Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1981-86.volumes.1-5/vol4.iss064-118

Text File | 1990-12-09 | 411KB | 9,921 lines

Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #64
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 19:05:21 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Fri Aug  3 16:02:38 1984

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  <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>

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: [e-mail]
Date: 29 Jul 84 11:17:19 EDT (Sunday)
Subject: Re: Charging for local Directory Assistance calls
From: Don Wegeng <[e-mail]>

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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 84 14:36:13 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #65
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 20:47:54 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Tue Aug  7 17:43:05 1984

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 [e-mail]

------------------------------

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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: loud tone after dialing
Location: EJ286    Phone: [phone]

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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #66
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 18:28:56 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-ML:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Tue Aug 14 15:23:51 1984

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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #67
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 19:08:16 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Wed Aug 15 16:03:10 1984

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: [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #68
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 17:22:50 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Fri Aug 17 14:18:36 1984

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 <[e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #70
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 20:22:12 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Tue Aug 21 17:19:01 1984

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* <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]  (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 <[e-mail]>

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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #71
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 17:44:38 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Wed Aug 22 14:41:08 1984

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 <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]  (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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #72
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!dual!ucbvax!da
        emon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 19:06:42 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Thu Aug 23 16:02:06 1984

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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 21:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Universal Dialing
Reply-to: [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
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* <[e-mail]>
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* <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #71

Re: NYC area code split (MSG from <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: 23-Aug-1984 1523
From: [e-mail]  (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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #73
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Fri, 24-Aug-84 17:00:07 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Fri Aug 24 13:57:22 1984

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![e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]  (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 <[e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #69
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 00:23:52 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Mon Aug 20 21:19:42 1984

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: [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]  (Sandy Libman)
Subject: 1+ is not always not free


>Date: Wed 8 Aug 84 09:45:54-PDT >From: Richard Furuta
<[e-mail]> >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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]  (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: [e-mail]  (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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #74
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 21:51:53 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Mon Aug 27 18:50:20 1984

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 <[e-mail]>
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![e-mail]>
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![e-mail]>
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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #75
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!daemon
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Date: Tue, 28-Aug-84 17:54:50 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From @MIT-MC:Telecom-Request@MIT-MC  Tue Aug 28 14:51:34 1984

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![e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: headsets

Anybody know anything about Nady Systems, Inc. at 1145 65th Street,
Oakland, CA 94608, phone [phone]?  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
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #79
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 21:28:26 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Wednesday, 5 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
                          Where can I find....
                          Carrier line quality
                        Equal Access -- A scream!
                             telephone costs
                              Equal Access
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 19:43 EDT
From: David H M Spector <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where can I find....

Can anyone point me in the right direction for some basic telephone
technical information.  Such as, where can I find documentation on
wiring, installing, debuging {...etc...etc} of one phone
equipment/systems?

Also, are those nifty handsets purchasable anywhere?  Please respond
by mail, if there is enough interesting stuff I will summarise....

                        Thanks,
                                Dave Spector
                                NYU Systems Group
                                SPECTOR@NYU-CMCL1

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (mknox)
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 84 20:06:12 CDT
Subject: Carrier line quality


I decided to finally add my 2 cents to the question of ATT vs other
carrier line quality.

I have, for business reasons, 1) standard AT&T, 2) AT&T WATS, and 3)
SPRINT.  The SPRINT is extremely useful for calls not placed from
base, and for calls made to other points within the state and to
Mexico.  The WATS service is only good for out-of-state to calls
within the US, and the standard AT&T is needed for in-town and most
out-of-country calls.

I find the service to be good on ALL of the above.  But there are
three interesting problems:

SPRINT billing:  they DO bill me for perhaps 50 calls a month I did
not complete (let it ring 5 or 6 times).

AT&T billing:  MUCH worse.  NO ONE in the continental UNITED STATES
can track down an errant WATS bill, I have decided.

SPRINT quality:  I have never had any significant line problems with
voice SPRINT service.  BUT... I have a 1200 baud 212A modem which
absolutely REFUSES to connect over a SPRINT line.  The line sounds
fine, but the modem says NO WAY.  It works just fine over AT&T lines.

------------------------------

Date: 03-Sep-1984 2232
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Equal Access -- A scream!

I was just poking around at Equal Access.

Dialed 10222 (MCI) 0 NPA NXX-XXXX.  MCI's switch (yes, I know it was
MCI and not the BOC) gave me the following recording:

For operator assistance please hang up and dial 10288 plus 0...

Guess they're glad to hand that business over to AT&T.

/john

------------------------------

Date: 3 September 1984 23:54-EDT
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC>
Subject: telephone costs

There have been few good studies published of the actual costs of
local calling -- mostly because the telcos themselves don't know.  The
accounting systems that they set up years ago under FCC orders didn't
require them to keep track of detailed information in that way, so
they never did.  That's beginning to change, but little of that type
of data has reached public print.

One of the few good studies in this area is a paper by Bridger
Mitchell of Rand published in the American Economic Review in 1978.
Also, see the book by Meyer et.al. published by Charles River
Associates entitled something like "Competition in Telecommunications"

Marvin Sirbu

------------------------------

Date: 04-Sep-1984 1622
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Equal Access

Couple of things:

1. If you choose anyone other than AT&T as your primary carrier,
   0+ will work within your LATA, but outside your LATA, you will
   get whatever that carrier provides (such as the recording telling
   you to dial 10288 0 ... which MCI provides).

   Likewise with overseas.  MCI says "MCI does not yet provide service
   to the country you are calling, but plans to."

2. You can forward through any carrier.

3. Speed calling does not store a carrier, so you get either your
primary
   carrier, or, if you precede the call with a 10xxx code, you get
that
   carrier.

4. NO-PICK is an option in at least Northwestern Bell, which means
that
   1+ only works within your LATA; all calls have to have an explicit
   carrier choice.

5. In some places, just plain "0" may not work if your carrier is not
   AT&T.  This is worth objecting to, because of the potential impact
   on emergencies.

Interesting times are ahead!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #80
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 5-Sep-84 21:03:52 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Thursday, 6 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
                           A bug or a feature?
                       More on alternate carriers
                              Hardware info
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #79
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 84 20:43:21 PDT
From: "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A bug or a feature?

General Telephone has just replaced it's old step-by-step switch
serving the Malibu exchange (213-456-xxxx) with a new electronic
switch.  I believe that the press releases announcing the switch to
the new switch called it an EAX-5.

I have two lines served by the new switch and I just discovered the
following (which works on both lines):

If I dial my own number, I don't get a busy signal, instead I get a
soft "beep" every two seconds.  This lasts for 6 beeps.  If I hang up
before the last beep, then the phone rings; when picked up it gives 5
more "beeps", again one every two seconds.  After that the line
becomes quiet, but sidetone remains (so that you can talk between two
extensions).  If I hang up after the last beep, the phone doesn't ring
and when picked up gives a dial-tone.  Is this an unannounced
"intercom" feature?

On the other hand, if I simply leave the phone off the hook, then,
after 20 seconds, dial tone goes away; a ringing signal occurs and
within another 10 seconds I receive the following recording in a male
voice:  "The alloted time for you to dial has been exceeded, please
hang up and dial again.  This is a recording."

