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 11 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: beating the high cost of toll-calls to computers Long distance directory assistance charges Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #56 Information Numbers 1+ and 0+ in NJ Mixing ATT with MCI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 84 21:14:15 PDT From: "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Subject: beating the high cost of toll-calls to computers Does the following scheme violate telco tarriffs? and what are the potential problems with it? i.e. what's the catch? I live in area which is a toll-call from various computers which I wish to access via a modem. The toll-call is measured service and so it is easy for usage to become very expensive. (Currently I have foreign exchange service which is also unpleasantly expensive and scheduled to become even more costly.) There is an area which is flat rate both to my home and to the computers I wish to dial. Suppose I obtain service with call-forwarding in that area (in a friend's home, for example) and set that service to call-forward to a telephone in my home. I don't even need an instrument in my friend's home, except for initial setup. I then put on each computer, with which I wish to communicate, a little program which, when invoked, will wait a few seconds, dial the number of the telephone in my friend's home (which will call forward to a service in my home), and when a modem answers runs "getty" on that line). Since the call from the computer to my friend's home is local (no toll) and since the call from my friend's home is also local, there should be no toll charges on the entire, forwarded call. The reason for not call-forwarding to the computer is that I am then limited to the one computer to which that line is forwarding (I don't think that there is any way of remotely changing a call-forwarding number and I don't what to bother my friend.) As I see it, the costs are (1) an additional residential line with call-forwarding (in my friend's home) which can even be measured service for it only receives calls, (2) a small toll charge each time I logon, and (3) a substantially slower logon, because I must wait for the computer to call back. Another saving is that the service I use for modems in my home can also be measured. The only problem I see is that someone (his children, for example) might run up charges on the phone in my friend's home. There must be a catch! Does anybody know what it is? ted ------------------------------ Date: Sun 8 Jul 84 13:27:02-EDT From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <RALPHW@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: Long distance directory assistance charges Well, they've finally done it. I now have to PAY for long distance directory assistance. (Even from a pay phone.) And they had the nerve to put on a synthesized message saying "50 cents, please". Now that AT&T is charging, will we see the ALDS companies offer service of their own? (I heard that MCI wants to) Will a private company (who only business would be providing directory assistance service) set up a system of their own? (Perhaps using WATS lines?) How about automated directory assistance, where they give you a little keyboard (ascii to tone) where you type in a person's name and/or address and get the number? (You can dial `O`, of course, and get a human to help.) - Ralph ------------------------------ Date: Mon 9 Jul 84 08:34:29-EDT From: David C. Feldmeier <DCF@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #56 I am currently working for Bell Communications Research in New Jersy and as far as I can tell, the conversion to the 1+ dialing has happened with no problems. I'm not sure, but I believe that Pittsburgh still does not have to dial 1 first. -Dave Feldmeier ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 84 16:00:25 edt From: fred@mit-comet (Fred Thompson) Subject: Information Numbers How have the special information numbers (such as 1-200-555-1212 which tells you what phone number you are calling from) been influenced by the breakup? The numbers vary from place to place (the above number works in Boston but not in San Fransisco) so perhaps they are provided by the regional companies, but some function must be provided by ATT long lines such as the numbers that map phone number to directory listing. By the way, does anyone know what the legal status of these number is? Is it a crime for average people to use these? What about maintaining and sharing a list of these numbers? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 1984 13:25:49-EDT From: prindle@NADC Subject: 1+ and 0+ in NJ I was just in Atlantic City recently (7-8 July) and tried leaving off the 1+ (it has been optional for years); according to NJ Bell's flyer, I was to get a recording saying to dial 1 first. The call went through unimpeded (it was to 800 WATS). Apparently all exchanges are not cut over (this was 345 in Atlantic City). A more interesting note in the flyer - to place an operator assisted or credit card call to your neighbor, you will have to dial 0+Area_Code+Number, even within the same area code! I guess this is logical if the plan is to allow doubling up of Area Codes and Exchanges, but we haven't seen anything like this in Pa. yet, and we've had 1+ for eons. Frank Prindle ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 1984 13:32:40-EDT From: prindle@NADC Subject: Mixing ATT with MCI A curious thing happens when you try to slip your ATT calling card with magnetic stripe through those MCI public phones designed to take a Master Card or Visa card: The phone dials the local MCI access number, then sends the usual string of 30 or 40 digits (just as if you had used a Visa card) - considerable time elapses (silence), then a friendly recording tells you the number you have dialed (I didn't) cannot be reached from this phone!! Curious botched error message, undoubtedly a severe reaction to the hostile ATT card within the sacred workings of an MCI phone. Frank Prindle ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 11-Jul-84 15:59:32-PDT,5546;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 11 Jul 84 15:55:22-PDT Date: 11 Jul 84 1847-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #58 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 12 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #57 Re: beating the whole cost of toll calls to computers Cost of phone service Re: beating the high cost of toll-calls to computers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10-Jul-84 17:11 PDT From: David Potter Augmentation Systems Division / MDC From: <DAP.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #57 As a resident of Princeton NJ (609 area) I have been dialing long distance daily, intentionally leaving off the 1+ to see what would happen. Up until today it worked as it always has. Today I got the message -- was required to dial 1+ before the call would go through, so I assume today is the Day. At least from 609-924.... -- David Potter ------------------------------ Date: Wed 11 Jul 84 01:09:53-EDT From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <RALPHW@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: Re: beating the whole cost of toll calls to computers It sure sounds like your idea would work (as long as the phone company doesn't find out - they might claim you're trying to avoid tolls). I was in Biloxi, Missippi a while back and I was wondering how to access the information utilities, so I called a local computer store. A salesman said that the Source was a toll call away (in Pascagoula), so he suggested calling a friend in Gulfport (within the local calling area), and asking him to set his phone to forward his phone to the Source in Pascagoula. The other method would be to set up unlimited service on your computer, then use a call-back system. This would be more expensive for the company, but cheaper for the employees. - Ralph Hyre ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 84 23:47:15 PDT From: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Cost of phone service Has anybody done any blue sky thinking about billing heuristics for phone service? Is the cost of keeping track of all the fine print for billing a significant part of the cost of running a phone system? For a starter, suppose you didn't charge for individual calls, even long distance ones, but collected all the necessary income from monthly per-phone charges. Or, rather than monthly changes, suppose you just charged per call, ignoring distance. (The post office works this way (until you get to international borders) but I'm not sure that's an argument for anything.) It's clear that there would be horrible transition problems - everybody would call their long lost grandmother and chat for hours, and all the folks who complain about the cost of computer calls would sit on a line for hours... But would things be working "normally" after a few years, or decades, or whatever it takes to get the new equipment installed? Would that end up with the billing-pollicy-units being able to vote for the quality of service they wanted by raising rates to pay for installing more equipment? Would it be reasonable/possible to set things up so that a region got better service (fewer busy signals, better quality lines, ??) if it contributed more cash for equipment? Like I said, blue sky.... ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 84 11:07:39 PDT (Wednesday) From: Thompson.PA@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: beating the high cost of toll-calls to computers Ted- The idea sounds good to me. Maybe even too good. If you asked the guy at the TelCo who files the tariffs I suspect he would say that it violates the spirit, if not the letter of the tariff. He would then scurry off to try and figure if there were some way for him to kill it. It you get in the mode of trying to be the killer of the goose you could imagine a corporate TelCom manager doing the same sort of thing on a gross basis. He would have a fist full of lines that were "located" in a closet somewhere. They would all be hooked to a device that you could dial to and reprogram the call forwarding (not a difficult device to imagine). I seem to remember a proposed CBBM/Mail system a few years ago which was based on the same sort of principle. You would be part of a net of dial-in/auto dial-out machines that ran a mail service. If you wanted to send a message from San Jose to San Francisco (toll call) you would dial into Santa Clara (local call) and the system would hop scotch it up the peninsula through 4 or 5 systems. I don't know what ever came of the idea. Presumably the only real way the phone companies can fight this is to go to all measured service. I suspect that we are headed in that direction anyway. The question therefore is: If you have call forwarding in an all measured environment, do they charge you 1 unit or 2 for a forwarded call? It seems like they ought to give forwarding away (no monthly charge) but charge the recipient 1 unit for each call. I.E. the caller gets charged 1 unit for reaching the number he dialed, the callee gets charged 1 unit for the forwarding. It all sounds like a fertile area for discussion ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 12-Jul-84 15:21:26-PDT,8947;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 12 Jul 84 15:16:04-PDT Date: 12 Jul 84 1802-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #59 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 13 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Forwarding Automated Directory Assistance Forwarding for data calls Re: Cost of phone service Using T-adaptor as line cord extender ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11-Jul-1984 1917 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Forwarding To the question on how forwarding is charged, the answer is that the caller pays for the call from his point to the forwarded phone, and the forwarder pays for the call from the forwarding point to the final (or next) destination. Regardless of whether it's toll or measured service. In fact, you used to be able to forward No. 1 ESS lines to their own number. This did not result in a loop; it appeared to be almost ignored. It prevented operators from verifying, however. But it also had the side effect, if you had measured service, that you paid for each incoming call. /john ------------------------------ Date: 11-Jul-1984 1944 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Automated Directory Assistance Munich, Germany has an automated directory assistance service running (as a trial) at the present time. The normal number for D.A. (118) has been changed to 1188. 1181 gets you the computer. It answers and asks you to enter the last name and if desired, the first name. Then it asks you for the name of the street. Then it reads you the number. Normal D.A. costs one message unit (there's no such thing as flat rate in Germany), but the automated D.A. is free. Since German phones have no letters on the dial, it took me quite a while to figure out how the system worked. We thought regular D.A. could tell us (I arrived Friday evening and was leaving Sunday, so there was no chance to call anyone more knowledgeable), but all they could say was you need a new dial number (mumble). I first tried the standard ABC DEF etc. w/ 21,22,23,31,32,33, etc. I quickly realized that couldn't be right, because they had told you that "1" was the delimeter. The main things we were trying were Kxxx on Axxxx-Bxxxxxxxstr and Sxxxoxx on Wxxxxxxxstr. No luck. On Saturday morning we went by a Post Office Telephone Store, but got there too late. (Forgive me for deleting the names of non-telehackers.) Saturday evening I tried harder. I took the phone book and found some real simple names, and was able to make it work. The problems with the two above examples were that Kxxx was not unique enough; it worked when we entered Kxxx Pxxxx (the first name). I should have realized that the error message "The input data is insufficient" meant that first name was needed. The problem with Sxxxoxx was that the "o" is not on "6", but on zero (as in England). I thought I had tried that the first evening, but apparently not, or apparently I made some other mistake. I didn't continue the experimentation enough to figure out where Q, Z, and the umlauted letters are. So, for example, assuming I lived in Munich on Poststr, one would enter 1 208378 1 1 7078 1 or 1 208378 1 5046 1 1 7078 1 COVERT POST COVERT JOHN POST in order to obtain the information. Since almost no DTMF is available in Germany (except in PBXs), somewhere there is a converter which takes the pulses and sends DTMF to the computer. (You can hear the DTMF tone after each digit is dialed.) With DTMF (such as the acoustic dialer I had with me or from the DEC PBX) the data entry can proceed much faster. There are a lot of outpulse dial phones (such as the pay phones); it works from them, too, of course, but is slow. Unfortunately, if you come into Munich on toll trunks, 118 goes to manual D.A., so there's currently no way to use it from outside Munich. I neglected to mention that the first piece of input which must be supplied is the Ortsnetzkennzahl (e.g. 089 for Munich; the 0 can be omitted). Like everything else it must be delimited front and back with a 1. Note that there is only a single 1 between last and first name, as a sub-field delimiter. The database only contained Munich at the time I was there, and to the best of my knowledge Munich is the only city which has this service yet. However, the Nuernberg phone book indicates that D.A. is being changed to 1188 this year, so I suspect they are next. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 12 Jul 1984 05:44:52-PDT From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Forwarding for data calls There is another problem with using call forwarding through a point that is local to both ends of the call. If you are trying to use a 212 type modem (1200 bps), the transmission quality is almost certain to be inadequate. Modems are very sensitive to inaudible things like phase shift. In the toll network, there's some transmission engineering to assure that the cumulative crud on a call isn't excessive. Local calls, though, usually go CO to CO directly. Those links are engineered much looser, because they don't normally link together. Call forwarding will force a link to go through, but it won't cancel the cumulative effects of two "local" links. Net result: Lousy data transmission. Whenever call forwarding is established, the forwardING line is charged for the call to the forwardEE. Your friend would be charged message units if he had measured service. It might not be toll fraud, but it might lend ammo to Telco's case to impose forced measured local service on us all. Re: the suggestion that billing is too complicated to pay its own way; one of the main arguments against measured local service is the cost of billing. It costs a penny or two to track a call; a quick perusal of Exchange Carriers Association tariff FCC#1 (what the local telcos use to charge ATTCOM to put toll calls on local bills) indicates that the billing service costs AT&T about a dime per call. For toll calls, that's not unreasonable. But for local calls, there's a philosophical issue. The true direct cost per local call is usually a fraction of a cent per minute. The message rate charges is usually many times true cost, and more than the cost to measure. But the cost to measure is greater than the cost per call. A true crock. The FCC is essentially correct in their "access charge" ruse, in that it puts more costs where they are incurred, in the basic monthly rate per line. But people hate to admit that their local telco's been giving them a bargain all along on anything at all... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 10:25 PDT From: Thomka.es@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: Cost of phone service Re: "didn't charge for individual calls, even long distance ones, but collected all the necessary income from monthly per-phone charges." What you are suggesting is similar to a place called Utopia. A place where there are no charges for services rendered. Everybody would take what they want, use what they want, etc. The people would, of course, all be productive, responsible citizens. There is no greed, where somebody simple had to have more that someone else. Your idea might be called Belltopia, a place where for one reasonable flat price all services of the telephone network would be usable. If people could be made greedless your idea might work. But I don't think I'll ever see it in my lifetime. Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Tue 10 Jul 84 22:29:57-PDT From: Tim Gonsalves <Fat.Tag@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: Using T-adaptor as line cord extender Reply-to: Gonsalves@SU-Sierra.Arpa I plugged 2 25' modular line cords into the two arms of a T-adaptor to form a 50' combination and plugged one end of the combination into the wall socket and the other into a WE standard Touch Tone phone (of about 3-4 years vintage). Dial tone was okay, but pressing buttons had no effect except for the tone in the earphone. The 2 cords work separately. Also, the T-adaptor works in the following two situations: 1. adaptor plugged into the phone, line cord and cord to a modem plugged into the 2 arms. 2. adaptor plugged into the wall socket, line cords to two phones plugged into the 2 arms. Any ideas why this improvised 50' cord failed? - Tim Gonsalves ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 15-Jul-84 19:26:42-PDT,11819;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 15 Jul 84 19:20:18-PDT Date: 15 Jul 84 2208-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #60 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Monday, 16 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Re: Using T-adapter as line cord extender Costs of billing Re: Using T-adaptor as line cord extender: TELECOM Digest V4 MCI with a green card Re: Using T-adaptor as line cord extender Line Cord Solution T-adaptor on phone line cords GTE out of touch with reality ? Re: Using T-Adaptor as line cord extender Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #59 Automated directory assistance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12-Jul-1984 1848 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Re: Using T-adapter as line cord extender The problem is that you are getting a polarity reversal. You will note that the tone in the receiver when pressing TT buttons was quite short. You need to get a female-female connector, a phone with a polarity guard, or a 50' cord. The T-adapter is bad for another reason; if left connected to the line for a long time, if there is any dampness where you are, the contacts on the T-adapter will begin to build corrosion bridges across the plastic and will short out. This is why the contacts in a jack use a different insulation technique. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 19:43 EDT From: Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Costs of billing Reply-to: Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA I can't locate the reference any more, but I remember seeing in 1978-79 that the SYSTEM-WIDE costs for AT&T in billing, administration, and marketing were more than 50% of the net expenses. In other words, it cost more to market and bill telephone service than the costs of providing the service. At the time, the cost of service per unit capacity was declining and the cost of marketing and administration was increasing. Paul ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 84 16:57:08 PDT From: liebman.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: Using T-adaptor as line cord extender: TELECOM Digest Subject: V4 The reason for there being no dial tones with the "T" adaptor is that the signal carrying wires are reversed. This causes the muted DTMF tones described. Using another "T" and 25' extension cord would reverse the wiring back to normal. Of course there are back-to-back female connectors designed expressly for the purpose the purpose intended. -- Mark Van Cleef Liebman ------------------------------ Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 21:02:22-EDT From: Philip A. Earnhardt <S.PAE%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: MCI with a green card American Distress is now offering MCI service under the name Expressphone. The billing will appear in your monthly AMEX bill. There's no subscription fee and no minimum billing. If you have an AMEX card and need more info, the WATS number to call is (800) 327-1004. MCI is targeting for September for the equipment to validate your secret number nationwide. This will probably take a chunk out of the present AT&T caling card business. Has MCI's quality of service been improving? In particular, how are people doing with 1200 baud modems? I'd be most interested in instances where it wasn't working about a year ago but does now. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 84 09:28:09 edt From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: Re: Using T-adaptor as line cord extender I suspect that by plugging things together that way, you reversed the ring and tip wires. Older DTMF phones are polarity-sensitive; newer ones use a rectifier. ------------------------------ Date: Fri 13 Jul 84 07:24:14-EDT From: RMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Line Cord Solution Tim (I believe) -- It appears that your T adapter is reversing the polarity (tip & ring) on your phone line. A solution would be to open either your phone or the jack and swap the Red and Green wires (reverse them). The only drawback with this is that your phone will only work while you're using your T adapter set-up. It ain't gonna work on the stand-alone cords since the polarity will be reversed again. A better fix would be a full-wave bridge rectifier connected to the Touch-Tone (*) pad power supply. Hope this helps... Root (*) Touch-Tone is a registered Trademark of AT&T. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 84 1229 EDT (Friday) From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Subject: T-adaptor on phone line cords Phone line adaptors are more complicated than power connectors in that phone line connectors, like terminal connectors, have a parity. The wall socket has a different parity than the socket on the phone unit. The cord is flat, and thus inverts the order of the wires in the socket, viz: A <----------------> A B <----------------> B C <----------------> C D <----------------> D The plugs on the ends of the wires COULD be attached so that if you were to hold the release thumb up, wire towards you, wire A would always be on the right. But no; on one end, if you do that, wire A is on the right; on the other end, wire D is on the right. So the cord inverts the order of the wires. The wall socket and the phone set are set up to expect that. So an extension adaptor would itself have to invert the order of the wires, if the cords plugged into it were being used in series. Now let's look at your T-adaptor. Your T-adaptor, if it has a plug at its stem and sockets at each of its two arms, shouldn't invert the wires at all between each pair of stem and socket. This makes it look just like the wall socket to the phone cord. Well, when you connect your two phone cords in series with the two arms, you don't get an inverting connector; the connection between wall and telephone has its wires inverted from the way it expects to operate. No wonder some things don't work as advertised. It's interesting to notice that if the connectors were attached the other way on the wire, and all extenders and Ts modified appropriately (to be non-inverting), you'd be able to use your T-connector as an extending connector. Here are some pictures to make it clear. Suppose the four wires are always in the plane, and the convention is that we point to conductor A with an arrow. Here's a simple wall-to-phone connection: | cord wall |^ ^==========================================^ ^<phone> | Notice how we make a mating by having the arrows point in the same direction. Now here's an in-line extension connector: | cord cord wall |^ ^===============^ ^==conn==^ ^============^ ^<phone>= | Notice that the in-line connector inverts the wires in the same way that the connecting cord does. (To see how it's ``inverting,'' suppose that you bring the two ends of a cord together, always keeping the wires in the plane: ^====\ | v====/ ) Now let's make a T-connector. The point is that the T-connector makes two wall sockets out of one: | /===^ wall |^ ^===< | \===^ Now bend the two socket ends around to make a straight line, and compare it to the in-line connector: v====T====^ | | < So the two socket ends are the reverse of the style of connection from the in-line connector. QED. (Sorry for the crude arrows here, but ASCII is so limiting...) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1984 0950-PDT From: Lars Poulsen <LARS at ACC> Subject: GTE out of touch with reality ? Reply-to: LARS at ACC Santa Barbara is a GTE service area, where most of the equipment is antiquated; there is a number shortage and until a year ago service was real lousy (insufficient intercity trunks, new service took at least a week to connect etc). The AT&T breakup seems to have raised the profit margins so that we now see improved service: Same-day connections in some cases, next day in most. New electronic exchanges coming in offering call forwarding, call waiting, zero-plus dialing etc. But not international dialing !!! The phone book has a page with international country codes and the words: "Although you are unable to dial direct to international points, you will receive the initial dial rate unless special operator assistance is required for person-to-person, collect, calling card calls, etc. Dial "0" operator and give the *NAME* of the country you wish to call." [emphasis mine] As a matter of fact, dialing 011 works fine on the electronic exchanges, of course, and the calls get billed as they should. But the phone company insists that this is not possible. The operators at the company switchboard were tired of having to explain to GTE operators in LA (which we sometimes get when dialing "0") that we really could not dial overseas, and we tried to get an access line that would allow overseas dialling. The GTE salesman gave a quote for a foreign-exchange line to Ventura (40 miles away) and positively insisted that NO Santa Barbara exchange had this capability, even after our phone guy told him of one that did. Why on earth would GTE deny the existence of a valuable feature ? / Lars Poulsen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 84 11:43:36 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Re: Using T-Adaptor as line cord extender When you use the T as you suggested you are probably reversing the two wires in the pair. The standard TPC touch tone phone will not touch tone if the polarity is backwards. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 84 10:11 PDT From: Thomka.es@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #59 As for your problem where a T-adaptor did not work as a splice between two 25' modular line cords. The reason the belltone was okay, but pressing buttons had no effect was that the Tip and Ring lines were reversed in one (between the T and the wall) side. You can do a couple of things to fix it. 1) [And I don't recommend this] is to rewire one phone so that its Tip and Ring are reversed, so as to make it 'right'. or 2) Buy a small female-to-female adapter to use instead of the T. These are small blocks to extend cords as you have attempted to do. I've understood that some of the newer touchtone phones fron Bell Systems have a polarity reversal block inside. Thus having the Ring and Tip reversed cause no problem. Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 84 14:44:39 EDT From: Chuck Kennedy <kermit@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Automated directory assistance I've noticed recently that when I call directory assistance now, the operator will ask what city and name I need, a few seconds elapse and then I am cut over to a recorded voice which announces the correct number. It seems to be a timesaver for the operator since she just punches in the number (guessing here) and can go on to the next caller. After the recorded voice announces the number twice, it says that if you still need assistance, please stay on the line and an operator will assist you. -Chuck Kennedy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Jul-84 11:06:06-PDT,9981;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 22 Jul 84 11:02:50-PDT Date: 22 Jul 84 1347-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Monday, 23 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: 900 Service Automated Directory Assitance Semi-automated directory assistance Charges for unlisted numbers 950-10xx Nitrogen tanks State Telco Regulation Loss of network television feeds The AT&T PC - Who Actually Makes It? AT&T ISN Announcement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun 15 Jul 84 23:37:06-EDT From: Philip A. Earnhardt <S.PAE@MIT-EECS> Subject: 900 Service What sort of call volume does a 900 number have to get before it generates money? How much revenue would you get for 100 calls a day? Is there an 800 AT&T number that can give me more information? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 84 0958 EDT From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A.ARPA Subject: Automated Directory Assitance According to some Public Service channel or something I read a while back. Ma Bell changed the directory assitance operators job so all they needed to do was type in the parameters to get the number and then a machine would answer for the operator. It turned out that they saved 3 to 7 seconds and that considering that they were getting so many million phones calls...they saved lots of money not spent on man-hours. -Rudy ------------------------------ Date: 16-Jul-1984 0632 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Semi-automated directory assistance I think one should call the D.A. service in the U.S. which give you the recorded announcement of the number after the operator has looked it up "semi-automated," unlike the truly automated service in Munich. The operator looks up the number and leaves her cursor positioned to the entry requested. When she punches "announce" the system takes her to the next call and you to the machine (she doesn't have to key in the number). If you hang on the line, you will appear at another operator's position, with the display positioned where the previous operator left it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 84 10:03:36 EDT From: Will Martin <wmartin@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Charges for unlisted numbers The following was inspired by a recent discussion about "junk phone calls" in USENET's net.consumers, the effectiveness of being unlisted to deter these, and the options (and charges) available from some local telcos: It was my impression that the justification for charging for having an unlisted number was that the telco incurred more "information" calls as a result of people not finding your name & number in the book. This was prior to the current practice of charging callers for "information" calls, which I believe is now just about universal. This latter should eliminate the costs the telcos used to justify charging the holder of an unlisted number, right? So how do they NOW justify charging you for NOT doing something; that is, for not printing your name & number in the telephone books? Will ------------------------------ Date: 17 July 1984 16:52-EDT From: Ray Hirschfeld <RAY @ MIT-MC> Subject: 950-10xx Is there an easy way to determine who is assigned to the various 950 numbers? I know SBS is 1088 and USTel is 1033; among the few others I've tried at random, 1022 and 1044 yield tones, but I don't know whose. Most of the others give the message "the number you have reached, 950-10xx, is being checked for trouble." I'm shopping for long distance service and it would be nice to know which companies provide 950 numbers, which I prefer to random local numbers. ------------------------------ From: A2DEH@MIT-ML Date: 07/17/84 21:22:11 Subject: Nitrogen tanks A2DEH@MIT-ML 07/17/84 21:22:11 Re: Nitrogen tanks To: TELCOM at MIT-MC I have seen tanks of nitrogen hooked up by a long tube to splices in cables on telephone poles. Is this used to cool the splices in some way, or is it to flush out oxygen to prevent oxidation? How commonly is this done? Is this something that the phone company does to their lines, or might it be for the cable TV lines? -Don ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 84 12:03 EST From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: State Telco Regulation There was an article that appeared in the NYT last Sunday that talked about how the State PUC's were rebelling against the deregulation lead taken by the FCC. The report states that they are basically hostile to the FCC and its plan to shift the cost from long distance to local service. They want to go much slower with things like access fees and are not "allowing Telco to lower its rates on long distance". I have several questions about this: 1. By what mechanisms can the state PUC's keep money artificially flowing from ATT to the Locals? 2. What is the scope of a PUC's power? I would think that it could regulate Intra-state IntraLata long distance fees, but if the FCC deregulates inter-state fees, there is nothing they can do? 3. If the PUC's demand disproporionate fees from ATT for intrastate interlata calls, must they not also demand the same from the other carriers, and demand the same cash flow to the locals? - Steve Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jul 84 11:35:09 EDT From: Will Martin <wmartin@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Loss of network television feeds On the evening of Tuesday, 17 July 84, at several intervals during the period of 1900-2000 (7-8 PM) CDT, all three of the major television network (NBC, CBS, & ABC) program feeds were simultaneously lost here in St. Louis, MO. The outages lasted for periods of 5 - 10 minutes, and when programming resumed, the signals seemed normal, until the "trouble on the network" slides re-appeared. In the brief interval before the slide appeared, the signal seemed to vanish abruptly and completely, leaving nothing but snow with no audio. This affected all three networks simultaneously each time, until the third (or so) occurrence, when it affected only two networks (I believe that it was ABC that came through OK that time, but I may be mis-remembering.) When it first happened, I assumed that the problem was that a satellite went out (I thought that all three networks feed using the same satellite for a given region -- am I wrong in this assumption?). After all the ASAT discussion in net.space, I then thought that we might be at war. When "Foulups, Bleeps, and Blunders" came back on, I was reassured as to the latter possibility... We stopped watching TV at 2000, so I do not know if these interruptions continued past that time. Anyway, I am posting this to ask: 1) Did this happen nationally, or at least regionally (midwest)? Or was it local to St. Louis? 2) Does anyone know of satellite problems, UFO's appearing between the Earth and geosynchronous orbit, mysterious electromagnetic fields, or other phenomena that would explain this unprecedented (in my experience) situation? (I thought that each local network affiliate had their own earth station, so simultaneous trouble on all three would have to be caused at the source [or by a well-coordinated guerrilla attack...].) 3) Was anyone watching cable channels, such as HBO, which are also satellite-fed, and did they suffer similar outages at this time? (We have no cable available yet in St. Louis City, and couldn't check this. Local independent & PBS stations continued to broadcast during this time.) 4) Am I totally off-base about this being satellite-related? (That is, are these feeds via microwave or landline, and maybe some local or upstream interference caused the interruptions?) Anybody have comments or experiences related to this, or similar, that they wish to post? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 84 18:27:06 EDT From: dca-pgs @ DDN1.ARPA Subject: The AT&T PC - Who Actually Makes It? I've been seeing lots of ads for the AT&T PC. Heard a rumor that it's actually built by an overseas (foreign) corporation. Anybody know? That would be a bit ironic; my understanding was that one expected payoff of the divestiture would be a strengthening of the U. S. position in the world hi-tech marketplace. If the rumor is correct, this would mean that the divestiture has resulted in AT&T being a U. S. rep for imported products. Hmmm... Somebody please say it ain't so. Best, Pat Sullivan DDN/DSN ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 20 Jul 1984 21:54:20-PDT From: mckendry%exodus.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (NER Network Coordinator) Subject: AT&T ISN Announcement Can anybody provide any facts on AT&T's ISN (product/service announced at the end of June)? If not facts, rumors or speculation or scuttlebutt? Please do not tell me anything that's a trade secret, as I work for a possible competitor. But within the strictures of what's public knowledge: What is it? What does "ISN" stand for? What is it sort of like, only different? Why is it good? How does it fit into the OSI Reference Model? Compare and contrast. Be specific. Give examples. Thanks, -John decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-exodus!mckendry mckendry%exodus.DEC@decwrl.ARPA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Jul-84 14:29:34-PDT,14038;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Jul 84 14:23:47-PDT Date: 24 Jul 84 1713-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #62 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 25 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Area codes Nitrogen All sorts of misc. replies... Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 Re: Nitrogen tanks Satellites AT&T IBM PC clone Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 Try Again: AT&T ISN Announcement Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 84 12:38:52 PDT From: "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Subject: Area codes An article in today's Los Angeles Times states that, according to Pacific Bell, only 5 to 10% of the calls from the 213 area code to the newly split-off area code 818 (comprising primarily the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley sections of Los Angeles County) use the 818 area code, which is still voluntary, while about 70% of the calls from other area codes use 818 (in preference to 213 which is still valid). It is clear that the local residents don't want to dial the extra four digits: 1818 (while it makes no difference to people from other area codes). This raises two questions: The area code arrangement in North America is extremely rigid: 3 digits for the area code and 7 digits for the local exchange. In Europe it is much more flexible with variable numbers of digits for both area codes and local exchanges. So metropolitan areas use more digits for the local exchanges and have shorter area codes than rural areas. It appears that this may be a more effective use of the available digits and also be more humane. If this kind of scheme had been used in the USA, one might have found the entire states of California and New York, and perhaps the combined area of Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland, requiring 8 digits. That is these 8 digits would enable one to call anyone in the entire area (all of California -- all of New York -- all of Washington, Maryland, and Virginia). At the same time it wouldn't be necessary to tie up the almost 10,000 possible numbers for an exchange on a tiny little hamlet (this is what did in the area code 714 -- the exchanges were used up one-by-one by the tiny villages in the eastern part of California where the area code extends far north). My first question is: Would the more flexible European arrangement be an improvement and would it be possible to change to it at this late date? Note that natural languages work this way. Commonly used words are short and easy to pronounce while esoteric words are longer with several syllables. Of course this is not a hard and fast rule! My second question concerns assignment of local numbers and area codes, etc. under either system. In the past it was done by the benevolent dictator, AT&T (in coordination with a few minor telephone companies who had little say in the matter). Now it seems that there are no rules concerning such assignment. Could Sprint, MCI, AT&T, etc. each have their own area codes? Note that this could be a selling point: "You dial less digits when you use MCI!", etc. This could be achieved by having variable length area codes consisting of single digits for the major metropolitan areas and several digits for isolated places in the back woods. What about assignment of local numbers? I suppose that is reserved to the local operating companies. Are there any regulations which require them to maintain the seven digit scheme. Taking an area familiar to me, could Pacific Bell and GT&E, in consortium, reassign numbers in California so that there would be a uniform 8-digit numeral system across the state. They could do this while requiring residents of isolated areas, such as Lone Pine or Bishop, to dial only 4 digits for local calls. (A leading "1" could put them on the statewide system and and a leading "11" could put them on the nationwide system with area codes, etc.) One could even conceive of schemes where your local number, your MCI number, your AT&T number, etc. are all different, and perhaps unrelated. This is beginning to happen to the addresses of computers which are on a number of different nets. What is going to happen? ted ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 84 16:50:05 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Nitrogen I thought the point of pressurizing cables with nitrogen was to keep the water out. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22-Jul-84 16:11:08 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: All sorts of misc. replies... A few replies to earlier TELECOM questions/comments: 1) Regarding Semi-Automated Directory Assistance... The system is being installed by the BOC's as they desire -- there is no longer really such a concept as an "edict" from AT&T that such would be done, for obvious reasons. Where the systems have been installed, they vary considerably in voice quality. Some speak at a fairly good pace, but with a highly distorted synthesized voice. Others have a good synthesizer and also speak at a reasonable pace. The system that recently went into place in L.A. seems to be the newest model -- it has a high quality synthesized voice but speaks the number V E R Y S L O W L Y... So slowly that you tend to forget the first numbers by the time you get to the last ones. We are used to remembering these numbers in the standard 3+4 pattern and a system that violates this pacing can cause problems. In fact, I'm told that they've had numerous complaints about this very point, but it isn't clear what (if anything) they're going to do about it. Of course, if you want an address, you now have to sit around through two repetitions and wait for an operator to return... 2) Charges for unlisted numbers ... The theory is that the charge covers the extra costs of keeping those numbers OUT of normal publication channels. That is, you are paying extra for them to "alter" the "normal" procedure to which your number would ordinarily be subjected. It is thusly charged as a "non-standard" sort of service and a premium is applied. You may accept this reasoning or not, as you choose. 3) Bottles on the phone lines... Those bottles are present to try keep the phone lines' pressure above atmospheric norm, in an attempt to keep out moisture. The bottles chained to phone poles tend to be used whenever "trouble" spots show up on particular cables. 4) Loss of TV Network feeds... Here is a copy of my reply to Will's message sent to Usenet, where he also posted that same message. --- Subject: Loss of TV Network Programming -- Don't Blame the UFO's! Message-ID: <362@vortex.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 18:35:05 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.362 You can safely assume it was a local effect -- most likely a failure at the telco switching office that brings in the feeds from the three commercial networks. First of all, with the exception of PBS, which is largely satellite based these days, the networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) are almost completely coaxial cable distributed for "on-air" purposes. There are some satellite feeds of particular programs to deal with east/west coast time delays on "topical" programs (like "The Tonight Show," for example) but the actual distribution of programs to local stations is still almost 100% by cable, not by satellite. There are also occasional satellite feeds between network O&O's and affiliates for special programming purposes, but that still doesn't change the basic cable-based aspect of the distribution network. All three networks are now embarking on programs to gradually switch their feeds over to satellite distribution, but it has been going rather slowly, mainly due to problems with the newer 12Ghz satellites (relating to rain-induced fading, interference, etc.) In most areas, all three commercial networks feed into a city through ONE ROOM at a primary telco switching point. I've been in the main feed control room for Los Angeles (down in the massive "L.A. Central" C.O. on Grand) and there are three monitors sitting next to each other in a rack that are the feed checks for the three networks. A localized power failure, circuit breaker trip, or other similar effects could easily have affected all or some of the networks simultaneously. There are supposed to be backups to prevent such things, but all systems can fail. So Will, I'm sorry, but you can't blame UFO's for this one. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun 22 Jul 84 22:30:23-EDT From: Wang Zeep <G.ZEEP%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 Olivetti designed the original version of the AT&T PC. The monitor was substantially changed (PC Week from a couple of weeks ago had a big article), but the rest are roughly the same. Several of the new AT&T (as yet unannounced) PCs are OEMed from Convergent Technologies. Olivetti is getting so closely tied to AT&T in Europe that it may not be fair to flame too much about foreign intervention in our favorite company. The lamb may lie down with the lion, but it better check all of its fingers and toes when it gets up again! wz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jul 84 23:04:26 EDT From: Robert Jesse <rnj@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Re: Nitrogen tanks RF transmission lines, waveguides, etc. are often kept at positive pressure in order to keep moisture out. I don't know just what kind of lines you saw, but the tanks were probably serving the same purpose. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 23 Jul 1984 07:43:32-PDT From: nelson%quill.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (How Fast Can We Multiply?) Subject: Satellites Re: Disruption of network signals in St. Louis. There are about a dozen satellites that are retransmitting commercial television signals to various parts of North America. Most of the transponders carry pay-tv signals like HBO, MTV, and CNN; they also carry the "superstations" like WTBS-Atlanta, and WGN-Chicago. The satellite that carries NBC and CBS is COMSTAR D3, located 87 degrees W. NBC uses transponder number 1; CBS uses numbers 10 and 17. ABC's network feed is off of TELSTAR 301, 96 degrees W, transponder 10. It's possible that there could have been some problem with COMSTAR D3, which would explain why ABC was still broadcasting when CBS and NBC were down. Source: ORBIT Satellite Reference Card for North America, CommTek Publishing. JENelson ENET: QUILL::NELSON ARPA: nelson%quill.DEC@decwrl.ARPA UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-quill!nelson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 84 14:28 EDT From: Stephen Tihor <TIHOR@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA> Subject: AT&T IBM PC clone It is an Olivetti product in Europe although some claimed to me that it was actually an Olivetti repackaging of Japanese IBM PC clone (Hitachi?). In any case it is part of a cross marketing deal whereby Olivetti sells Unix System V in Europe. (See recent International Herald Tribunes). // ARPAnet: Tihor@NYU-CMCL1 UUCPnet address: ...!ihnp4!cmcl2!cmcl1!tihor \\ (( DEC Enet: RHEA::DECWRL::"""TIHOR@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA""" NYUnet: TIHOR.CMCL1 )) \\ Stephen Tihor / CIMS / NYU / 251 Mercer Street / New York, NY 10012 // ------------------------------ Date: Mon 23 Jul 84 16:45:33-EDT From: David C. Feldmeier <DCF@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 I believe that the AT&T PC is manufactured by Ollivetti. I was in Vancouver last week for the IEEE 802 Network Standards conference and a Canadian paper was advertising the Ollivetti machine, which seemed to be the same thing. -Dave Feldmeier ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 23 Jul 1984 19:37:14-PDT From: mckendry%exodus.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (NER Network Coordinator) Subject: Try Again: AT&T ISN Announcement Apparently this message was not received by some people, so I will try to post it again. If you couldn't read it previously and still can't read it, please let me know... Can anybody provide any facts on AT&T's ISN (product/service announced at the end of June)? If not facts, rumors or speculation or scuttlebutt? Please do not tell me anything that's a trade secret, as I work for a possible competitor. But within the strictures of what's public knowledge: What is it? What does "ISN" stand for? What is it sort of like, only different? Why is it good? How does it fit into the OSI Reference Model? Compare and contrast. Be specific. Give examples. Thanks, -John decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-exodus!mckendry mckendry%exodus.DEC@decwrl.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 18:17:33 PDT From: David H. Siegel <vortex!dave@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #61 Nitrogen!!!!!! The Nitrogen bottles you see adorning your local telco cables are used to expel moisture from the cables. This has two effects: 1- Crosstalk in the cable is reduced and 2- Cable eating mice have their voices raised in pitch. Dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 26-Jul-84 15:45:08-PDT,11290;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 26 Jul 84 15:39:46-PDT Date: 26 Jul 84 1612-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #63 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 27 Jul 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Commercial TV networks and satellites amusing line screwup magic number like ""958"" Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #62 ATT & Olivetti Charging for local Directory Assistance calls Public Citizen Why phone numbers are fixed-length Everyone should memorize their Telephone credit card number. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 17:41:43 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: Commercial TV networks and satellites Just to clarify my earlier remarks -- the networks do indeed have satellite transponders that they use for special feeds and west/east coast relaying of particular programs. But the vast majority of local stations are still fed by telco cable, not by satellite, so a simultaneous loss of all three networks seems to point squarely at the telco distribution facility. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 24 July 1984 22:29-EDT From: Bruce J. Nemnich <BJN @ MIT-MC> Subject: amusing line screwup Here at Thinking Machines, we have had an interesting phone-line screwup with the lines recently installed at our new building in Cambridge. Over the last two weeks, we have received several wrong numbers an hour, and most of the callers are local (Boston area) people dialing a long distance number direct. We have also gotten the calls of several non-local dialers dialing Boston directory assistance (617-555-1212)! The most amusing part of it is that the local callers actually get a bill for the long distance call to Cambridge; it is itemized with our correct number, complete with the 617 area code. I have no idea how much they are charged. Anyone care to offer an explanation of the nature of the screwup? New England Telephone hasn't figured it out after two weeks. --bruce ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 84 23:59 EDT From: David H M Spector <SPECTOR@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA> Subject: magic number like ""958"" Does anyone out there know if there are any other 'utility' numbers such as the '958' number wich will return the number of the phone from which it is diled?? Thanks Dave Spector ------------------------------ Date: Wed 25 Jul 84 04:01:53-CDT From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #62 Jon, there is an aspect of some postings to the group which tends to be rather annoying; When messages have subject-lines Re: TELECOM Digest V4#62 I know, of course, how this comes about, but I wonder if we can't think of something to do about it. For one, we might post a request, asking people to modify the subject lines according to the topic which they are addressing. Seconly (and I know this is asking much) maybe you could keep an eye on this problem while you are screening the messages and combining them for V4 #next, and insert the correct Subject title in the Index at the beginning. now if this doesn't make your day .... (-: Werner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 84 09:15:10 edt From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin) Subject: ATT & Olivetti Note that ATT owns 25% of Olivetti. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jul 84 13:37:47 CDT From: Will Martin -- DRXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1> Subject: Charging for local Directory Assistance calls Back a year (or maybe two) ago, I precipitated some discussion in the Telecom list about charging for Directory Assistance calls, and postulated that the only justifiable method of charging was to charge ONLY for those calls which were unnecessary -- where the number was in the book. Calls about unlisted numbers and new listings should not be charged for, as there was no other way to find out about them except by calling Information. Immediately thereafter, there was response from many of the contributors as to how this distinction was not possible, that there was no way a D.A. operator could flag a call as "chargeable" and "not chargeable", etc. This came from MANY participants, including those I respect as being well-versed in the inner workings of the bowels of telcos. Locally, here in St. Louis (Southwestern Bell territory), we have an allowance of free D.A. calls, and all D.A. calls over that allowance are charged for, whether necessary of frivolous. Now, I hear from other people, due to a discussion on USENET, that other telcos DO make the distinction I had earlier described, and that they CAN distinguish between calls for listed numbers, which are charged for, and calls for other numbers, which are free. I append a message from a correspondent outlining just such a situation. So what is going on? All of you out there who said it wasn't possible: it obviously is. Why did you all so mislead me back in that previous discussion? And why isn't this the universal situation, if it is possible? It is the only justifiable method of charging for Information service, after all! Will Martin ----- Forwarded message # 1: Date: Mon, 23 Jul 84 13:32:33 edt Subject: Re: D.A. call charges Here in Rochester, where we're under the smiling gaze of Rochester Telephone Corp. (which never was a Bell System company), our directory assistance calls cost us 8.3 cents apiece unless there's a valid reason why you had to call d.a. to get the info (e.g., new listing, unlisted number (they won't give it to you, but they won't charge you for telling you so, either), etc.) We have no monthly allowance of free calls; the 8.3 cents applies from the beginning. I was surprised at this policy when I moved here from Kansas (also S.W. Bell territory) several years ago, as I had never heard of it before. Hope this info is useful. ---- Warren R. Carithers, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, N.Y. 14623 ----- End of forwarded messages ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 84 17:02 EDT From: Stephen Tihor <TIHOR@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA> Subject: Public Citizen Just got a piece of polical junk from a group called "Public Citizen" arguing for something called Citizen's Utilities Boards which sounded like public interest PUC lobbies, a not unreasonable thing to have, but packaging this as a plea to 'stop big business from ripping you off' by making you pay the "access charges". All a viscious plot against the poor consumers don'tcha know. AT&T not willing to pay its fair subsidy to the local OC and all that. Of course no mention of trying to charge the same rates to the OCCs, and private business bypass networks, and .... Sigh. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 25 Jul 1984 06:04:05-PDT From: goldstein%donjon.