After playing the recording 4 times, the line becomes quiet and then
after about 10 seconds a strange tone (not a dial tone is heard).
After about 10 seconds it changes frequency.  Then after another 10
seconds a "nasty" chirp occurs at a rate of 2 chirps per second.
After about 20 seconds this goes away and once again the line is
quiet.

ted

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 84 13:48:41 EDT
From: Brint <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on alternate carriers

It seems quite likely that the reason for the alleged poor quality of
MCI, Sprint, and others stems not from deficiencies in their own
equipment but in the interconnect provided by the local phone company
whose loyalty may still be to AT&T (who got there first and,
therefore, got the better connections).

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 1984  11:04 PDT (Wed)
Sender: TLI@USC-ECLB
From: Tony Li <Tli@Usc-Eclb>
Reply-to: Tli@Usc-Eclb
Subject: Hardware info


Hi all,

I'm looking for something rather different.  I hope you can help.  A
friend of mine is moving overseas to a location where phone service to
a new residence takes approximately 1-2 years to install.
Fortunately, there is a line 2-3 miles away that is already installed
that he can use.  What I guess I'm looking for then is a phone which
has a range of 2-3 miles, the base station is not the receiver, and
preferably can be wired for 220.  Price is no object.

Thanks in advance, Tony ;-) <Tli@Usc-Ecl>

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 84 16:30:03 PDT (Wednesday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #79

Today, the telephony expert at my site gave me the bad news about AT&T
installation of a transcon (Palo Alto, CA to Rochester, NY) 56K bps
data line. Leadtime of 4 or more months!

My question:  have you had any experience with 56K bps leased line
service from any of AT&T's competition? How does the leadtime, cost,
quality of service, technical ability, etc compare with AT&T? What was
used for the last mile, Digital Termination, DDS from local telco,
etc?

Thanks,

Larry Kluger <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #81
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 6-Sep-84 18:54:33 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest            Friday, 7 Sep 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
                              Equal Access
                         Re: A bug or a feature?
                      Bell 212A Modem DIP switches
                   CO feature & connection (responses)
                   4-Month Lead Time For 56 Kbps Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday,  5 Sep 1984 18:43:35-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Tony Priborsky)
Subject: Equal Access

How will WATS numbers fare with equal access?  The blurb in a recent
newspaper article indicated that I will have to declare my long
distance carrier (having subscribed in advance to a non-AT&T carrier
if I so chose) will be accessed by 1-, same as AT&T.  Will MCI
"forward" 800 calls over to AT&T?  If so, will they charge for the
service?  What about the 900 service?

Thanks... Tony.

[Most likely you will be told by the MCI switch to hang up and dial
10288-1-800 and the number. Yuck.--JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday,  5 Sep 1984 19:03:38-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Documents of Our Lives.)
Subject: Re: A bug or a feature?

In La Crosse, Wisconsin, the Century Telephone Corporation runs the
show.

I don't know what type of equipment they have; I do know that after I
would finish dialing a number (either rotary or tone), I would hear a
series of fast "beeps" which seemed to correspond to tones generated
by a touch-tone telephone.

Anyway, we had nearly the same results with dialing our own phone
number.  A female voice would come on, saying

    "You have dialed a party on your line.  Please hang up the phone
    and try again.  If you need further assistance, dial your
operator.
    This is a recording."

If we hung up right away, nothing happened.  If we waited for a few
seconds before hanging up, the phone would be silent for a second,
then start ringing.  When we picked it up, a clicking noise could be
heard.  Hanging up would restore things back to normal.

I personally liked the feature; it was a great way to check out the
telephones I installed for friends, although I think the phone company
had intended it to be used by people who wanted to call each other,
but shared a party line.

Does anyone know how to get the ringback effect on 603-88y-xxxx?  If
so, please let me know.  I'm specifically looking for the 888 and 881
exchanges.  Thanks.

                                JENelson

Wed 5-Sep-1984 22:15 EST

------------------------------

Date: Thursday,  6 Sep 1984 05:19:09-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Lester Waters)
Subject: Bell 212A Modem DIP switches


        "It's always a DIP switch!"

        Does anyone out there have any info about the banks of DIP
switches contained in a Bell 212A 300/1200 baud modem? It would be
nice to have info on all the switches and their meanings, but in
particular, I am looking for a switch that controls the action of
whether or not to take the phone off the hook when Carrier is
Detected. Currently, If TR (Terminal Ready) is raised, and the phone
is taken off the hook, the modem takes the phone off the hook
internally to itself - thus preventing me from dialing the phone.

        A while back, the modem used to wait for both TR (DTR) and CD
(Carrier Detect) before picking up the phone. I have a button on the
phone, much like a Hold button, which is pressed when the phone is
used as a data line (after dialing your destination and hearing the
carrier).

        Any help would be appreciated.

                                - Lester -

------------------------------

Date: Thursday,  6 Sep 1984 05:54:25-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: CO feature & connection (responses)

Ted Vail's observation about the new 5EAX ringback feature reminds me
of all the variations I've seen on that theme among "Bell" COs.  It's
generally the policy of a CO (steppers may not be smart enough,
though) to allow a ringback number to be dialed, so people can adjust
bells, etc.  It probably dates back to the days when telco installers
did everything!  If they meant it for us peons to use, they'd have
documented it.  But in Jersey Bell areas, the common technique was to
dial 550, wait for dial tone, rotary pulse (only) a "6", then hang up.
In a New York Tel CO I once lived near, you dialed your own number,
which returned a special tone and ringback.  In Boston, you dial 98n
(n=0,1,2 or 3, depending on which CO) followed by the last four digits
of your own number.  Etc.  Always fun to know.

Re: Why the snit carriers usually sound so bad:  Except for SBS and a
few local resellers, the bulk of the trivial carriers don't pay for
trunk-side (ENFIA-B/C, now Feature Group B) access to the local
networks, but hook up to the line side, rather like PBXs with remote
access features.  Don't blame the telcos if line-side connections
(Feature Group A) sound cruddy; how do you think the snits keep their
costs down?  Also, most are much more likely than ATTCOM to use
satellites (long delay), etc.  Do blame the telcos if they don't make
trunk-side connections available, though; some LD carriers have had
problems getting them.

Re: Overseas hookup via radio:  You're likely to have two major
problems with the foreign government trying to use a "long-range
cordless phone".  One is that you'd need a license to use the radio
waves (cordless phones in the US are treated as "incidental radiation"
devices and allocated special frequencies; other countries don't).
Two is that you'd need permission to hook it up to the local telephone
network anyway, which is doubtful.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 84 15:57:50 EDT
From: dca-pgs @ DDN1.ARPA
Subject: 4-Month Lead Time For 56 Kbps Lines


I'm amazed that you could get them as fast as four months. When I was
with the DDN (until last June ) we were hearing 12-18 months.
XEROX-PARC must have more juice than the Defense Department...

-Pat Sullivan
 Defense Switched Network (DSN)
 <dca-pgs@ddn1>

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #82
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 22:55:12 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Saturday, 8 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
                          Re: ringback feature
          How are international calls effected by the break-up?
          AT&T is moving toward profit limit (Associated Press)
                           EAX / Interconnect
                          Communications Forum
                          Thank you Judge Green
                    Determining your own phone number
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 84 18:16:36 cdt
From: [e-mail] (Hyunjune Sebastian)
Subject: Re: ringback feature

As long as we're talking about curious numbers to call, I thought I
might put in my two cents' worth.  In Boston, there is a number you
can call which connects you with a mechanical voice that tells you the
number of the phone you are calling from.  It's handy when you're
trying to get incoming calls on an unmarked phone.  Unfortunately,
I've forgotten the number.  Does anybody know it, or know a similar
number for other areas?