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Why phone numbers are fixed-length Ted's idea about variable vs. fixed-length numbering in the US (last issue Telecom) would not be practical in the US for several reasons. The European public network is designed differently, using different types of equipment. Specifically, it's been mostly step by step offices, which are inherently very flexible (the number ends when you run out of switches in the train). In the US, however, we (still) have lots of crossbar offices. These were designed with 3+4 dialing in mind, and have nice, rigid, inflexible (relay) translators which decode 3-digit combinations at the beginning of a call. In effect, they're fixed-length table driven, rather than logic-tree driven. So converting them to anything but the present plan is extremely difficult. In fact, "equal access" rules are designed to work only on electronic exchanges, since crossbars are too rigid and steppers have no provision for "presubscription" to a given default carrier. In an all-electronic environment (say, well into the next century), there'd be more flexibility if everyone rewrote everything and we wanted to change numbers around, but even then, the benefits are doubtful. Fixed-length dialing simplifies the operation of things like autodialers, PBX automatic route selection, traffic analysis programs, etc. Variable length numbering would be incompatible with the types of supervision used today between offices. Europe uses different methods of inter-office signalling (such as "compelled signalling" and some others) which acknowledge each digit as received, while fixed-length numbers are handled (in the non-CCIS world) as "packets" of n digits, which are merely counted by the recipient. Et cetera. Some step offices still have 4-digit and 5-digit dialing, but most telcos are moving to 7-digit as soon as replacements are in place. Not because they must but because it's standard practice. Area code assignments are now presumably the responsibility of Bellcore (Bell Communications Research Inc.), which is collectively owned by the 7 spun off BOCs. They are also the keepers of the proverbial "V&H tape", which is used by everyone for billing. Bellcore owns rights to a piece of Bell Labs for a few years as part of the divestiture, but they're quite separate from AT&T. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 1984 1614 PDT From: John McCluskey <MCCLUSKEY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA> Subject: Everyone should memorize their Telephone credit card number. Reply-to: MCCLUSKEY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA From: Microwave Journal, July 84, page 97 DoD is still generally closed-mouthed about divulging specifics from lessons learned in the Grenada operation. However we have learned of an incident involving C**3 that is a little offbeat, courtesy of MG David L. Nichols, of the Air Force office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs. In the early days of the conflict a small force of US troops was surrounded by Cubans in armored personnel carriers. Although US helicopter gunships that could help the US troops were in the area, the soldiers did not have a way to communicate with the gunships. Using GI ingenuity, one of our soldiers went to a public telephone and placed a long distance call for help to Fort Bragg ***using his credit card.*** Fort Bragg, via satellite, was able to get the word to the gunships, who neutralized the Cubans, thereby saving the day for the good guys. Although the demonstration of US ingenuity is appreciated, the lack of ablity of troops to communicate with supporting gunships is an example of how sophisticated C**3 networks sometimes fail to support simple operational scenarios. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 3-Aug-84 18:33:28-PDT,6641;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 3 Aug 84 18:27:59-PDT Date: 3 Aug 84 1850-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #64 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 4 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Advantageous European Use of non-fixed-length phone #s Single tone after dialing Re: Charging for local Directory Assistance calls AT&T goes to the Olympics Unordered phone from AT&T 1+ in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 26 Jul 84 16:34:57-CDT From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Advantageous European Use of non-fixed-length phone #s In Germany, you frequently find, that large institutions (with many lines) have a very short phone-number, which gives you their in-house information. If you know the extension of the person you want to call, all you do is keep on dialing, and you get through directly. for example: 1) dialing 607 gets you company X operator, who connects you to the person Y on extension 123 2) dialing 607123 gets you through direct. This has several nice advantages and one disadvantage: D) there is, of course, a question of timing, when dialing the first few digits, which get you the operator, if nothing else follows during a certain time-period. A) it's easier to remember shorter numbers A) when calling from overseas, I don't get charged when Y is not near his phone. TO leave a message, I dial again to reach the company operator. Sometimes, the company operator can be reached without having to redial, by hitting one of the special keys, I believe. (I know about PERSON-to-PERSON calls, thank you. You know, of course, why I prefer to dial DIRECT. Unfortunately, an answering machine or a secretary taking messages defeats my economy measures, a topic which might be worth addressing seperately, i.e. "Desirable PHONE Features and Usage Patterns" Maybe, I'll get to that later. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 84 11:31:45 PDT (Friday) Subject: Single tone after dialing From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@XEROX.ARPA> What does it mean when I always get a loud, single tone after dialing certain prefixes (presumably electronic exchanges)? The call then goes through very quickly. --Bruce ------------------------------ Sender: Wegeng.Henr@XEROX.ARPA Date: 29 Jul 84 11:17:19 EDT (Sunday) Subject: Re: Charging for local Directory Assistance calls From: Don Wegeng <Wegeng.Henr@XEROX.ARPA> My own experience here in Rochester NY (which is served by Rochester TelCo) is that it *is* possible for the D.A. operator to determine whether a D.A. call is *necessary*. For example, if I request a number which was assigned after the current edition of the phone book was published, the D.A. operator will give me the number and then ask me what is the number that I am calling from so that a credit can be given for the call to D.A. I have no idea whether Rochester TelCo uses a different system than is standard for D.A., but it is clear that there is system which allows this feature. /Don ------------------------------ Date: 29 July 1984 22:53-EDT From: Bruce J. Nemnich <BJN @ MIT-MC> Subject: AT&T goes to the Olympics This from today's Boston Globe: ------------------------------------------------------------ Overseas journalists left hanging on the telephone LOS ANGELES -- AT&T, once the most sophisticated telephone systen on the planet, has become the laughingstock here among foreign journalists, who have been waiting all week to get overseas lines installed. The French, who say arrangements are the worst they've seen in a quarter-century, threatened to walk out. The Germans say that the Russians and Yugoslavs were much more technically advanced. Meanwhile, the Pacific Bell people are ready to reach out and slug someone. They've been catching hell from US journalists for uninstalled phones that are AT&T's responsibility. Making things worse is that AT&T is making everybody pay through the nose. Ah, divestiture. The irony of all this is that AT&T has devised the most creative electronic message system in history to make for easy communications within the Games. Any journalist, official, volunteer, coach or athlete can reach another in seconds or find a wealth of Olympic-related material. It's become a more popular toy here than any video game. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 1 Aug 84 15:24:22-PDT From: Bob Larson <BLARSON@USC-ECLB.ARPA> Subject: Unordered phone from AT&T Recently I received, via UPS, an unordered telephone from AT&T. There was an order number on the mailing label but no explanation of why I received it either on or in the package. Another person I know also received such a phone, and upon contacting AT&T was informed it was on a special "3 month free trial" and that they would pay postage for its return if she did not wish to pay rental for it. Does anyone know if the regulations on such packages from UPS are the same as in the mail? (Mail regulations specify that you can keep unordered goods.) Is AT&T trying this anywhere besides Los Angeles? If I had wanted to rent a phone, I would have expected to be able to choose color and model. I feel no obligation on my part to waste my time returning this unordered merchandise. Bob Larson <Blarson@Usc-Eclb.Arpa> ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 84 14:36:13 EDT From: *Hobbit* <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: 1+ in NJ Euugh, I *hate* 1+ already!! Interestingly enough, you still don't need it for 800 numbers, but you need it for 900 numbers, and 700 still doesn't work here [when are they going to install that for real??]. I guess they assume that 800 will never be used as an exchange - but how about the rest of the n00's?? Would they be used as exchanges at some point? Now, if the office is smart enough to tell me ''I must first dial a 1 before this number'', why doesn't it just tack it on and send the call? The current setup seems excessively idiot-proof to me. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 7-Aug-84 17:46:02-PDT,8917;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 7 Aug 84 17:38:53-PDT Date: 7 Aug 84 2011-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #65 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 8 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: What is the 700 pseudo-area ? Long distance directory assistance Western Union Easylink AT&T problems, inefficiencies, and stupidities loud tone after dialing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Aug 1984 17:11 PDT From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC> Subject: What is the 700 pseudo-area ? Reply-to: LARS@ACC A submission in last TELECOM digest mentioned 700 numbers. I know about 800 and 900 numbers, but what is the 700 pseudo area code ? / Lars Poulsen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Aug 84 19:25:38 edt From: "John Levine, INTERACTIVE, 441 Stuart St, Boston MA From: 02116(617-247-1155)" <haddock!johnl@cca-unix> Subject: Long distance directory assistance Now that Ma is charging 50 cents a pop for long distance directory assistance, it appears that we have competition in that arena, too. MCI has been touting their directory assist at 45 cents rather than 50, and an experiment shows that SBS provides it too (I'll have to wait for the bill and see what it cost.) Do any readers know if other OCCs are providing it, yet, and how much they charge? Also, 50 cents regardless of time of day seems awfully high, considering that I can make a one minute toll call for about half that. How much are the long distance carriers paying the local telcos for it? John Levine, ima!johnl or Levine@YALE.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 1984 12:56:20 EDT (Monday) From: jose rodriguez <jrodrig at mitre-gateway> Subject: Western Union Easylink Have anyone signed up with WU Easylink? I just have and is it poor. First after sending a letter saying I was interested in it, I got a phone call from this woman which I could hardly understand and would only repeat this canned speech about "... easy this and easy that..". It was pretty obvious she was just trained into getting accounts without little knowledge of what she was actually dealing with. Fine. Now she insisted on me telling her what kind of equipment I was using - it seems you are allowed only one. Well I was trying to tell her that I used several: ibmpcs, terminals and a c64 at home and that it does not matter what equipment I use but for some reason she just couldn't deal with this. I bet she had a form with one entry in it. Finally I told her to put down ibmpc (probably the most generic answer). A week later I get this letter with several different codes but no phone numbers. I mean how do they expect to connect with their network? Also I got this little note saying that they will send me their user guide in a week. Today I got a mailgram letter saying that they were forwarding a msg I had because I haven't read it in 10 days. I called their phone: 800 WU CARES (good sarcasm) and after waiting for a long time a lady told me the phone and several characters I have to type before being ask to login. Do this people expect to compete with MCI Mail? It looks like WU really doesn't know what they are doing. I yet don't know what types of mail I can send (beyond being able to access telex terminals and send telegrams). Any comments? Jose jrodrig@mitre-gw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Aug 84 01:25 EST From: Andrew D. Sigel <sigel%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: AT&T problems, inefficiencies, and stupidities All is certainly not well with either AT&T Informations Systems or AT&T Communications. I have recently had my own annoying (albeit minor) difficulties with them, and these, related below, definitively illustrate to me the new lower levels of service we all have to look forward to. When I moved at the beginning of June, I purchased one of the phones I was leasing, and returned the other one. This was done on two separate days, and through my local AT&T Phone Center Store. I purchased the phone on May 31, and returned the second phone on June 6. My June 16 bill arrived, and neither transaction was on it. Fine, thought I, a little over two weeks is not unreasonable. When my July 16 bill arrived from New England Telephone with no mention of my purchasing the phone, and yet another full months rent on both phones, I got a little miffed, and called ATT IS. The purchase order finally came through on July 20 (seven weeks), and the termination order on the second phone had not yet come through. I had to locate my receipt for the return and call them back, even though it had no more information than I had already related over the phone; the first cust. service rep. would not process the return on my say-so, while the second would. It is the notion of a seven week back-log that I find a dangerous symptom. I called ATT Com. the other day to get a rate card for their long-distance system. I wanted to know just what the advantage was in having MCI, and there is nothing like comparing a rate chart from MCI with one from ATT to find out exactly what kind of premium is to be paid. Quite frankly, I was appalled at the combination of mis-information and non-information ATT presented me with in the guise of information. To the best of her knowledge, my representative thought that an information sheet would be going out to customers, but she thought it would be the usual chart showing what hours were day, evening, and night, and what the discounts would be, but with no actual rates. Her explanation of this probable omission? Why print a rate schedule if it was (FCC willing) going to be changing soon, and downward, too. (Never mind that the competitors do just that.) The schedule would naturally not include any intra-state rates, either. She did offer to look up individual rates for a given area code and prefix, but had no way of finding out which mileage category these rates were in. I was given some blatantly false information (other long distance companies don't have to tell the FCC when they want to change their rates while ATT does is the one that sticks to mind), and was given an extensive sales pitch on the unexciting $10/hour nighttime rate package (MCI is STILL cheaper, thank you very much). About intrastate rates, here in Massachusetts, ATT is the only carrier allowed to handle calls from the 413 to 617 area codes (and vice versa). Their rates are at least a third over comparable interstate calls (for the first minute) which is inexcusable, in my opinion. There is no reason why I should be able to call a friend in Boston from Amherst and talk for one minute, and pay the same price I would to call a friend in Los Angeles (evening rate). Finally, have people caught the ATT commercials with entire neighborhoods stampeding after the mail truck to get their phone bills, so they can get their coupons to buy varied merchandise with ATT credits? This new arm of ATT is so well organized that they were unaware I had moved as of two months after the move was accomplished. ATT IS and ATT Com. both knew I had moved, and had, along with NET, adjusted my bills quite efficiently (I received one bill combining calls from both numbers, and changing my billing date from the 13th to the 16th; 15 sheets in all), but they hadn't realized that I wasn't getting any coupon information. Incidentally, they'll be sending out your coupon credit balance every quarter starting in September, according to the gentlemen giving me the informaion (800-992-0992). In short, ATT doesn't seem to be telling its right hand what its left is doing, and doesn't much seem to care, either. I'll admit that no immediate credit for long numbers on MCI can be a pain. But its the only drawback so far to MCI, and if ATT isn't willing to give me a simple way to do comparison shopping (lets face it: who has 5 minutes to wait every time we want to know how much a call will cost), I won't shop at their 'store'. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 7 Aug 84 02:08:07-PDT From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: loud tone after dialing Location: EJ286 Phone: (415) 859-2774 I recently dialed a number and received a loud gong/chime tone after dialing. I was then connected to an Operator who told me "You've reached an operator" and suggested I re-dial. What is the gong/chime used for? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 14-Aug-84 15:28:11-PDT,15932;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-ML by SRI-CSL via DDN; 14 Aug 84 15:12:58-PDT Date: 14 Aug 84 1742-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #66 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 15 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: [NYT: ITT 3takes] Directory Assistance 1+ dialing; Telequest AT&T intrastate rates Long distance Directory Assistance AT&T difficulties Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #64 [The disk pack (LIB:) which Telecom resides on was down due to a broken disk drive last week. Any mail addressed to TELECOM or TELECOM-REQUEST was lost and should be resubmitted to those addresses. --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 13:31:11-EDT From: Clifford Neuman <BCN@MIT-EECS> Subject: [NYT: ITT 3takes] NEW YORK -- It will be five years -- on July 11, to be exact -- since Rand V. Araskog, son of a Fergus Falls, Minn., dairy farmer, took over the reins of ITT, the telecommunications giant whose electronic wires span the globe. Araskog had the tough job of succeeding Harold Geneen, the legendary conglomerate builder who molded ITT into a $21 billion behemoth. But what Geneen brought together, Araskog has torn asunder, creating a trimmer, yet still troubled, ITT. In his tenure as ITT's chairman and chief executive, Araskog has lopped off more than 65 companies and raised some $1.2 billion in the process, substantially cut ITT's ballooning debt, and simplified ITT's unwieldy bureaucracy. For this, he has received high marks. But Wall Street eagerly awaits Araskog's next act. And, ITT's poor showing in the stock market is a measure of a widespread belief that not much else is waiting in the wings. ``This is no time for Araskog to rest on his laurels,'' said Harry Edelson, a technology analyst with the First Boston Corp. ``He's got to do something from here on out. It's time for the company to be reinvigorated. He's sold the cats and dogs. Let's get into the horses.'' Added Brian R. Fernandez, an analyst with Nomura Securities: ``To get a real spark of renewed investor interest, you need either a divestiture or operations will have to turn around.'' But ITT is so huge that Araskog's next move will have to be a stunner to have any impact. He sits at the pinnacle of an empire that resembles a Hollywood version of the multinational mega-corporation. ITT is the king of telecommunications overseas and is just beginning to break into the American market, newly opened to all comers after the AT&T divestiture. Its insurance and information operations include the Hartford Insurance Group and the electronic mail system used by the White House. And it has a grab bag of other diverse businesses including Rayonier forest products, Sheraton hotels, Scott lawn products, and the Continental Baking Co., maker of Wonder Bread and hostess Twinkies. ITT is a sleek corporate world where Araskog jets to meetings h Brussels, London, Washington, and New York in a turquoise-and-white 12-passenger Gulfstream III. He meets monthly with his 80 senior lieutenants in a corporate board room of microphones and maps, a setting that looks like everyone's fantasy of a Pentagon war room. Yet behind this facade of high-stakes finance is a company burdened by problems in many important lines of its business. Araskog refused to be interviewed for this article, but analysts and others familiar with his sprawling domain were, for the most part, critical and impatient with ITT's lumbering progress of late. The company's much-heralded foray into the wild and woolly American electronics market has been characterized as tepid, at best. The strong dollar continues to push down ITT's earnings from abroad, the source of over half its pre-tax income. Storm-related losses -- some $15 million from one East Coast storm last March alone -- have battered the Hartford Group, ITT's single biggest income source. And, many of its businesses are only marginally profitable: Pretax profit margins in 1983 plunged to 1.3 percent for insurance, were a scant 4.2 percent for hotels, and 4.5 percent for bakery operations, and even its core telecommunications business returned only 7.8 percent. All the while, Wall Street continues to clamor for ITT to sell even more low-performing businesses in order to raise the cash to further pay down its still-sizable debt and to fund its brighter prospects. In the 1984 first quarter, ITT's earnings fell to 52 cents a share, from 92 cents in the previous first quarter. Analysts have recently been lowering ITT's 1984 earnings estimates to less than the $4.50 that ITT earned in 1983 on sales of $20.2 billion. ``I've described ITT to my clients as either a permanent mediocrity or a turnaround that won't happen,'' said one analyst, who declined to be named. ``On paper, they seem to have a lot of strengths. But those strengths don't seem to pay off.'' ITT has made much ado lately about cracking the American telecommunications market, which accounts for about 40 percent of the world market. American telecommunications is the promised land for ITT -- it feels it can parlay its overseas expertise in making telephone switching equipment and office switchboards onto American soil. But, to date, ITT has barely gotten its foot in the door. Most of its domestic sales have been in basic telephones, some five million or 20 percent of the market, in 1983 alone. At the high ticket end of the market, its products are few -- and dated -- and many analysts say that ITT hasn't shown much appetite for competitive battles. Instead, aggressive competitors like Canada's Northern Telecom and Western Electric have left ITT in the dust in critical product areas. ``ITT is a company that's blown more telecommunications opportunities in the last 10 years than any other company,'' said Harry Newton, president of Telecom Library Inc., a telecommunications research group. ``ITT has faced the same opportunities that hundreds of newcomers have faced in this industry. But ITT has not had the resources, or management focus, or attention, or discipline to do anything.'' The company has done poorly in the $3 billion-a-year market for new central office switching systems used by phone companies. It spent over $1 billion to develop its new digital switching product, the 1240, a state-of-the-art entry that has been rolling up sales overseas. But ITT must still pump millions more into the 1240 to adapt it for the American market and the product may not even be available here until 1986. ITT's domestic version, the 1210, is considered the Cadillac of the industry here, but is so expensive that it has fared badly in the face of aggressive competition. In the market for PBXs, automated switchboards critical to the offices of the future, ITT offers only a single low-end product that must do battle in the most competitive end of this market, also estimated to be in the $3 billion range. ``They've not done well in the central office market or in PBXs, which is the fastest-growing market,'' said William Ambrose, an analyst with Northern Business Information, a research group. ``They offer products of old design and they haven't been quick to react. There going to have to come up with some new products soon or they'll be in big trouble.'' Many of ITT's woes can be traced to its legacy as a supplier to governments and not a marketer to end users. ITT's telecommunications sales overseas have been largely to government agencies. As a result, ITT is well schooled in the ways of wooing governments, but not in facing stiff rivals in wide-open markets. And ITT is being forced to develop these new skills in one of the most turbulent areas of American business. ``They've never had to position themselves in this market and they've never had to face this intense competition,'' said Robert Sullivan, an analyst with Paine Webber. Added Ambrose: ``They've never had to understand what the end user wanted. They had to understand what the governments wanted and then engineer it to those standards.'' ITT, however, shrugs off such remarks. ``There's no reason to believe we won't do well in the American market,'' said M. Cabell Woodward Jr., chief financial officer of ITT ``We've only been up and operating here for a short time, but our worldwide telecommunicatons effort is going well and I would be suprised if we didn't do well here.'' Woodward pointed to a few recently placed orders -- a $150 million sale to United Telephone of Florida of a 1240 system and sales of other equipment to four of the seven Bell operating companies -- as evidence of ITT's success. ITT is also moving into computers, where it faces many problems as well. The company has gotten low marks for its highly advertised entry into personal computers, the ITT XTRA, an IBM-compatible machine that has been dubbed just another ``me-too'' product in an already crowded field. Tough competition has already forced ITT to slash prices of the XTRA by 20 percent -- even before shipping it to stores. ``ITT will have a battle royal on its hands and there's no telling whether they will win,'' said Ulric Weil, a technology analyst with Morgan Stanley. ``This is not the best of times to be a new entry and it is still a fairly hostile environment for IBM-compatible PCs. There are some 50 companies making them and ITT will be going against the likes of AT&T, Sperry, and IBM. The fact that ITT has had to cut prices already shows how treacherous these waters are.'' [The article goes on to describe some of ITT's ventures, other than telecommunications, so I deleted that segment for publication in this list. --JSol] ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 1984 2008-PDT From: Bob McConaghy <RMCCON at SRI-CSL.ARPA> Subject: Directory Assistance Satellite Business Systems is charging 45 cents for two numbers through their own directory assistance service. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 8 Aug 84 09:45:54-PDT From: Richard Furuta <Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA> Subject: 1+ dialing; Telequest I don't know why there's the resistance to dialing 1+ for long distance calls. It can be a very useful device from the standpoint of the telephone user. In this area, 1+ dialing is required for all toll calls. I find it very useful to be reminded that a call is toll when returning a call from within this area code. It's a real easy rule to remembe---if you have to dial 1+ you have to expect a toll charge. Pacific Northwest Bell is offering a new service called "Telequest." In essence, it looks like they've combined the yellow pages and directory assistance. You call the number, ask for a category (and some number of subcategories), and the operator gives you three business names and addresses in your area. The example they give in their ad is finding a hotel with restaurant and gym. A bit of a shocker is the cost ("a mere $1.85 a call" they say in their advertisement). Also if interest is that they've assigned the service a 555 prefix number. --Rick ------------------------------ Date: 8 August 1984 12:56-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: AT&T intrastate rates The fact that intrastate long distance rates are much higher than interstate rates over the same distance is not the fault of AT&T. State Public Utility Commissions jack up these rates way above costs and use the surplus to keep local basic rates low. In the past the FCC has done the same with interstate rates, but they are moving to more cost-based pricing. If rates were all based on costs, you could expect a $25-30/month bill for your basic service, but long distance rates (interstate) would be about 34% less, and intrastate rates about 50% less. Good for companies which make lots of long distance calls, but residential customers would be very unhappy. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 84 02:30 EST From: Andrew D. Sigel <sigel%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: Long distance Directory Assistance Both ATT and MCI offer two free calls per billing period, providing that you have made long distance calls (I think in the amount of $10.00 or more is the minimum, but I'm not sure) during said same period. It is therefore possible to parlay that into 4 free calls per billing period if you keep track and spread them out, after which MCI is a nickel cheaper. I expect that the 45/50 cents figure comes not only from the time of the call (which can last a couple of minutes), but also to pay for operator time and other related expenses. Whether it's justified is another question entirely. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 84 10:01 EST From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: AT&T difficulties ATT Service has definitely degraded. 1) I signed up for "Reach out America (and slug someone)". They completely botched the billing, charging me double (when the should not have charged me for installation, and not noting the first free hour. 2) They re-issued a credit card with my name spelled wrong. Think this is an easy thing to fix, forget it. NET does the accounting so they have the credit card info, But they can't reissue a new card since the only way they can change a name is to cancel the old card (and number) and re-issue a new one. Ok, so what do I care, the same number is used by AT&T on their card, I will use that card. No, that card also has a Name mis-spelling, and they can't correct it because of NET. This is all the more aggravating because my original card and my monthly billing appears correctly each month. 3) My sister with PAC Tel Marketing in Silicon Valley tells me that they are in a real tizzy out there. The valley has run out of all DDN service, can't install any more, and they have been waiting forever for the packet switching technology to become available. It seems that all of this is the result of putting all your chips into the new untested technology, and getting burned by engineers who tell you they are "almost ready". I used to feel that AT&T was overly consevative and tortoise-like with their umpteen years of development and Nteen field test, after looking at how they have been rushing into half-done projects, I tend to feel they may have to slow down a bit. Query: why do other smaller companies have it easier at developing new products (outside of smaller customer base). - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Aug 84 04:19:13 pdt From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #64 A question I haven't seen answered anywhere: Why does Mother Bell not permit you to dial your own area code when making a local call? For electronic exchanges it clearly can be ignored by the software, and it makes it harder to write programs that know how to dial any phone number. (Of course in 1+ areas it would have to ignore the 1+ too. Big deal.) PS: Telecom seems to be back (at least V4 #64) on the Usenet. Thanks, whoever brought it back...it's been gone for months. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 15-Aug-84 16:01:37-PDT,16838;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 15 Aug 84 15:56:03-PDT Date: 15 Aug 84 1801-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #67 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 16 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: EasyLink New Toy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 84 23:38 EDT From: Dehn@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Joseph W. Dehn III) Subject: EasyLink EasyLink definitely has problems, but it is not quite as bad as it looks at first. All your questions about phone numbers and who you can send to will be answered when you get your user guide. That is, assuming you actually read through it. When I got mine, I looked at it a little, and decided I didn't want to. It had all these strange-looking command sequences, with plus-signs after them, and I decided they were crazy to be offering something like this to the general public. So I didn't even try it. Some time later I got a call from one of their sales reps, who was surprised when I told him that I was already signed up (apparently they don't bother to check their subscriber list when following up sales leads). Unlike the robot-person who collects the sign-up information, this person tried to be helpful, and caused me to reconsider reading the manual. I did so, and found that it is not a total loss. In fact, in some ways it actually is "Easy"er than MCI Mail. The thing that I find most frustrating about MCI Mail is the excessive prompting. (I know, I can pay extra and have less. Amazing marketing strategy.) EasyLink has just about none. Although the syntax looks strange at first, being derived from Telex, it is very concise and regular (except for the "computer letter" services that have been kludged on). For someone used to computer languages, it is simple once you read the manual. And if you ARE a computer (e.g., a mail system), it is definitely much friendlier; this is probably a consequence of the fact that Telex messages are often sent automatically using paper tape. Unfortunately, the average user will probably find this too much to learn in one step. If Western Union expects to sell this in competition with MCI Mail, they will have to do one or more of the following: (1) make an optional prompting mode, (2) make a front-end program for personal computers that masks the syntax (they are selling something called EasyLink Instant Mail Manager, but I am not sure if it does this or just provides word processing and terminal emulation), (3) completely re-do the documentation so as to introduce the new user to the essential features step by step. Another thing that makes the service more confusing than it needs to be is the existence of two different mailbox identifiers for each user: an "EasyLink mailbox" number, and an "EasyLink Telex" number. The second is intended for use by regular Telex subscribers who want to send you a message. However, since EasyLink subscribers can send to any Telex user by simply specifying the Telex number, they too can use your "EasyLink Telex" number to send you a message. There is nobody who needs to use the "EasyLink mailbox" number! This is apparently a vestige of a previous policy where some more deliberate action was needed to connect EasyLink and Telex, but now it just adds confusion. One more comment on electronic mail companies in general: they don't seem to understand that electronic mail is a way to communicate. I am constantly getting paper messages from MCI announcing this and that; never have they sent me an electronic message, except (sometimes) in response to a message I have sent to MCIHELP. As for Western Union, when the sales rep offered me a phone number where I could call if I had any questions, I asked if there was some way I could reach him via EasyLink, so he gave me a Telex number. When I sent a question to that Telex number, I got a reply (from a different person - it was a general customer service department or something) telling me that they were unable to answer my question because they didn't have my telephone number! -jwd3 ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 84 21:38:13 EDT From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: New Toy I recently bought myself a dialer, and seek to share my experiences with it. This is a pocket-size unit with a flip-open case, and doubles as a clock, calculator, memory or manual dialer. Officially, it is the Dictograph Dial-It II, and can be had for ~60 clams from DAK inc. [The other catalog houses wanted $70!] Now, *I* have no real use for a memory dialer, since I am reasonably good at remembering numbers and can easily outstrip this sucker for speed. This thing has 100 ''locations'' capable of holding 32 digits each [but see below]. Why so many digits, I ask?? I still haven't figured that one out - do you know anytime you would dial 32 numbers to call somewhere?? So the sucker finally showed up in the mail, and if it had a personality and wanted peace and quiet, it came to the wrong place. What do any of us do when we get a new machine? We hack away at it until we discover first its weaknesses/shortcomings, and then the workarounds to overcome those [meanwhile submitting SPR's]. I removed it from its box and examined it. Click, the case opens from the *top* - weird! Actually it turns out that this configuration makes it easier to hold and type buttons with one hand. The display was blank. I pressed a likely-looking button and got a ''d'' in the rightmost digit. Then I figured What The Hell, they gave me this nice manual along with it, might as well read it. The documentation told me the basic syntax of commands, and I took it from there. The unit does indeed produce touch-tones from a very small speaker built into the bottom. This unit is a tad thicker than a typical clock of its type; its batteries are somewhat tall and there must be room for the speaker. A small array of holes cut through the bottom of the case lets the tones out. They are the typical tones generated by that dialer chip - more square-wavey than a regular TT pad and mixed up with clocking glitches. This tends to reduce performance because the Bell tone parsers are touchy and want tons of volume. Because this must pass through the carbon mike, acoustic interfacing and tone volume/purity become somewhat important. The manual claims that if you hold the handset such that the microfern is sitting in a vertical position, it will work better - and indeed, this is the case. Holding a carbon mike that way does increase its transmission capabilities - How, I have no idea. They also mention the well-known trick of pounding the handset on the wall to break up the carbon particles. So, as I was playing around with it, storing things, deleting them, trying to do recursive invocations, whatever... I discovered lots of shortcomings, which I will not hesitate to pass back to the manufacturers. Neato things include a password you can enable to turn it on, a downcount timer, an upcount timer, 24-hour mode, 24-hour alarm, a slow-dial hook for flakey fern systems, and a Manual mode in which you press button, unit sends that tone just like a regular TT pad. Following are excerpts from the resultant flame I sent off to these people. ----------------- The unit is a really good idea, and can be quite useful even to one such as I who doesn't need 100 memories for phone numbers. With some minor fixes and improvements, this thing could be far and away the best dialer concept on the market. Let me, therefore, run down what I found wrong with it. You will see that I am using this approach because what I have to say will never fit on your Warranty Registration Card. I got your 800 number in Buffalo [the one you so thoughtfully *didn't* supply in the manual] and talked to someone who knew all about the 99 bug. He informed me that the designer resides overseas and is hard to reach; perhaps this can be forwarded to him through whatever channels?? The 99 bug is the one that bites when you attempt to modify Location 99 with a digit string of *shorter* *length* than the current contents. If you use a longer or equal string, it works okay. Otherwise the unit does really strange things with memory, loses your current storage, creates one or more locations containing *extremely* long strange sequences, and basically crashes, the only fix being power removal. You'd have to look at the microcode for the thing to begin to fix this one; I assume the aforementioned designer is responsible. The unit could use a Date register as part of the clock. This may not be built into the processor you use - but a suitable software workaround could probably be created without too much trouble. You advertise the capacity of the thing as 100 locations of 32 digits each. [That length, although *very* handy for some things, is a tad longer than most people would utilize for telephone numbers.] 