Sebastian

[The Cambridge CO/Toll center uses 1-200-555-1212, Most other ESS's in
Boston use 977. I don't know much about CrossBar exchanges in the
Boston area. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Fri 31 Aug 84 05:16:49-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: How are international calls effected by the break-up?

(if at all)

Regional phone-companies seem to be able to decide themselves, which
LD-company to use in case of 'generic LD-calls' (at least that's my
impression from the press - not sure what has been said here on this
topic).  As international calls have to get routed, at least part of
the way through the national net-work, can someone speculate on what
MAY happen to such calls ???

------------------------------

Date: Wed 5 Sep 84 03:09:42-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T is moving toward profit limit (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) [last week sometimes - Werner]

AT&T, despite service backlogs and increased competition, has begun
moving closer in recent months to its maximum authorized profit margin
for interstate long-distance telephone service.

A company spokesman said Tuesday, AT&T's rate of return, or profit
margin on long-distance services stood at 12.36 percent after the
first seven months of 1984.  that compares to a maximum authorized
margin of 12.75 percent annually, based on AT&T's investment in
facilities.

Formal reports filed by AT&T with the FCC show the company actually
exceeded its authorized margin during the three-month period ending
June 30 after falling substantially below the maximum rate during the
first quarter.

AT&T has been filing a revised version of a special monthly report on
interstate phone operations with the FCC since Jan 1, when it gave up
ownership of ... [ you know what ] ... has so far filed written
reports for the first 6 months of the year.  Results through the end
of July were disclosed Tuesday by AT&T's Pic Wagner in response to an
inquiry about the unexpectedly high profit margin reported for the
month of June - 17.6 %.

Wagner said the earnings of the firm's long-distance unit, AT&T
Communications, have become extremely volatile on a month-to-month
basis and thus cannot be used as a reliable guage [sic] of final 1984
results.

....

[ .. The world largest magic show: accounting.  brought to you by: ...
]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6-Sep-84 14:55:36 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: EAX / Interconnect

The behavior cited for the EAX-5 in Malibu is normal for the new EAX
series.  Dialing you own number is the standard ringback in those
offices -- that's all that's going on.  Pretty sensible, actually,
though a bit simple for subscribers to find.

---

While the 2 to 4 wire interconnect situation certainly accounts for
part of the perceived poor quality of many alternate carriers, it
can't easily account for such factors as dropped calls, extremely high
hiss and noise levels, or all intertoll trunk busy situations.  Things
will get better with better interconnect, but that's only one element
of the overall transmission path.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 84 09:22 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Communications Forum

MIT COMMUNICATIONS FORUM



National Media Policymaking

September 20, 1984 4-6 p.m.

Marlar Lounge, E37-252, 70 Vassar St., MIT

 speakers:

Jeremy Tunstall, City University of London

Jack Lyle, Boston University



Rapidly developing mass media technologies have ended a relative

ly stable, "classical" era of national and international policy.

Familiar concerns about cultural integrity are now mixed with

desire to participate in advanced technologies as a matter of

economic policy.  The policymaking process has attracted many

newly interested parties and engendered much debate, sometimes

between government agencies.



Professor Tunstall has undertaken a study focusing on the policy

making process in the United States, Britain, and France, and the

prospective effect on the relationships between the United States

and the countries of Western Europe.



******



Multichannel MDS:  Wireless Cable?

October 4, 1984 4-6 p.m.

Bush Room, Bldg 10-105, MIT

 speakers:

Howard Klotz, Contemporary Communications

Peter Lemieux, Information Architects/ MIT



A new band of television has been created which may provide for

as many as 28 different television channels.  The FCC has

reassigned eight channels in the ITFS band to MDS and is

permitting the leasing of "excess capacity" on ITFS channels to

commercial users.  In effect, This service has been termed Multi

channel MDS (or MMDS) and is seen as potential competition for

cable television.  MMDS would be free from local regulation and

would not have to carry broadcast signals.  To be successful,

however, it may require creative arrangements between commercial

entrepreneurs and nonprofit educational institutions.

------------------------------

Date: Friday,  7 Sep 1984 12:42:20-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Easynet Engineering 381-1683)
Subject: Thank you Judge Green


     The following story must go down in the history of the telephone
     company's split up.  It shows how stupid reality can be, to meet
     the legal requirements of a society.

     A leased telephone circuit was ordered "many" months ago which
     was to go from Andover, Mass.  to Salem, New Hampshire.  These
     two locations are about 10 miles apart, and both within New
     England Telephone's (NET) domain.  The problem is that they are
     separated by a state line which is also the LATA line (Local
     Access and Transport Area).  Under new regulations, any circuit
     crossing from one LATA into another must be "carried" by a "long
     distance" carrier.  The choices are growing, but basically ATT is
     the best game in town.  The order is placed to ATT thru our
     corporate telecom offices, ATT designs the circuit out of a
     building in White Plains, NY, and ATT contracts the local loops
     to the local companies.  In this case, both local loops go to
     NET.

     The design isn't that big an engineering job.  There are circuits
     in available directly from the Lawrence telephone central office
     (CO), which serves Andover, to the CO in Salem.  These circuits
     cross the LATA but do not belong to ATT.  Where they are used,
     the long distance carrier must rent them from NET.  Many existing
     circuits crossing the NH/Mass LATA are now rented to ATT, but
     apparently due to high cost and paperwork involved, ATT considers
     this a last resort in building a new circuit.

     The "best" engineering job that ATT could do is to take the
     circuit from the Lawrence CO to ATT's office in Lawrence.  This
     is known as a point of presence, refered to as a POP.  From ATT's
     office in Lawrence, it could go up to Manchester, New Hampshire.
     Manchester is the only POP that ATT has in New Hampshire.  From
     there, it would go direct to Salem.  A bit out of the way, but
     only by about 50 miles.

     Now for the punch line.  The circuit was designed and built from
     Lawrence, Ma.  to Philadelphia.  From there it goes to Trenton,
     New Jersey, on to New York City, and then up to Manchester, New
     Hampshire.  It goes direct from Manchester to Salem.  Over 800
     miles to get 10 miles up the street and across the border.

     The reason the circuit was designed this way was because the
     existing circuits between the Lawrence and Manchester POPs aren't
     in ATT's design database yet, so do not exist.

     Why cry you ask, it still gets there.  True, but at the moment
     the circuit is still not up and running reliably.  The tech at
     NET is responsible for getting the circuit working, but rather
     than having to debug a direct circuit, the tech must trace the
     circuit thru about eight different offices.  We are having
     trouble getting the person to do this, but don't blame them for
     their attitude.

     As an addendum, late word is that a circuit from Lawrence been
     found in the data base of ATT which can be used.  Some strings
     are going to be pulled, and we may have the circuit re-engineered
     by tomorrow.

     bill gassman
     Internal Network (Easynet) Engineering
     DEC - 603-884-1683

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 1984 11:36-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Determining your own phone number

With everbody buying their own phones now, I have had the following
happen to me several times. You're at a friend's house, or the friend
of a friend's. The friend is out, and you want to leave the phone
number with someone else. You look on the phone for a number, but you
friend has not written it in. Is there something you can do with the
phone to find out the number of the line it's connected to? Directory
assistance is not always the answer.  Thanks, Randy.  Randy Day.
UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4}!uw-beaver!uw-june!randy ARPA: randy@washington
CSNET: randy%washington@csnet-relay

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #83
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 9-Sep-84 04:25:46 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest            Sunday, 9 Sep 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
                    Determining your own phone number
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #82
                  International Calls and the Break-up
                   Speculation: International Routing
          The funny machine that gives you your number back...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 84 18:49:19 PDT
From: Matthew J Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Determining your own phone number


[Number, pleeease?]