100 x 32 4-bit digits is 3200 possible stored digits. Memory is kept in a 1Kx4 RAM, and allowing for location-pointer overhead, you actually get somewhere around 930 digit capacity across all the memories. This works out to around 30 *true* 32-digit locations. I notice that memory is used in dynamically-allocated chunks instead of fixed partitions - *nice* feature, but to live up to the advertising, it should have a 4K memory or so in there. The manual also fails to mention that an attempted SET returns the ''d'' in the display if memory is full. I find it regrettable that one cannot use the * and # tones within stored numbers. I would greatly favor using other keys for SET and PAUSE, and allow the * and # equivalent tones to be stored in a location as well as 1-0 and L and C. 4 bits will address 16 possible keystrokes, so bus capacity for the extra keys shouldn't be any problem. You may not believe it but this has its uses, just like 32 digits do. A somewhat blue-sky idea: Why not, instead of making 99 and 98 special, allow the in-stream insertion of *any* other location?? That way, if you have more than one long-distance carrier service, you can program more than one access code. With Bell's divestiture, there will come a day when each call will be cheapest via a certain carrier. The Dial-it could not only store a number, but using the ''insert-location-XX-here'' feature, the user can program the cheapest calling method in on top of it. Once you get people to understand what this feature could do for them, they would *welcome* a dialer with the capability. Added security would be provided by the fact that someone else wouldn't know where the person stored his personal access codes. When more of these things hit the market, all someone has to do is say ''oh neat, let me look at that'', type 99 or 98, and remember the person's access numbers, unless they are stored in some other place selected by the owner. I like the ''lock'' feature, but its usefulness diminishes when all I want to do is check the time. I therefore would only use the lock if I *know* I'm not going to be looking at it for a while, or there's a chance it would fall into the wrong hands. I haven't come up with a defeat for a locked unit yet, but give me time.... The tones leave something to be desired. The dialer chip is known for imposing a lot of clocking glitches on the signal and producing something less pure than the sine waves from a good ole Western Electric touch-tone pad. The fact that the signal must pass through the carbon mike compounds the difficulty. I found that my unit, as shipped, would not *reliably* dial my home phone [which has a brandy-spanking-new mike in it], and was completely useless on public fones. Bashing the handset and holding it vertically helped a *little* but I'd still have trouble. In an effort to fix this, I did the following: First, I installed a resistor in parallel with the one going to (-) for the output transistor. Halving the supplied resistance makes the tones louder [that's 50 ohms, supplied by you, down to 20 or 25 now. I suppose it'll drain the batteries faster!], and this somewhat improved matters. But after the carbon mike, the key to success is not just noise, it's still purity. I noticed that when I held the dialer atop a roll of electrical tape which in turn sat on the mike, performance was very good. The inside of the roll created sort of an acoustic chamber which did the right thing to the tones. I can't carry a roll of electrical tape everywhere I go, so I did the next best thing. As supplied, the configuration of holes in the back of the unit is flat and tends to rock around on the middle of the bulge of the mike piece. Since the edges therefore are open to the air, the tones escape. I sat the unit down on a small round object and bent the center of the hole pattern upward [into the unit] enough to clear the mike hump. Then I made a ring on the back out of string and duct tape. Although public phones still give me trouble, the unit works better than stock. I therefore offer the following suggestions: Build, into the back, some kind of rubber gasket that will seal around the microphone and create the right kind of resonant chamber between it and the dialer. This, if done right, won't add *too* much to the thickness. Perhaps there is an even flatter speaker out there in the market that will help? Increase the tone volume, and, if possible, high-filter the output so it's more ''pure''. I haven't figured out how to do that last bit yet; fiddling around with capacitors and things didn't work. Look into the chip that Rat Shack uses in their pocket dialer - I haven't checked but it may be different than the one you use, and I know that one does a *real* good job on any phone held in any position. I'm considering replacing the dialer chip if they are pin-compatible. Also, Rat Shack does have a rubber gasket on the back of theirs which lies quite flat and greatly aids transmission. The calculator section needs some work. Just about any $9.95 LCD calculator you pick up today will do constant holding on at least multiply and divide. That is, if you type 2 X = = = = you will see building powers of 2. This thing doesn't do that, requiring more typein, and if that wasn't bad enough, typing = twice is an implied *minus*!! Try typing 5 = = 3 =; you'll get 2. This is a definite *bug*. While you're at it, at least one memory on the calculator would be a real convenience. If you upgrade the memory to 4K, you could hold *lots* of extra numeric memory. I mentioned that the memory is dynamically partitioned. This is fine as far as capacity goes, but if you have lots of numbers programmed into it and try to read 99 or some higher-number location, the unit takes a *long* *time* to find that location. Fixed partitions might actually be more efficient and would fit in 4K, including length and insert-loc-here headers. An extra window should be installed in the lid, to keep dust out of the display. There should be a way to abort a long sequence, for those times where the phone missed a digit or something and you must otherwise wait for the entire sequence to play out [including pauses, etc]. This will become necessary, if you enable the insertion of any other location in a true recursive manner. For instance, if location 12 has 4 6 2 <insert-12> 5 in it, you'll get 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 ..... As it stands right now, 99 and 98 are recursive only one level deep, and only for the duration of *digits* within the invoked location. That is if 99 has 4 2 L 3 3 in it, invoking 99 will produce 4 2 4 2 3 3. True recursion would be more desirable [and more fun!], as long as there's an abort key. The stronger you make the case, the better. These pocket toys often get sat on, bent, and thrown around. The case as it stands is reasonably tough, but you can never be too safe, especially when they want $60 of my hard- earned green stuff for it. --------------- My inclination is to say Go Out and Buy One. It is a neat toy and has its uses, the discovery of which is left as a reader exercise. I wonder if I should have included a copyright notice along with all those ideas??? Yar, har. _H* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 17-Aug-84 14:20:53-PDT,3118;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 17 Aug 84 14:16:30-PDT Date: 17 Aug 84 1604-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #68 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 18 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: directory assistance 2400+ baud modems and protocols International Calling Information in the phone book [Once again, LIB: was offline. So if this is your third try at submitting TELECOM mail, I feel for you. --JSol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 August 1984 21:10-EDT From: Ray Hirschfeld <RAY @ MIT-MC> Subject: directory assistance SBS's "We've Got Your Number" directory assistance costs $.45 for up to two requests, according to an insert to my latest bill. If they can't provide the number for some reason, they'll charge you anyway. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 84 22:22:36 EDT From: jalbers@BNL Subject: 2400+ baud modems and protocols I am looking for any and all information on 2400 baud modems for use over Ma Bell lines between micros, micro to mini, or between mini's. I've seen 2400 baud modems adverrtized in places like BYTE that claim things like '300/1200/2400 Hayes compatable with parcticly no line lossage at 2400 baud'. Does this mean 2400 baud has some type of error check going on? How about these new Ven-Tel modems that sport 'variable baud rates'? What exactly does this mean to the user? Does the micro also have to support 'variable baud rates?'. I really want to know all I can about the modems that operate above 1200 over standard phone lines. What kind of 'protocols' do they have, how hard are they to get running, what considerations the user has to make when ordering one, and which one is the 'best buy'? Jon (so many unanswered questions) Albers jalbers@bnl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 84 12:18:19 EDT From: Rick Adams <rick@seismo.ARPA> Subject: International Calling Information in the phone book I recently needed to look up the country number for the Netherlands. I looked at the phone book and was astonished to find that it is no longer there. A little later, I looked a little harder and found it. Interestingly, the "Maryland Suburban" book has the International Calling Infromation, just like it alwyas did. However, the "Northern Virginia" and the "District of Columbia" books did not. (They did have it in the 1983 edition). All three of these books are put out by C&P Telephone, so I would expect them to have the same information. Which is normal, having the international info deleted or having it available? ---rick ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 20-Aug-84 20:36:06-PDT,13107;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 20 Aug 84 20:30:33-PDT Date: 20 Aug 84 1906-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #69 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 21 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Phone line woes Re: Phone line woes 2400 baud modems Re: 2400+ baud modems and protocols 1+ is not always not free DA Charging Variable length numbers; the German example Unordered phones 1+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 17 Aug 84 17:36:57-EDT From: Jon Solomon <M.JSOL@MIT-EECS> Subject: Phone line woes I spent most of today talking to New England Telephone's various offices to straighten out one of my phone line's records. It all started when I got this months set of phone bills. I was being billed for a line I had disconnected a month and a half ago (at least). Then there was static on my line. I called repair service ON THAT LINE so they could hear the static. They looked up my records, but couldn't find anything listed for that number. I knew there was something wrong at this point. I called the RSC (Residence Service Center) and told them what had happened at Repair office. They also could not find any record of my new number. They asked me if I would mind them changing it yet again, so they could clear up the confusion with a minimal of fuss. The number, 542-JSOL, was clearly unique and I wasn't going to give it up without a fight. They eventually told me that I would start receiving bills under the new number. I can only assume that they will stop billing me for the old number, 338-4033, at the same time. Probably that is a poor assumption in this day and age. I got two calls from various departments of NE Telephone asking me for information. One of them was obviously a repair person who told me that 542-JSOL was "REMOTE CALL FORWARDED" to my main number. I told them that I had call forwarding, and that I had manually forwarded it to that number. They insisted that I prove it. I did. I disconnected the call forwarding, and lo', he called me on 542-JSOL and sure enough it was working, and had the static I reported earlier! They also informed me that they had no cable and pair listing for my number, and that they would probably have to send someone out here to find that information firsthand. I almost offered to do it for them, but decided that it would probably be too confusing for them if I did. All in all, I would say that NE Telephone's service quality has gone down considerably due to divestiture, And if this is the sort of problem that goes on all the time, I think I liked it the other way better (with AT&T controlling everything). Oh well, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 1984 19:32-PDT Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL Subject: Re: Phone line woes From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL> As the saying goes: When AT&T merged with Department of Justice, Everyone got screwed. ------------------------------ From: deutsch.pa@XEROX.ARPA Date: 17 Aug 84 22:26:31 PDT Subject: 2400 baud modems We recently bought some model 224 modems from Codex . They are 1200(Bell 212A)/2400 only, full duplex. I think they use a (proposed?) CCITT standard protocol. They come in a stand-alone version and a somewhat more expensive "smart" version with an auto-dialler and a little command language. Our communications folks evaluated them and like them. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Aug 84 13:55:40 PDT From: Matthew J Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Subject: Re: 2400+ baud modems and protocols Gamma Technology has a modem that plugs into the IBM PC/XT or a stand-alone chassis, and runs synchronous communications at 9.6kbps over dial-up lines. It is claimed to be CCITT V.29 and V.27 compatible. (The modem supposedly uses the same chip set as FAX machines.) Model: FAXT-96 Price: $1995 (qty 1-9) Protocols: V.29 @ 9.6,7.2,4.8kbps V.27 ter @ 4.8,2.4kbps V.21 chan 2 FSK @ 300bps Features: Automatic adaptive equalization/selectable link amp. echo suppression and squelch options. Compatible with group 3 fax machines. Optional support for SDLC adapter card. Gamma Technology, Inc. 2452 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 415-856-7421 (insert standard disclaimer here) ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 20 Aug 1984 09:12:47-PDT From: libman%grok.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Sandy Libman) Subject: 1+ is not always not free >Date: Wed 8 Aug 84 09:45:54-PDT >From: Richard Furuta <Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA> >Subject: 1+ dialing >I don't know why there's the resistance to dialing 1+ for long >distance calls. It can be a very useful device from the standpoint of >the telephone user. In this area, 1+ dialing is required for all toll >calls. I find it very useful to be reminded that a call is toll when >returning a call from within this area code. It's a real easy rule to >remembe---if you have to dial 1+ you have to expect a toll charge. Life's never that easy! I live 25 miles north of Boston and pay $20 per month extra on my phone bill so that I can make unlimited calls to the Central Exchange [Greater Boston Area]. In order to call numbers in the Central Exchange I have to dial 1+ [unless these numbers are ALSO in my contiguous area, in which case I am forbidden to dial 1+ [Intercept -> recording -> "you lose" tone.]] Because of this, my "1+ is a toll call" clue is taken away. I am frequently bitten by calling numbers which I thought were in the Central Exchange, but turn out to be a couple of miles outside of it, thus being actual toll calls. The only way for me to tell if the call is covered by my flat rate service is to look at the charts on 4 separate pages of the Boston phone book. Speaking of gripes -- I pay $240 a year for this Central Exchange service, but I cannot get The Phone Company to automatically send me the (set of 5) phone books for the covered area. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1239 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: DA Charging In the case of Rochester, we have a small, local telephone company which has built a system for handling DA charging in which the caller's number is transmitted to accounting equipment in the DA center. If a charge is to be made, the DA operator indicates that fact, and the accounting equipment generates the charge. For local DA, this is fairly easy to do. However, for the nationwide network, a complete redesign would have been required. When you call NPA 555-1212, a local call record is made. This call record indicates the time you dialed the call, the time it was answered, and the time it terminated. You might say: AH, just have the distant DA operator only press the charge button (which would mean that the call would appear unanswered) after the valid charge is determined. Not acceptable for two reasons: 1. having conversations while the call appears to be on hook is not good from two standpoints: transmission, if in-band signalling is still in use, and network planning, i.e. keeping track of the actual usage of the network. 2. the caller could hang up before the supervisory signal returns to the source, thereby getting something for nothing. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1246 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Variable length numbers; the German example Werner provided an example of calling large company X with (as an example) 607 as the main number and 607 123 as extension 123. This is not the way this is actually done in Germany. Directory listings indicate numbers which are in PBXs, and indicate which point in the number is the break between the prefix and the extension (the HYPHEN is used for this in Germany). The instructions in the directory tell you that if you need to reach the switchboard, you should leave off all of the number past the HYPHEN and replace it with 1 or 0. (It used to always be 1, but now it's no longer consistent.) The instructions also tell you that if you know the extension, you can dial a different extension. Germany does not use timing to cause the call to end up at the attendant; the attendant always has an assigned number. In DID installations in the U.S., the same approach is taken. In Germany, the attendant is almost always 1 or 0 (though not ALWAYS -- U.S. military PBXs in Germany usually use 92 or 93 for information and/or attendant). In the U.S., the main number is not consistent at all, but is usually listed in the directory. There is no mechanism in Germany for hitting a special key to cause a call already ringing at a station to revert to the attendant. The station, after answering the call, can usually transfer the call to an attendant, but normal German phones do not have any special keys. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1254 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Unordered phones The "unordered phones" in California pose an interesting legal question. If the phones had been sent through the U.S. Mail, they could definitely be considered to be gifts, and there would be no reason to return them or pay for them. I'm not sure that the same applies to unsolicited merchandise delivered by something other than the U.S. Mail, but if it DOESN'T, it is still AT&T's responsibility to retrieve the phone from the point of delivery at their own expense. No one should have to pay a red cent to return it, or to even leave their home to drop the phone off somewhere. AT&T is likely to imply that they have the right to begin billing for the phones after the three month trial period is over. And AT&T is a big, dangerous-looking company -- they probably figured most people would be too lazy to return the phones and would simply start paying. The other interesting aspect is that it was specifically General Tel areas which were especially chosen as good target areas into which to ship the phones. Many General Tel users will jump at the chance to have an AT&T phone, even though it won't do a whole lot to improve their service. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1300 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: 1+ A submission (probably from New Jersey) voiced the often heard complaint "If the system is smart enough to tell that I needed a 1, why not just place the call." That's not the point. The main reason for going to 1+ in New Jersey was the same reason for the recent conversions in other major urban areas; the 201 NPA is just about out of NNX codes, and will have to start using NXX codes, where it is no longer to determine from the first three digits dialed whether an area code was dialed or one of the new exchanges. Granted, for those NPAs which don't conflict with exchanges, the system could handle the calls. But the 1+ is required on ALL NPAs from the outset, so that everyone, as a result of all current dialing stopping working, is forced to change their dialing habits NOW, before the problem occurs. Almost any other implementation would mean that if your autodialer has, for example, 303 499-7111 stored, it would continue to work up until the day that a 303 exchange is opened in New Jersey, at which point it would stop working, and possibly raise havoc for the person whose number is 303-4997. The one implementation which can prevent this is the use of timing to do the translation, but not all exchanges are capable of handling timing-related translation, and even those which can would cause a four second delay in completion of calls to exchanges corresponding to area codes. Not requiring the 1 on 800 is a mistake, probably only in some exchanges. In a related question, someone asked why dialing one's own NPA isn't permitted. It is, in some places, especially the Southeast. But it has the side effect of causing the call, even if it is to a number in the same exchange, to route through the toll machine. This could have been avoided if the exchange had a six digit translator for the home NPA which corresponds to the existing three digit translator, but this requires additional memory (or circuitry in the case of XBar exchanges). And it's essentially impossible in some exchanges. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 21-Aug-84 17:23:02-PDT,7798;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 21 Aug 84 17:15:41-PDT Date: 21 Aug 84 1956-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #70 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Wednesday, 22 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Re: Phone line woes 700 Pseudo-NPA Intrastate vs. Interstate rate differences New York City NPA split Re: Phone line woes NPA, NNX, and NXX Loud Touch Tones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 84 23:53:11 EDT From: *Hobbit* <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: Re: Phone line woes I called some parts house in California today, and got dumped into their ''all our reps are busy, please hold for next available one'' queue. Then some generic Muzak came on, which was all broken up. Figuring I had a lousy connection, I dialed 0+ the number to get credit. First attempt: ''I got a real crummy connection on this one before.'' Click! The oper hung up on me. Thank you for using AT&T, my rump!! Second attempt: Same line, oper apologized for the inconvenience and offered credit and reconnection, as she had been trained to do. I warned her that she'd reach the recording again. She said she'd *wait* until I reached a human! I said ''Hmm, if you do that, STATPAK will get mad at you...'' ''How do you know about that??!!'' ''Oh, I used to work there...'' -- I went on to explain how I had left shortly after they had implemented this package that runs under TSPS and monitors all the call handling rates of the operators. A truly fascist piece of software. She informed me that not only was it still in place, they were cracking down and trying to get the operators to handle calls even faster than before. I told her that in that case I had better stick out the recording alone, and she went away. Well, although it's true that the divestiture/competitive system has fouled everything up beyond recognition, a lot of what you see still depends on the individual you deal with. Within five minutes I had seen the extreme ends of the operations spectrum. AT&T offers operator services, and plugs it like it's such an advantage over the other carriers. Well, what the hell are you supposed to do when there *is* no other way?? Amazing, the illogic a marketing department can hack up. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1310 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: 700 Pseudo-NPA The 700 NPA was assigned to AT&T's automatic conference system, which was discussed at some length a year or so ago. Briefly, this system allowed you to call the conference system nearest you (or to specifically choose any one of the conference systems in the country if that would be more advantageous) to begin setting up, by a special dialing sequence, a conference of up to about 50 participants. The basic rate structure was to pay for an MTS call for each leg of the conference between the conference system and each participant (including the "controller" of the conference) plus a fee for the use of the conference equipment. It was a neat system, but the FCC denied the tariff as proposed, because it represented a drastic departure from current pricing, which is based only on the originator's location, and not on the location of any of AT&T's equipment. The FCC determined that the proposed ratemaking was a dangerous precedent which could have a detrimental effect on the nationwide network. Shortly after this decision, the 700 code disappeared from all the places we had seen it installed. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1315 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: Intrastate vs. Interstate rate differences As Dr. Sirbu points out, the difference between intrastate and interstate toll rates is part of the mechanism used to hold down the price of local service. The new LATA structure may cause this to gradually change. Since it is not the local company providing inter-LATA service, we may (this is mostly speculation on my part) see the inter-LATA intrastate rates head towards the interstate rates, especially as more competition emerges in this market. This may also mean that the intra-LATA toll rates in some areas may go even higher. There are two indications in the case of Massachusetts which may indicate the future course of ratemaking here: 1. The inter-LATA and intra-LATA rates were just revised, with New England Telephone and AT&T now having different rates. For the moment, they are essentially the same amounts, but the rate schedules are now separate. 2. The rates were lower than the old rates. This may indicate that in this area, intra-LATA rates may not need to rise as much as they might in other areas. Local calls are always measured on a timed basis for all but those residential customers who choose the more expensive unlimited service options, so the rate structure here may not involve as much of a cross-subsidy as in some other areas. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Aug-1984 1324 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: New York City NPA split The 212/718 split will take effect on 1 September 1984. 212 will be the Bronx and Manhattan, with 718 assigned to Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Permissive dialing will permit 212 to continue to be used for the entire city until 1 January 1985. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 1984 12:38:35 PDT Subject: Re: Phone line woes From: Ian H. Merritt <SWG.MERRITT@USC-ISIB.ARPA> Pacific Bell is not without its service problems, but I think that in the long run, exccept for the excessive rates, this area will benefit (both in GTEville and Pacific) from the break-up. Still, I was not in favor of it in the first place, and I think I would still prefer it not to have happend. ------------------------------ Date: 21-Aug-1984 0941 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: NPA, NNX, and NXX Though we've discussed the alphabet soup many times in Telecom, since I just got an inquiry, I'll explain it again: NPA stands for Numbering Plan Area, and means area code. NNX means an exchange code which uses only the digits 2 thru 9 in the first two positions, and 0 thru 9 in the third. NXX means an exchange code which uses only the digits 2 thru 9 in the first position, and 0 thru 9 in the third. N0/1X is the format used (today) for NPAs. As you can see, an NXX exchange may have the same format as an N0/1X NPA. /john ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 84 15:38 EDT From: Denber.wbst@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Loud Touch Tones I went to Siggraph in Minneapolis last month and decided to make a phone call from my hotel room. I picked up the phone, held it to my ear and hit "9". The phone blasted out a tone that could be heard clearly across the room and through a closed door. It didn't take long to learn to hold the receiver at arm's length while dialing - it was painfully loud at the earpiece. The phone appeared to be a standard touch-tone desk phone and the voice levels were normal. Has anyone else ever encountered such an energetic tone generator? Is there any reason why the tones should be so loud? - Michel ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 22-Aug-84 14:41:54-PDT,4264;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 22 Aug 84 14:38:30-PDT Date: 22 Aug 84 1720-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #71 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Thursday, 23 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: NYC area code split N.E.T. before/after the breakup Multi-pair color codes Re: Loud Touch Tones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Aug 84 21:47 EDT From: Richard Kenner <KENNER@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA> Subject: NYC area code split Does anyone know if companies who have large lists of residential phone numbers (such as banks, brokers, insurance companies, etc.) will be updating their lists to reflect the 212/718 split? Is NY Telephone providing information that would make this easier? What about businesses outside NYC (or NYS)? What about Universities? It seems to me that some organization (like NYU) which currently has my phone number but never calls would be exactly the type to not have to call until the number has been reassigned in 212 so they would get the wrong number unless they dialed 718. Should people in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island try to remember what organizations have their phone numbers and call each to update it? ------------------------------ Date: 21-Aug-1984 2213 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: N.E.T. before/after the breakup JSol, I'm not sure your experience is any worse than many I've had with N.E.T. long before divestiture. A similar experience several years ago deserves relating. Our Corporate Telecom people were surprised to find a fairly large number of toll calls on one of our Arlington Foreign Exchange lines. Since we use those lines only for calls to the Boston Metro area, and since normal users have no direct access to the lines, this was pretty strange. N.E.T. couldn't figure out what was going on, and told us that we must have made the calls, since they were DDD calls, "obviously" placed from our lines. One thing we had noticed was that calls to the numbers for which we were receiving these bills were going unanswered. They should have been answered by our attendant. This raised my curiosity, and I started calling the numbers at various different times. Eventually, one evening, I got an answer. The person who answered lived in Arlington and had recently had phone service installed. She was getting bills for her local service, but had never been billed for any of her long distance calls. And, of course, she hadn't complained. The final answer was that before this started we had had some of the lines removed. N.E.T. had not been able to tell us which lines were removed. This was a rather strange method of finding out! (It was also a strange method of finding out how separate EVEN BEFORE DIVESTITURE the toll and local billing accounts were maintained.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 03:34 EDT From: Paul Schauble <Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA> Subject: Multi-pair color codes I seem to recall asking this before, but I can't find the answer in anything I have on hand. Does anyone know how the color coding works on multi-pair cables? In particular, - on two pair, red, green, black, yellow, which is ring and tip? - on multi-pair, which of color/white or white/color is ring/tip? - is there a preferred order for using the colors? Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 11:14:59 EDT From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Re: Loud Touch Tones The reason is that the touch tones really are that loud. Real telephones mute the receiver while the buttons are being pressed. If you have a standard Western Electric phone, you can tell this by pushing a button in partially, which causes the mute, but not far enough in to generate the tone. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 23-Aug-84 16:09:04-PDT,9281;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 23 Aug 84 16:01:26-PDT Date: 23 Aug 84 1840-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #72 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Friday, 24 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Telephone Headsets Universal Dialing Re: Multi-pair color codes DA charges 5-line wiring Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #71 SW Bell chooses Sprint Loud Touch-Tones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 22 Aug 1984 17:51:08-PDT From: nelson%quill.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (The universe is laughing behind From: your back) Subject: Telephone Headsets What's the deal with telephone headsets? I think they're neat, but the last time I checked into buying one, it was around $200! Does anyone know why they're so expensive? Any ideas on where cheaper ones can be found? JENelson Wed 22-Aug-1984 21:05 EST ------------------------------ Sender: SAI-relay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 21:40 EDT From: Frankston.SoftArts@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Universal Dialing Reply-to: Frankston@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Bob Frankston) The mention of the 700 NPA made me think of one that doesn't exist but should. One of the 800 services available redirects calls to a local handler. But the callee pays. It would make sense to have a similar service where the caller pays. It does seem silly to have to go through elaborate directories to find the nearest Airline, Tymnet/Telenet/Uninet/MCI Mail etc number. I should be able to dial 1-600-123-5456 from anywhere in the country. The rates would be equivalent to what a call to the local number would be. Admittedly this means that the charge would vary but at least it would not present the distance independence properties that upset the regulators with respect to 700 numbers. It would also greatly simplify providing software that does dialing. You would actually be able to ship a product wihout having to provide elaborate directories that must be updated constantly. Note that in the current system you cannot ship software that uses 1-617-123-4567 because that will not work within the 617 area Why?? I dunno, doesn't seem to make sense, but that it is. Of course, there is still the problem of prefixing to escape into the global name space. I.e., the "9", or "8-1" or whatever it takes to get out of the local PBX.. Does such a service exist? ------------------------------ Date: Wed 22 Aug 84 22:07:36-EDT From: Gene Hastings <Gene.Hastings@CMU-CS-C.ARPA> Subject: Re: Multi-pair color codes On 2 & 3 pair cables, green, black and white are tips of pairs 1, 2, and 3. Red, Yellow and blue are the respective rings. On multi-pair cables the colors blue, orange, green, brown and slate (gray) are paired with white for the first 5 pairs, then with red, then with black , yellow and violet for a total of 25 pairs. Therefore: Pair 1: blue/white; white/blue is tip Pair 2: orange/white Pair 3: green/white Pair 4: brown/white Pair 5: slate/white Pair 6: blue/red red/blue is tip etc. Pair 11:blue/black black/blue is tip ad nauseam. You may occasionally find existing communications cables (not necessarily telephone) that have unfamiliar or irregular color codes -like the ICEA (Insulated Cable Engineers Association)color code for control cable that has solid colors with several different stripes. Look in the vendor's catalog to figure these out, or cut it out and sell it for scrap. Gene ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 84 01:20:05 EDT From: *Hobbit* <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: DA charges .. It turned out that they saved 3 to 7 seconds and that considering that they were getting so many million phone calls...they saved lots of money not spent on man-hours. Then why the hell are they *charging* now, where they used to have humans do all the work for free?? It's all so bass-ackwards. Between that, 1+, ''thank you for using AT&T'', and the inferior audio quality of the alternate carriers, it's almost enough to make one want to punt phone service entirely. Wait till the USPO has to go through the same thing. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 84 01:33:46 EDT From: *Hobbit* <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: 5-line wiring Someone recently asked which wires are ring and tip on various configurations. I dug this out of some documentation a while back; it represents a more-or-less standardized way that TelCo wires their 5-line phones thru 50-conductor cable. I checked out the colors in a ''virgin'' WE fern removed from service, and they are the same. Most of the connections come up to that grey plastic thing under the dial with all the screws on it. The line columns are under each pickup key. --5-line wiring-- Fern Wire Amph Comments conn colors conn. ---- ------ ----- -------- 1R BluWht 1 Line 1 Ring 1T WhtBlu 26 Line 1 Tip 1B OrgWht 2 Line 1 "A1" lead 1H WhtOrg 27 Line 1 "A" lead 1L GrnWht 3 Line 1 Lamp LG WhtGrn 28 Line 1 Lamp Ground [on the 1x group] 2R BrnWht 4 Line 2 <ditto> 2T WhtBrn 29 . * GryWht 5 ?? - . 2H WhtGry 30 . 2L BluRed 6 . LG RedBlu 31 . 3R OrgRed 7 Line 3 3T RedOrg 32 . * GrnRed 8 . 3H RedGrn 33 . 3L BrnRed 9 . LG RedBrn 34 . 4R GryRed 10 Line 4 4T RedGry 35 . * BluBlk 11 . 4H BlkBlu 36 . 4L OrgBlk 12 . LG BlkOrg 37 . 5R GrnBlk 13 Line 5 5T BlkGrn 38 . * BrnBlk 14 . 5H BlkBrn 39 . 5L GryBlk 15 . LG BlkGry 40 . 1 BluYel 16 Aux signals: 2 YelBlu 41 . 3 OrgYel 17 . 4 YelOrg 42 . HL GrnYel 18 Hold light HLG YelGrn 43 . SG BrnYel 19 PB sig - ground to aux equipment L2 YelBrn 44 Buzzer light RR GryYel 20 Common Ringer [is line out to network block!] RT YelGry 45 . ER BluVio 21 Excluded ckt ET VioBlu 46 . [fone home!] EB OrgVio 22 . ["A1" for excl] EH VioOrg 47 . ["A" for excl] R GrnVio 23 Speakerfern hook [R1 lead] RR VioGrn 48 . [T1 lead] ON BrnVio 24 . [P3] ON1 VioBrn 49 . [P4] L1 GryVio 25 . [LK] N VioGry 50 . [AG] Lines: 1,26 4,29 7,32 10,35 13,38 "A" : 2,27 5,30 8,33 11,36 14,39 Lamps: 3,28 6,31 9,34 12,37 15,40 CommR: 20,45 ... Most of the *meanings* of the wires wasn't explained in any kind of text, so if you want further info you'll have to experiment, or try to to contact WE or someone else who makes 5-liners and get some additional documentation. _H* ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 84 09:22:14 PDT (Thursday) From: Thompson.PA@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #71 Re: NYC area code split (MSG from <KENNER@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA> in V4 #71) I would think that in the New York City case that updating company phone lists would be pretty easy. In this case they must be sortable along Zip Code lines. Does anybody happen to know if "The Phone Company" tries to do this when they split an area code or whether they just lucked out this time because Zip boundaries and exchange boundaries are likely to coincide when you come to a big river? Geoff <Thompson.pa@XEROX.ARPA> ------------------------------ Date: 23-Aug-1984 1523 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: SW Bell chooses Sprint This news item was in the August issue of Telecommunications magazine: Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. has selected GTE Sprint Communications Corp. to provide interstate long-distance service. The GTE Sprint Service will save the former BOC an estimated 17 percent ($50,000 annually) on certain business long-distance calls originating from Houston. Sprint will handle all official long-distance calls made by Houston telephone employees to locations outside Southwestern Bell's traditional five-state territory. Because of divestiture, SW Bell cannot maintain its own facilities outside its territory and must contract with long-distance companies for service. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Aug 84 09:52:05 pdt From: sdcsvax!sdccsu3!brian@Nosc (Brian Kantor) Subject: Loud Touch-Tones Most touch-tones phones have a resistor in series with the receiver element which is used to drop the level of tones while dialling. During the time that a button is NOT pushed on the dial, this resistor is shorted out so that full level is sent to the receiver element. Probably the phone you used had the contacts in the dial stuck together so the resistor didn't get in the circuit when you pushed a button. Maybe somebody spilled Coke into it or something. ihnp4 \ Brian Kantor, UC San Diego decvax \ akgua >---- sdcsvax ----- brian dcdwest/ ucbvax/ Kantor@Nosc ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 24-Aug-84 14:04:29-PDT,5473;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 24 Aug 84 13:57:05-PDT Date: 24 Aug 84 1635-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #73 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Saturday, 25 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: What you can find inside a phone... Long Distance Services Re: Telephone Headsets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 16:42:45 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: What you can find inside a phone... Some years ago, I was at a large swap meet, and there was this guy there trying to sell an ITT (non-telco-owned) 2500-type (desk touch-tone) phone. It seemed to be in pretty good shape, so I asked him what he wanted for it. "One dollar?" he replied. Hmmm. Rather inexpensive, even for an ITT set. It seemed to weigh about the right amount (so I figured it wasn't empty) and the transmitter and receiver were intact in the handset, so I bought it. So... I take the set home and try plugging it in. Seems to work OK, until I try to dial. Nothing! Not even the little tone bursts indicative of reversed polarity. So, I grab a screwdriver and open up the unit. The reason for the problem was immediately obvious. A petrified roach (who apparently had an incredibly bad sense of timing) was wedged between two of the contacts on the hookswitch. Once removed, the phone worked fine, and in fact it is now the "white courtesy telephone" that ties into my keysystem comm line in the livingroom. But really... talk about bugs in the phone system... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 23 Aug 1984 18:34:13-PDT From: nelson%quill.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Documents of Our Lives.) Subject: Long Distance Services I recently checked out long distance services for the Nashua, NH area. I thought I'd share my results in case someone is thinking of joining one. Services compared: AT&T, Allnet, MCI, and GTE Sprint [I've also used a long distance service local to La Crosse, WI: Century Area Long Lines (CALL), but I don't think anyone's interested in hearing about that.] AT&T ==== Well, everyone knows about these guys. Their gimmick is the "coupons" that you get every time you make more than $15 worth of phone calls in a month. The more you spend, the more coupons you get. You get a statement every 6 months showing your current coupon balance. This promotion makes me think of the S&H green stamps my mom used to get; we wound up with TONS of those things, and never did get much out of them. Allnet ====== Their services are not offered in Nashua. My dad uses this (in Minneapolis), so I'm somewhat familiar with it. Allnet has two nice features that I know of. One is an 800 number which you can use when you're away from your home city. It's more expensive than AT&T operator-assisted rates IF you stay on the line for more than 5 minutes. Presumably, you'd want to use the 800 number to call your family or office in your home city; they'd call you right back, using the local access number. Allnet's other feature is you can charge your bill to your AMEX card. (My dad does this--don't know if they accept other cards.) MCI & Sprint ============ Both offer service in Nashua, with the standard claim for savings. MCI has no monthly fees; Sprint requires a minimum of $5 of phone calls per month. I went with Sprint, because MCI doesn't have any way for someone to use their service outside of their home city. I did hear a rumor (was it here?) that MCI has applied for clearance to offer nationwide 800 access, which customers will use instead of local access numbers. Supposedly, no additional fees are involved. Sprint doesn't have an 800 number like Allnet, but they give you a little booklet with all of the phone numbers for every city they serve. You can use your calling card in any of these cities, but the charge is similar to Allnet's 800 service: you end up paying more than operator-assisted rates if you stay on the line too long. Sprint also offers "volume discounts." For monthly bills greater than $20, you get an additional 8% off your daytime calls, 11% off your evening calls, and 12% off your weekend calls. The percentages go up if your bill is over $45 (somewhere around there), and once more around $75. So far I'm pleased with Sprint. Their line quality is OK. But, I tend to think that AT&T has everyone beat as far as that goes. I'd appreciate any corrections, experiences, feedback, etc. JENelson Thu 23-Aug-1984 22:41 EST ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Aug 84 9:17:14 EDT From: Robert Jesse <rnj@BRL-TGR.ARPA> Subject: Re: Telephone Headsets Plantronics (Santa Cruz) makes both in- and over-the-ear headsets in many different configurations costing from about $100 through $180. DAK Industries (N. Hollywood CA) sells an over-the-ear model for $49 + $3 p&h. Based on personal experience with Star- sets from Plantronics vs. the photograph of the DAK unit, it appears as though you may get what you pay for. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 27-Aug-84 18:54:20-PDT,4622;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 27 Aug 84 18:50:51-PDT Date: 27 Aug 84 1848-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #74 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 28 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #73 long distance service quality Fiber optics query Personal Locator Service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 24 Aug 84 17:42:26-CDT From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #73 The latest issue of Consumer Reports has done an evaluation of Long Distance Services. I haven't had a chance to read the article myself, and don't have it with me at the moment, but it looked pretty comprehensive. There was one clear winner, and it was NOT ATT, MCI or SPRINT. I'm trying to remember the name--I think it was Skyline. More later. CLive ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24-Aug-84 18:12:07 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: long distance service quality The joke with the so-called "cheap" services of Sprint and MCI (etc.) is that it often takes multiple calls to carry on a simple conversation. I occasionally have to make both MCI and Sprint calls using numbers provided to me by various of my clients for my use when calling them or their associates. My reaction to both services is the same: TERRIBLE. Maybe some people just don't CARE how bad a connection sounds, how much echo or hiss is present, or how often you have to repeat yourself to be heard. Often connections are especially bad in ONE direction, but sometimes the person you called never bothers to tell you that he can hardly hear you, he just struggles along. Then there are the connections that just suddenly drop, or that switch you to another caller. I get both of these regularly. REALLY professional on business calls. People actually say (and I say it too), "How about calling back FOR REAL using AT&T next time?" And how about call blocking? Just TRY to get a call through from L.A. to New Jersey in mid-afternoon on Sprint or MCI. Good luck. I hope you like an hour of all trunk busy signals. When I have my choice, I always use AT&T. In a couple of years, once the access issues settle down, the artificial price differentials will vanish and AT&T should be as cheap, if not cheaper, than the other services. At which point, anybody who hassles with the "toy" carriers is getting what he or she deserves. Even now, if a call if valuable enough to pay for, it's valuable enough to hear the other person and have stable connections. As far as I'm concerned, the non-AT&T carriers are jokes. But then, P.T. Barnum predicted that such services would prosper to some extent: "There's a sucker born every minute." --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24-Aug-84 18:34:31 PDT From: Richard Shuford <vortex!richard@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: Fiber optics query Hello. I'm doing some research on fiber optics, and I'd like to know what experience readers of this digest have had with fiber-optic-based computer communication. Short comments on how cost effective a particular local-area network (or other communication link) has been are fine, though if you have more details they'll be appreciated. Thank you. .............Richard Shuford.............. ------------------------------ Date: 25 August 1984 00:56-EDT From: Eliot R. Moore <ELMO @ MIT-MC> Does anyone have experience, good or bad, with ITT Private Line Service? Regards, Elmo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 84 00:29:47 pdt From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: Personal Locator Service A few years ago I was hearing all about how CCIS would make it possible to offer "Personal Locator Service". In this service, you would have a phone number which could be called from anywhere and the calls would follow you around to wherever you happened to be. (You had to check in with the machines to tell them where you were going, of course.) I recently heard a rumor that Bell filed with the FCC to propose this service but the FCC would not let them offer it. Anybody know what really happened and why? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* 28-Aug-84 14:55:37-PDT,9709;000000000000 Return-path: <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA> Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-CSL via DDN; 28 Aug 84 14:49:52-PDT Date: 28 Aug 84 1731-EDT From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC> Reply-to: TELECOM@MIT-MC Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #75 To: TELECOM@MIT-MC TELECOM Digest Tuesday, 28 Aug 1984 Volume 4 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Alternate carrier quality Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #74 MCI Service TELECOM Digest V4 #74 long distance service quality Re: long distance service quality headsets long distance service SBS Skyline service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 84 19:02:40 pdt From: (Mike O'Dell[x-csam]) mo@lbl-csam Subject: Alternate carrier quality The latest issue of Data Communications has a very long and detailed article describing some actual MEASUREMENTS they did of the various long-distance carriers. Their measurements were biased toward how well the circuit would carry data, but this generally reflects overall circuit quality. The best was Allnet, I believe, with SBS Skyline a very close second, with AT&T a not-quite-as-close third. The big advantage AT&T had was with circuit set-up time and the average number of calls per sucessful connection. Skyline would have done as well in the calls per connection category, but their circuits are noticeably slower to set up. The tests seem to have been quite well thought out. They used very sophisticated analog and digital test gear at each end of a New York/ San Fransisco call placed from the SFO end each time. They ran the tests at various times between 0800 and 2200 Pacific time to get a good sample of backbone loads, and they ran them repeatedly over a two or three week period. They ran the analog loop measurements first (all kinds of bandpass tests, phase distorsion, group delay characteristics, etc.) with an automated test system on each end and then kick in the digital circuit tester which included a set of standard modems. They then ran bit error tests, block error tests, burst length tests, and long message tests with traffic going one direction at a time, and then with full-duplex traffic. Anyway, this is worth looking up because it is the first real test I have seen not conducted by the seat of the pants. I strongly suspect they really wanted to have the results air-tight in case of legal hassles. Anyway, I recommend the article to you. Personal note: Since January, I have consistantly gotten better circuits on with my SBS Skyline service than with AT&T (I regularly A/B them), and my phone bill is dramatically lower. (No, I don't save Green Stamps.) -Mike O'Dell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 19:04:01 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #74 When it comes to technical issues, "Comsumer Reports" can be trusted about as far as you can throw their building. They are real good when it comes to conventional consumer products, but they are out of their league when technical issues become involved. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 84 22:25:12 pdt From: <hplabs!intelca!cem@Berkeley> Subject: MCI Service I heard through the rumor mill at Central Telephone, (ie working relative) that MCI has purchased easement rights on some undisclosed rail line that runs through the country and plan on setting up optical fibers for high bandwidth time multiplexed voice communication. Any one have any further info? --Chuck ------------------------------ Date: 28 August 1984 13:05-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC> Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #74 I wouldn't be surprised if personnel locator service is not in part a casualty of divestiture. There has been a major battle before Judge Greene over whether the CCIS Service Access Points (databases) belong only to AT&T or whether the BOCs should have the right to use them too. I wouldn't be surprised if this debate were delaying personal locator service. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 10:32:56 PDT From: "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Subject: long distance service quality Lauren Weinsten writes that the quality of AT&T long-distance service is much higher than its competitors and goes on to state: "In a couple of years, once the access issues settle down, the artificial price differentials will vanish and AT&T should be as cheap, if not cheaper, than the other services. At which point, anybody who hassles with the "toy" carriers is getting what he or she deserves." He is, of course, correct. However the competitive services (e.g. sprint) offer billing services not matched by AT&T. Moreover AT&T's closest approach is quite expensive. When I am at a friend's home (or at a business telephone) I can use sprint service without paying a surcharge (for operator assistance or use of credit card) and without having to reimburse my friend for the cost of the call. I realize that this flexible billing was essentially "forced" on the competitive services. However it is the reason I use sprint when not at my home or my office. Until AT&T provides an equivalent service at the equivalent price, there will be a major niche for competitive services -- even if the quality of the connection is much lower. ted ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 08:14:34 PDT From: David Alpern <ALPERN%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: Re: long distance service quality Lauren, I agree with you completely. But in some areas AT&T isn't any better. From Boston to Chicago, for example, AT&T sounds like you're next door. From Sunnyvale to Chicago, it might as well be the moon -- Sprint gives consistently better connections, with less background noise and less echo. My father just picked up service with SPS. WOW! AT&T is no comparison for clearness of the line, although we don't have enough experience yet to tell if lost connections and other such occurences are a problem. - Dave ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 84 1427 EDT (Tuesday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz@CMU-CS-A.ARPA> Subject: headsets Anybody know anything about Nady Systems, Inc. at 1145 65th Street, Oakland, CA 94608, phone (415) 652-7632? They offer "EasyTalk" headsets, models TH-15H (full headband) and TH-15E (over the ear) for $29.95 and $27.95 respectively. These prices include a line-powered amplifire which plugs in series with the regular handset. UPS delivery is also included. They also market various wireless microphones, two way 49MHz communicators, etc., all at fairly low prices. Is the stuff any good? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 84 23:53:05 PDT (Mon) From: Jeff Dean <jeff@aids-unix> Subject: long distance service I agree with Lauren that the alternative carriers are often useless for conducting serious business. I too use AT&T when I have "important" calls to make. However, I don't share his view of the future. For those of use who have used the alternative carriers over the past few years (my particular experiences were with Sprint and MCI), it is obvious that they have improved their services dramatically (and they appear to be continuing in that direction. On the other hand, I think that AT&T service has already started to deteriorate, and I'll bet that the financial woes of AT&T will eventually result in further deteriorization of service. AT&T is a very different company now. It is a mistake to assume that their future products and services will bear any semblance to what they have done in the past. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 28 Aug 84 17:30:40-EDT From: Jon Solomon <M.JSOL@MIT-EECS> Subject: SBS Skyline service I've used them for about the past year and have found that their quality is not a match for AT&T. Most of the time the volume of the connection is quite low, lower than SPC or MCI even, and occasionaly, we get a line which has a delayed response time. You almost have to think you have a simplex (half duplex) line. Ugh, I thought we gave up half duplex back in the '60s. In addition, BBN has direct lines to MCI's toll switch, and the quality is quite good, which leads me to believe that they will be the quality leader when equal access comes to town. The only thing SBS Skyline service has that AT&T doesn't have is cost effectiveness. SBS charges are quite good, the best in the industry (except if you are calling one of Allnet's best trunks). Oh, one more thing. I just picked up AT&T's Reach out America service. You get 50% off on evening calls (50% off the daytime rate, that is - 35% normal, plus an additional 15% for belonging to the plan), and night/weekend calls cost $11.30 for the first hour, and $8.50 for each additional hour. If you make all your calls at night, and on weekends, you can save more money than using SBS Skyline service, *or* Allnet. Not as good as I had hoped, but still the best you can do. Cheers, --JSol p.s. it's going to be very interesting to note the next year or two as "equal access" becomes the norm. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************