Some cities have special codes reserved to identify the number you are
calling from (I recall PacBell having *3 (113) a few years back).

The low tech solution is to call the operator and ask for the number
you're calling from.  The operators generally have this info, and they
will often provide it to you. If they don't, try another operator.

                                - Matt

------------------------------

Date: Fri 7 Sep 84 23:19:44-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #82


 In the massachusetts area there is a easier way to find out the
number you are calling from.

Dial "2002222222" Then you will get a voice telling you what number
you are calling from.


    Pete...

------------------------------

Date: 08-Sep-1984 0112
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: International Calls and the Break-up

Until you get equal access, nothing changes.

Once you get equal access, if you do nothing, you get the local
company's default for unspecified users, which is almost always AT&T,
though it could be anything, as long as 1+ can get you to anywhere,
and 0+ can also get you to anywhere.

A company COULD make 1+ and 0+ do nothing, but it is unlikely that any
local company would do that, at least not yet.  New subscribers may
begin to actually declare which carrier is primary at the time the
line is ordered.  You may be allowed "no-pick" -- I've seen a phone
with no-pick.  With no-pick, each call has to be preceeded by a 10xxx
to select the carrier.

At the moment, it's pretty much AT&T's ball game with respect to
overseas.  The local C.O.s know that other carriers don't offer
overseas, and so 011+ goes to a recording in the local C.O., telling
you that the number you've called can't be made with the carrier you
have dialed.

Except for MCI.  MCI is close to offering service to Luxembourg.  So
MCI gets handed any 011+.  They give you a recording which says "MCI
does not presently serve the country you are calling, but plans to
soon.  Please dial 10288 011 plus the international number of the
person you are calling."  I suppose if more than one other carrier
were offering service they might not be able to point you at AT&T like
that.  They also provide that message for countries they are UNLIKELY
to serve any time in the near future.

If you choose any carrier other than AT&T, you can expect odd things
to happen, potentially inconsistently from place to place, any time
you dial a service they don't offer.  But you can always select the
carrier of your choice.

An interesting attribute right now is that of the seven or so carriers
operating in D.C. at the moment, SBS is the only one which checks to
see if you are signed up with them already, and denies you access if
not.  MCI has arranged billing agreements with some operating
companies, so that if you dial an MCI call with 10222 or by
designating MCI as your primary carrier, you'll get your bill for MCI
service right with your regular telephone bill.

All the others which let calls go through must plan on using the
opportunity to sign users up.  I'm not sure if they'll be able to get
a phone number to subscriber translation out of the operating company
if they don't have a billing arrangement, but they could probably get
the info if someone runs up a big bill and can't be contacted by phone
to sign up.

Interesting times ahead!

/john

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 1984 2225 PDT
From: Harris B. Edelman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speculation: International Routing
Reply-to: [e-mail]

Bear in mind that the world telephone region codes were determined,
more or less unilaterally, by AT&T some years back.  You care to make
any guesses as to who might make the most concerted push for selection
as the default international carrier?  (You were perhaps hoping for
someone other than Old Mother Phone?)

BTW, while on the subject of world region codes, the 1+ now so widely
used in North America for toll switch access is no coincidence; 1 just
happens to be the N.A. region code.

------------------------------

Date: 8-Sep-84    7: 5:32 EDT
From: James A. Dorf   <cd001kmm%BostonU.BITNET@Berkeley>
Subject: The funny machine that gives you your number back...

------ Simply dialing "220" seems to work on all the ESS machines I've
come across in Boston.. The 1(200)555-1212 hack seems to work nearly
everywhere (and maybe even in N.J.!)  /jad

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #84
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 10-Sep-84 19:12:39 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Tuesday, 11 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
                           ring back protocol
                Re: V4 #83 -- Determining your own number
                      How to get your own number ?
                         finding your own number
           Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #81 (800 and Equal Access)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 1984 22:17:17-EDT
From: meister at mit-ccc
Subject: ring back protocol


i live in Malden, Mass. as far as i know, the trunk line i am
connected to is the Arlington trunk line. when trying the ringback #'s
given for the boston area, (98n and the last 4 digits of my number,
n=0,1,2,3 depending on which local telco) some interesting things
happened. 981,982,983 all failed. 980 immediately gave me a series of
tone pulses of approx .1s duration. this would continue unitl i hung
up. i dialed 980 and then the last 4 digits of my phone #, but no
ringback or other indication of activity.  BUT(heres the interesting
part) i dialed 980, and when i got the tones, i pulse dialed a '6'. my
phone line immediately went dead. i am not sure if it is back yet, as
it happened early today.

 does anyone out there have any ideas as to what is going on?

------------------------------

Date: Sunday,  9 Sep 1984 11:04:44-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (David B. Fox)
Subject: Re: V4 #83 -- Determining your own number

        A while ago I was out at a customer site (a high school)
setting up their dial-in lines.  I needed the phone numbers so that I
could check out the lines... unfortunately they were not written on
the jacks so that the students couldn't find out what they were.

        I tried the operator like Matthew suggested.  The operator
referred me to the Business office for the information.  That wouldn't
have been much help either.  I tried pursuing it with the operator but
to no avail.  It seems that it is now considered a risk to the owner
of the line if they give out the number.  Oh well.  I did, however,
find the local "magic number" and was able to get the information I
needed.

        I don't know what kind of switch Manchester, NH has but that
same number won't work in Nashua, NH.  Anyone know what kind of
switching equipment is being used in Manchester and Nashua?

        David


Sun 9-Sep-1984 14:03 EST - Bedford, New Hampshire

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 1984 16:47 PDT
From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC>
Subject: How to get your own number ?
Reply-to: LARS@ACC

I tried dialing 1(200)555-1212 [Santa Barbara, GTE service area].  Got
"The call can not be completed as dialed. Check the number and dial
again. This is a recording. 805-682".  Well, at least they gave me 6
of the ten digits. I suspect that the fake 200 area code may only be
valid in (former ATT) areas.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Sep 84 20:19:17 EDT
From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: finding your own number

I tried the 200-555-1212.  What I get is the little lady saying...
zero zero zero zero zero zero zero... but the phone also keep ringing.

How odd.  Our other favorite method (but it takes time) is to call up
and make a credit-card call.  It will show up on your bill next month.

Third, you can sweet talk a friend of yours at the 911 center to tell
you what the ANI readout says.
-Ron

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!ihldt!jhh@Berkeley
Date: 10 Sep 84 10:05:24 CDT (Mon)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #81 (800 and Equal Access)

AT&T's proposal is that the carrier chosen for an 800 call be based on
the number.  All current 800 numbers would be assigned to AT&T.  If
MCI wanted to provide 800 numbers (and they do), the customer would
get one of MCI's numbers.  The other carrier's objections to this plan
is that each carrier would not necessarily get the same set of numbers
in every city.  This would prevent their customers from using national
advertising, which they argue effectively makes AT&T the only 800
service.  The other carriers want to register the carrier with the 800
number in the AT&T database where 800 number routings are stored.
Since Long Lines developed that database, they are not too enthused
about that idea.

The jist of this is that, since the callee pays for the call rather
than the caller, the callee selects the carrier, regardless of any
choice of the carrier selected by the caller.
        John Haller

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #85
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 14-Sep-84 09:42:04 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Friday, 14 Sep 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
          Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #82 (new telephone channels)
                         Info about telephones?
                          Michigan Bell and BBN
                              Equal access
                          [Kahin: Fiber Optics]
                               odds & ends
                             "smart" phones
                          dialing only 7 digits
                    Determining your own phone number
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ihnp4!houxm!homxa!mzk@Berkeley
Date: 10 Sep 84 11:20:59 CDT (Mon)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #82 (new telephone channels)

What are ITFS && MDS. Thank you.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Sep 84 20:24:50-EDT
From: Bob Soron  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info about telephones?


        Can anyone recommend a book (or detailled yet easy-to-find
magazine article) on telephone installation?  Our house is hard-
wired, and I'd like to replace our old ten-button touchtones with
something a little more modern.  Thanks...  ...Bob

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 84 16:16:32 EDT
From: dca-pgs @ DDN1.ARPA
Subject: Michigan Bell and BBN


Congrats to BBN; I understand that they won a sizable contract from
Michigan Bel to build a large data network.

Can anyone out there supply some more info on this project?  Will the
net be based on C/30 IMP technology (indeed, will it be based on
packet switching?)? Will BBN implement other facilities, such as
E-mail, and what will they use?  (i. e., C/70, VAX, etc.) is

Is this BBN's first venture in building common carrier facilities?

Many apologies for typos; this thing doesn't backspace.

Best,
-Pat Sullivan
 Defense Switched Network

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Sep 84 21:09:10-EDT
From: Robert S. Lenoil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Equal access

Living in the Back Bay, I have just come under equal access, and
completed a semi-rigorous review of what the various long distance
carriers have to offer.  I initially am going with MCI, but NOT for
their low rates.  (on the contrary, MCI had the highest rates, next to
AT&T, on calls from Boston->New York) You see, MCI is giving me one
hour's worth of free calls, worth about $12.50.  After I've used up
the $12.50, I will change carriers for a $5.00 fee, for a $7.50
profit.  My next target is USTel, which claims it will enclose $25 in
coupons along with my second month's bill.  I might actually stay with
USTel, as they are AT&T resellers (which means their quality should be
comparable to AT&T's), and they were among the lowest priced carriers
for the Boston->NY mileage band.

Presently, before my MCI presubscription goes into effect, I am using
ALLNET.  They are also AT&T resellers, and though the setup time is
slightly longer, the call quality is just fine.  ALLNET's prefix is
10444, and as they have a billing agreement with NET, anyone can use
their service.  Also, ALLNET and USTel both claim to bill in 6 second
increments.  I am eager to see how this looks on the ALLNET bill
section generated by NET.

------------------------------

Date: 11 September 1984 20:59-EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: [Kahin: Fiber Optics]

Date:  Tue, 11 Sep 84 12:05 EDT From:  [e-mail] Subject:
Fiber Optics To:  *[e-mail]

Communications Forum

Monday Seminar Series

         on



    FIBER OPTICS



Dr.  Stewart Personick

Bell Communications Research





"Optical Fiber Technology and Applications"



Optical Fibers; Sources and Transmitters; Detectors and Receivers;

Optical Components; System Phenomenology; Telecommunications Trunk

ing; Data Links; Local Area Networks; Analog Links; Broadband

Networks; Measurement and Sensing Systems; Emerging Technology and

Applications (Integrated Optics, Heterodyning, Photonic Switching)



First meeting:  September 17, 1984 Room 36-144, MIT



For further information:  [phone].

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 84 9:12:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: odds & ends

Would some hotels charge if you just picked up the phone and got dial
tone and made no call?

On July 2, I saw the following exchanges in use at Mount Vernon, Va.
(area code 703):  pay phone was 780 (local service to DC & suburbs)
but a charge-phone right next to it was 781 (local to DC & Va. suburbs
but not to Md.)

Jan. 1984 Northern Virginia (DC area suburbs) directory mentions a
restricted calling card good only for calling a particular phone
number (such as calling home from college).

Comments on 1+ coming to New Jersey:  Even without NXX exchanges, 1+
makes some exchanges, currently available as local calls just over the
area-code border, also available within one's own area.  (For example,
Trenton has local service to 736 in Morrisville, Pa., and 1+ makes
possible the use of 609-736 distant from Trenton.)  Requiring
0+areacode (not just 0+) within the area is a feature of areas using
NXX (except in Los Angeles area), and we've been told in this digest
that area 201 will need NXX (any timetable on this)? How does all this
affect 609?  I have heard that most NJ phones won't even shut off the
dialtone on leading 1+ (and this now has to change).

I dial 1+ by hitting the switchhook.  This does fail on rare
occasions.

Cases of 1+ on non-toll calls I know about:  Local (and message-unit)
calls going over areacode line in NYC and Los Angeles areas. (Must
dial 1+areacode+ local number for this.)  From 261 & 621 prefixes (and
at least 1 other) in Md., the phone book (Laurel or Md. Suburban) says
to dial 1+number ("this is not a toll call") to reach 569 in Md.,
because 569 without the 1+ is a local call to Springfield, Va.  In
area 215 (Phila., etc.) in exchanges adjacent to the Phila. metro
area, you can get Phila. metro service, and dial 1+number to get
Phila. metro area numbers not already included in flat rate or
extended flat rate areas.

[Boston Metropolitan service also crosses the 1+ boundary in many
places (especially those outside Rte 128). Boston Central Exchange
doesn't include those 1+ areas in the Metro calling area. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 84 00:10:47 pdt
From: tamir@Berkeley (Yuval Tamir)
Subject: "smart" phones

I am interested in purchasing a "smart" phone that has the following
features:  (1) Speakerphone (2) Tone/pulse dialing (3) Memory for at
least 10 numbers (4) Automatic continuous redial of busy numbers

One model that has these features is the Panasonic 2130.  It retails
for $99 around here.  Its main disadvantage is that it will
automatically redial busy numbers for a maximum of only 15 times.  If
you are trying to reach, say, the IRS, you may want it to continue
redialing as fast as possible for hours . . .

I am looking for recommendations or warnings about specific models
(the Panasonic and others) that provide the above features.  If there
is sufficient response, I will post a summary.

                                  Yuval Tamir

                           ARPANET/CSNET:  tamir@Berkeley
                                    UUCP:  ucbvax!tamir

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 84 9:31:11 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: dialing only 7 digits

It has been noted that 1+ doesn't always mean a toll call, but note
that when 1+ is in force, you CANNOT make a toll call if you dial only
7 digits.

[That's not completely true. 1+ in many areas means "use a toll
switch". It doesn't always mean that non 1+ calls will use the toll
switch, nor does it say that non 1+ calls will always be local.
--JSol]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1984 14:04-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Determining your own phone number

Several people have responded to my question of how to determine the
phone number of your own phone (without calling Directory Assistance,
etc.) In Seattle I have tried all of the following, none of which has
worked:  1-200-555-1212 200-555-1212 *3113 1-200-222-2222 200-222-2222
These generally come back with a "Your call can not be completed as
dailed" message, although one came back with a "Please check your
owner's manual" message. The best idea so far was a suggestion to call
911 and ask them what number you are calling from. Anyone else know
how to determine your own number?  Randy Day.  UUCP:
{decvax|ihnp4}!uw-beaver!uw-june!randy ARPA: randy@washington CSNET:
randy%washington@csnet-relay

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #86
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 16-Sep-84 14:31:19 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Monday, 17 Sep 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
                  Discovering your own phone number(s)
         Re: TELECOM Digest   Determining your own phone number.
                               rephrasing
                                   1+
                            Hotel telephones
                                ITFS/MDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 84 21:01:58 EDT
From: Jim Berets,,, <jberets@bbn-vax>
Subject: Discovering your own phone number(s)

I'm in the Boston area, so the various 1-(200)+ numbers work.  However
an interesting thing happens...  When I try it from work (497-XXXX), I
get a recording saying I'm calling from 491-XXXX.  Trying again will
give a different 491-XXXX (though sometimes the same one).  Are these
the outgoing lines allocated to our PBX?  Dialing the given 491
numbers yields ring sometimes (no answer), but busy more often.  I
would guess the following.  Dialing out causes the PBX to choose one
of its available outgoing lines (491's), so that is what 1-(200)+
tells me.  Someone dialing in (to 497) would have some piece of the
XXXX handled by our PBX (we don't have all of 497).  Someone dialing
in (to one of the 491 numbers allocated to us) would get the PBX (so
of course it is either busy or no one answers).  The telco can't
allocate the same numbers for both incoming and outgoing, because then
if the PBX gave person X 497-XXXX for an outgoing call, this would
cause person Y (whose number is the same as that for the outgoing
call) to not be able to use his phone.  The 491/497 difference dates
back to before the installation of the PBX (our main number is a 491
so I presume this has never changed).  The installation of the PBX
required a bigger block of numbers than remaining in 491.  Does this
sound reasonable?

Jim

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!dan@Berkeley
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 84 02:30:08 cdt
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   Determining your own phone number.

Around Minneapolis, I can dial "511" and get the mechanical voice
reciting my phone number over and over and ....  But I just tried it
and only got a busy signal.  I don't know if that function is really
busy, or the feature has been removed.  I used it no more than two
weeks ago.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 84 11:22:13 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: rephrasing

In those places which require any sort of 1+ dialing, you cannot make
a toll call by dialing only 7 digits. (JSol, do you understand what I
was trying to say?  In New Jersey before the 1+ implementation, you
dialed just the 7-digit number for local calls and for ANY
direct-dialed call in your area code.)

[To the best of my knowledge, you still dial just the 7 digits in NJ
to place a call within the area code. 1+ is only for out of area code
calls. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 84 12:23:22 PDT (Friday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 1+

Part, if not all, of area code 714 (next to Los Angeles) recently
switched the meaning of dialing 1+.  It used to mean a toll call
(regardless of being in the area code or out), but now means outside
area 714 (regardless of being toll or not).  Out of habit, I recently
dialed a toll call within 714 with the 1+, and was rewarded with an
earsplittingly loud triple tone, followed by a recording telling me to
redial without the 1.  I found it very annoying since they knew what I
wanted.  There should be no ambiguity since I don't believe that 714
has any area codes duplicated as prefixes; nor should they have to do
that in the near future, since they carved 619 out of 714 to free up
hundreds of new prefixes.  /Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 84 15:40:07 EDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel telephones

The past two hotels I've stayed at, and several I recall before those,
have tried to stick members of my party with charges for local calls
though no such calls had been made. They definitely generate a
"local-call" charge when you merely make an intra-hotel room-to-room
call; I believe that merely picking up the handset (other than to
answer a call coming in) will generate such an automated billing
entry. It has gotten so that I will not even touch the telephone in a
hotel room except to answer it. If I want to call home, I'll go to a
payphone in the lobby or somewhere else.

I assume they have designed the system this way because those people
who DO make local calls from a hotel phone make enough that they have
no idea exactly how many, and the hotel collects (really "steals")
lots of extra local-call charges without having to pay the telco
anything, so it is all pure profit.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14-Sep-84 00:47:40 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: ITFS/MDS

ITFS is a microwave band that was originally set aside for educational
video broadcasts of various sorts.  When you see a church with a small
dish pointed at some local high spot, it's ITFS.  MDS is Multipoint
Distribution Service -- which is a pair of microwave channels normally
used for movies (like the "Z" channel in L.A. or HBO in many cities).
It is unauthorized MDS receivers that are the target of much legal
activity in many cities right now, since they can be received via
various sorts of antennas/receivers including small dishes, horns,
converted coffee cans (as published in "73 Magazine" years ago) and
the ever-popular "white dildo" units.

Since the former of these services is little used, action has been
taken to open up many of the channels for other uses.  However, in
most cities, all people really want to do with them is show movies,
though some legitimate data uses are contemplated in some areas as
well.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #88
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!hudson!ihnp1!ihnp4!ucbv
        ax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 19:39:08 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Wednesday, 19 Sep 1984     Volume 4 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
                   Using a phone next to a noisy fan.
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #85
                       International "800" Service
                       Reflections about payphones
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1984  20:48 MDT (Mon)
Sender: KPETERSEN@SIMTEL20
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20>
Subject: Using a phone next to a noisy fan.

Much of the trouble you have hearing when using a phone in a noisy
environment is caused by the microphone (transmitter) in the handset.
This is because of the "side-tone" that is provided so you can hear
your own voice in the receiver while talking.  A very effective
solution is to get a Roanwell "Confidencer" noise-cancelling
microphone.  These are available direct from Roanwell or from your
telephone equipment supplier.  On a 500-series handset you simply
unscrew the cap and remove the old carbon transmitter and replace it
with the new Roanwell unit.  On other types of handsets which don't
have a screw-off cap, it may be necessary to replace the whole
handset.
--Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 84 11:19:44 pdt
From: <hplabs!intelca!cem@Berkeley>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #85

In Telcom V4 #85 ucbvax!tamir mentioned one of his requirements for a
smart phone was continuous or more than 15 redials on busy. I recently
read an article that said "attack dialing", or continous redialing on
busy was illegal for more than 15 retries. Is this true? Can someone
point me to the correct FCC reference, or article/paragraph? I have my
modem/computer do my home dialing also and it doesn't stop after 15
tries.
                        --Chuck

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 8:49:55 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject: International "800" Service

Just received a sample copy of one of those expensive newsletters
($277 for 24 issues), called International Communications News. Most
of the data is on satellites, but this one short item looks to be of
particular interest to Telecom readers:

AT&T, FRENCH AGREE ON FIRST TRANSOCEANIC TOLL-FREE SERVICE

AT&T today unveiled a proposal for the first transoceanic
telecommunications service that would allow businesses in the US to
receive toll-free telephone calls from customers in foreign locations.
In a filing made today with the FCC, the company sought initial
approval to make AT&T International 800 Service available between the
US and France later this year. The French PTT has agreed to
concurrently offer a toll-free international service for US-to-France
calls.

(From the Sept 14, 1984, issue.)

Comment: I bet these numbers are kept really hush-hush! Think of the
charges a malicious caller or prankster could force a company to pay
if he found out an international 800 number and called it repeatedly.
I also find it hard to imagine that this service is really that
worthwhile. The usual uses of 800 numbers (telemarketing, data
dial-ups, customer service) don't seem to fit well in a US-to-France
link situation. Anybody have some ideas as to what kinds of businesses
would use this service and for what purposes?

Will Martin

ARPA/MILNET: [e-mail] USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 1984 12:20 PDT
From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC>
Subject: Reflections about payphones
Reply-to: LARS@ACC

The Sep 24 issue of Communications Week has an article about equipment
now available for the "Private Pay Phone" market.  The issues raised
about significant features made me realize some of the significant
differences between the - otherwise technically similar and mostly
compatible - switched networks here and in Europe.

Apparently, a Private Pay Phone - like a PBX - needs a cpu and a list
of long distance charges coded by prefixes, areacodes etc in order to
charge for the call as it is being made. This obviously complicates
the equipment.

In my native Denmark, in contrast, the carrier will provide you with a
charge pulse for each message charge unit spent; whether on metered
local service or on long distance calls. In fact, residential lines
have a meter connected across the access loop at the CO, and this is
how phone bills are generated - itemized long distance bills are only
available for operator-assisted calls. If you want, you can rent a
meter to install at your own end of the loop so that you can verify
your phone bill.

This makes a pay phone very simple: all it has to do is count the
coins and add available message units to an up-down counter as coins
are inserted, then subtract a message unit for each charge pulse.

The result of this is much lower charges for medium-distance toll
calls.
                / Lars Poulsen

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #88
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!ihn
        p4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 20:50:47 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Wednesday, 19 Sep 1984     Volume 4 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
                   Using a phone next to a noisy fan.
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #85
                       International "800" Service
                       Reflections about payphones
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1984  20:48 MDT (Mon)
Sender: KPETERSEN@SIMTEL20
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20>
Subject: Using a phone next to a noisy fan.

Much of the trouble you have hearing when using a phone in a noisy
environment is caused by the microphone (transmitter) in the handset.
This is because of the "side-tone" that is provided so you can hear
your own voice in the receiver while talking.  A very effective
solution is to get a Roanwell "Confidencer" noise-cancelling
microphone.  These are available direct from Roanwell or from your
telephone equipment supplier.  On a 500-series handset you simply
unscrew the cap and remove the old carbon transmitter and replace it
with the new Roanwell unit.  On other types of handsets which don't
have a screw-off cap, it may be necessary to replace the whole
handset.
--Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 84 11:19:44 pdt
From: <hplabs!intelca!cem@Berkeley>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #85

In Telcom V4 #85 ucbvax!tamir mentioned one of his requirements for a
smart phone was continuous or more than 15 redials on busy. I recently
read an article that said "attack dialing", or continous redialing on
busy was illegal for more than 15 retries. Is this true? Can someone
point me to the correct FCC reference, or article/paragraph? I have my
modem/computer do my home dialing also and it doesn't stop after 15
tries.
                        --Chuck

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 8:49:55 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject: International "800" Service

Just received a sample copy of one of those expensive newsletters
($277 for 24 issues), called International Communications News. Most
of the data is on satellites, but this one short item looks to be of
particular interest to Telecom readers:

AT&T, FRENCH AGREE ON FIRST TRANSOCEANIC TOLL-FREE SERVICE

AT&T today unveiled a proposal for the first transoceanic
telecommunications service that would allow businesses in the US to
receive toll-free telephone calls from customers in foreign locations.
In a filing made today with the FCC, the company sought initial
approval to make AT&T International 800 Service available between the
US and France later this year. The French PTT has agreed to
concurrently offer a toll-free international service for US-to-France
calls.

(From the Sept 14, 1984, issue.)

Comment: I bet these numbers are kept really hush-hush! Think of the
charges a malicious caller or prankster could force a company to pay
if he found out an international 800 number and called it repeatedly.
I also find it hard to imagine that this service is really that
worthwhile. The usual uses of 800 numbers (telemarketing, data
dial-ups, customer service) don't seem to fit well in a US-to-France
link situation. Anybody have some ideas as to what kinds of businesses
would use this service and for what purposes?

Will Martin

ARPA/MILNET: [e-mail] USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 1984 12:20 PDT
From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC>
Subject: Reflections about payphones
Reply-to: LARS@ACC

The Sep 24 issue of Communications Week has an article about equipment
now available for the "Private Pay Phone" market.  The issues raised
about significant features made me realize some of the significant
differences between the - otherwise technically similar and mostly
compatible - switched networks here and in Europe.

Apparently, a Private Pay Phone - like a PBX - needs a cpu and a list
of long distance charges coded by prefixes, areacodes etc in order to
charge for the call as it is being made. This obviously complicates
the equipment.

In my native Denmark, in contrast, the carrier will provide you with a
charge pulse for each message charge unit spent; whether on metered
local service or on long distance calls. In fact, residential lines
have a meter connected across the access loop at the CO, and this is
how phone bills are generated - itemized long distance bills are only
available for operator-assisted calls. If you want, you can rent a
meter to install at your own end of the loop so that you can verify
your phone bill.

This makes a pay phone very simple: all it has to do is count the
coins and add available message units to an up-down counter as coins
are inserted, then subtract a message unit for each charge pulse.

The result of this is much lower charges for medium-distance toll
calls.
                / Lars Poulsen

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #89
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxl!ulysses!ucbvax!t
        elecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 20:04:05 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Thursday, 20 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
                  pulse-meter toll charging (in Europe)
                 New phones at UMass prove to be lemons
                               212 modems
           Lower cost for medium distance toll calls in Europe
                        Re: US-French 800 service
                                Headsets
                DDN connection for NCR TOWER running UNIX
                    Touch-tone decoding on an IBM PC
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 18:37:57 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: pulse-meter toll charging (in Europe)

Of course, such charging techniques are infamous for being inaccurate,
particularly in the excess charge direction!  There are all sorts of
problems with pulse rates coming through too high, even through forms
of crosstalk with other lines.  When such systems are used, as was
noted, it is generally IMPOSSIBLE to get an itemized bill, which
probably makes the government-owned post office/telephone operations
quite happy.

Having your own counter at home can verify the total number of pulses,
but does you little good if excess pulses are actually being sent down
the line, which is often the case.  The result is that it's almost
impossible for the average subscriber to ever be REALLY sure that
their charges are accurate, and almost impossible to get a refund if
you suspect a problem, since all the telco has to work with is a total
number of pulses -- and you can't prove much one way or another from
that.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 01:56 EST
From: Andrew D. Sigel <[e-mail]>
Subject: New phones at UMass prove to be lemons


   I thought the following (slightly edited) article printed yesterday
in the Massachusetts Daily Collegian (Univ. of Mass school paper)
would be of interest to this digest.  The headline, "New phones a
heartache for students" (article by Kenneth B. Albert) seems an
adequate summation of the situation.

   -----------------------------------------------------

   New telephones installed in the University of Massachusetts
dormitories last summer are causing problems for students, including
those who own or rent home computers.

   The new phones have receivers that do not couple with the computer
modems, so students with computer terminals in their rooms cannot "log
on".

   Chuck Wyman, associate director of the UMass Computing Center,
said, "I was talking to a student with a direct-connect modem.  He
could send information, but not receive it.  This looks like a problem
with the phone itself.

   "If students are unable to communicate with the computer from their
rooms, they will come to the public terminals and we don't have enough
space as it is," he said.

   "The acoustic couple modems are going to have the most trouble,"
Wyman said.  "The receiver shape itself could easily cause problems."

   Under the state bidding system, the University was forced to buy
7,000 phones at $105,000 from the lowest bidder, the Mura Corporation,
according to Gerald Quarles, director of the Housing Assignment
Office.

   The telephone system was tested in Prince House [grad student dorm]
and a 14 percent error factor was found, said Quarles.  The error
factor means that of the 7,000 phones, 920 could malfunction.

   Quarles said, "It would have cost about $30,000 to test the entire
system.

   "What was the best way to proceed?  Turn on the whole system, or
expect a 14 percent error factor in the fall?" Quarles asked.  "We
decided to wait."

   Sophomore Laurie Autlet said, "I can't make long distance calls
because the phone quality is so bad.  The other night I couldn't get a
dial tone for fifteen minutes."

   Sherri Miller, a sophomore living in Knowlton House said, "If you
move the phone at all, the jack falls right out.  The operators keep
cutting in for no reason.  It happened three times in one call to New
York the other night."

   "All this started as a result of the AT&T divestiture," Quarles
said.  "Last year, all of our phones were AT&T rentals.  The
University was informed in February that the rate would be going up
about 300 percent over the next three years," he said.  "There wasn't
much time to respond."

   The rate increase "forced the University to step up modernization.
 We decided at that time to purchase our own phones," and eliminate
"the need to push up student fees," he said.

   "We've done around 500 repair jobs in the last week and a half."

     -------------------------------------------------------

Ignoring the fact that the article badly needs a rewrite, it brings up
some interesting fodder for discussion.  I wonder how many of the
"cheaper" phone manufacturers are making a decent living selling to
government, because they are required to accept minimum bid, even if
it is for equipment that is not compatible.  I think the University
was off it's proverbial rocker in not specifying, in the bid, that the
phones must be acoustic-modem compatible.  I also wonder about
warranties, and how ANY company can survive on a 14 percent error
factor (except the American car industry, of course).  And given that
there have been 500 repair jobs in 10 days, one wonders if the 14
percent number will prove to be a fluke, and the actual number much
higher.  I'll send a follow-up when I hear more.

                                        Andrew Sigel

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 84 04:10:46 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: 212 modems

   From: [e-mail] (Lester Waters)

   Does anyone out there have any info about the banks of DIP switches
   contained in a Bell 212A 300/1200 baud modem?

Is that the standard Dataphone 212A type, in the cast aluminum box
with external transformer and the kludge run into a 5-liner to make a
standalone unit?  If so, we *do* have the documentation on the
suckers, sent to us by someone down at ATTIS after we bitched hard
enough.  We also have an 8-position rack; they all take the same
plug-in cards.  The cards have two boards each, one mounted toward the
front, upside down and about half the length of the main card.  *Cute*
modems, and they work quite well, but Krighst help us when they break.
The only doc we have is the installation guides and stuff, not
schematics.  Anyway, WE loves to mis-label their components so you
can't tell what they are.

_H*

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 19 Sep 1984 07:06:55-PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lower cost for medium distance toll calls in Europe

In V4.88, Lars Poulson described the difference between European
(Danish) and American pay-phone systems, noting that the European
method of charging for a "pulse" yielded lower-cost medium-distance
toll calls.  He somewhat understated the case.  When I lived in Europe
and travelled a lot, I could call between the Copenhagen airport and
my home outside of Stockholm for 10-15 seconds for one Danish Kroner
(about 10 cents).  Enough to say which plane I was on.

By contrast, to call 15 miles on Cape Cod, (Orleans to Provincetown)
cost a minimum of 90 cents.

Martin Minow.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 11:36:23 EDT
From: Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US-French 800 service

        A US-France toll free hookup is indeed useful.  For instance,
a client of mine is a French concern with a large US
marketing/support/ co-production operation.  They could use this
service to help their marketing efforts, and also for customer access
to service personnel.  (who have to be available 24hours anyway).  For
a US company selling in Europe, this would bridge a major gap in phone
service.  I suspect that this is part of a push on AT&T's part to
better their rival long distance companies, and it could result in a
substantial expansion of US business contacts in Europe.  Good idea,
even worth repeating in other Common Market countries...

                                                -JCP-

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 13:13:29 EDT
From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Headsets

Actually, the Plantronics headsets that most operators use now are
constructed to be light and non-fatiguing.  You can get a noise
reducing option for them but all it is is a stupid cup that goes on
the microphone.  Better yet, try one of the headsets that are designed
for use in airplanes and helicopters.

The two front runners are Telex and David Clark.  _Ron

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 10:50 EDT
From: Harold Grossman <[e-mail]>
Subject: DDN connection for NCR TOWER running UNIX

Does anyone have any information about putting an NCR TOWER running
UNIX on DDN?  Specifically would an 1822, HDH, or x.25 connection be
the most appropriate?  What type fo drivers are
available(commercilaically or public domain)?  What sources of
interface boxes are available?  Any information whether personal
experience or hear-say on putting something like an NCR TOWER on DDN
will be greatfully appreciated.

harold (hcgrs@clemson)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 1984  15:32 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Touch-tone decoding on an IBM PC


Does anybody know if there is available off-the-shelf hardware which
will enable an IBM PC to decode touch tone tones sent to it from a
phone?

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #90
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 20:10:51 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Friday, 21 Sep 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
               Re:  New phones at UMass prove to be lemons
                 Re:  Using a phone next to a noisy fan.
                          AT & T packet network
                           AT&T long distance
                       touch tone service question
       long-distance pay phones in Japan...and, who's bugging me?
             Flipped Tip and Ring, Modem/line test patterns
                                  ESSex
                      finding your own number in NJ
                  Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #87 (re: 1+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 20:57:12 EDT
From: Chuck Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  New phones at UMass prove to be lemons

The government (U.S., at least) is not required to accept minimum bid
if the proposed equipment does not meet specifications.

I have to agree that the problem with UMass seems to have been a lack
of specifications.  Seems like they didn't put too much effort into
the buying process and now they're paying for it.
        -Chuck Kennedy
        U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab
        Arpanet:  Kermit @ BRL
        UUCP:  ...!{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!kermit

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 11:09:28 EDT
From: GMM Labs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Using a phone next to a noisy fan.


I am currently evaluating a few different headphone models.  They
range in price from $50 to $300.  The best in terms of vocal and aural
quality seems to be the Plantronics (~$200).  The $49 model is cheap
and even sounds pretty good.  It has a more adjustable volume control
than the Plantronics (the Plantronics having only three settings) but
both work well even with a 10K BTU air condition- er running behind my
head, a Spinwriter CLACKING away, and over three muffins running
constantly.

Of course, if I go deaf from the noise, neither will do me much
good...

I will post to the net when I am done with the eval. -r

RICK at MIT-MC eed_wgmm.jhu at csnet-relay

------------------------------

From: <bang!todd@Nosc>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 18:40:15 pdt
Subject: AT & T packet network


AT&T announced FCC approval of their new 56kb Packet Data Network. The
system will be available for aprx. $1000 a month, plus aprx. $0.80 for
each packet sent. Off hours have a special $0.60 charge.  The system
requires that each customer place his own 'packetizing' equipment at
each termination, and also showed several units that were compatible
with the system.


bang!todd

------------------------------

From: <bang!todd@Nosc>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 18:40:20 pdt
Subject: AT&T long distance


     It says in the August 27 issue of Communications Week that AT&T
wants to change the type of connections it has to Southwestern Bell's
COs.  Instead of the "equal access" direct connection it has always
had with CO's, AT&T wants to get the cheaper Enfia B service.  This
would give them a 950 number to give them the same kind of
"trunk-side" switching that SBS Skyline has now (950-1088).  AT&T
would slash rates by 15% in states where this change is made, because
of their savings.

     Southwestern Bell is going to federal court to prevent AT&T from
getting the cheaper service, since they would lose about $310 million
annually (AT&T says it's more in the area of a $50 million loss).

     They'll probly try the same thing in California eventually.  So
much for 1+ dialing ...




bang!todd

------------------------------

From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcc3!sdcc6![e-mail]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 84 02:32:56 pdt
From: Strokebusters <hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcc3!sdcc6![e-mail]>
Subject: touch tone service question

I recently bought with a switch to change from pulse dialing to touch
tone dialing.  My intention was to save money from touch tone service
by using pulse mode when making local calls and flipping the switch
when using my alternate long distance carrier service.  Now I received
a letter from my phone company saying that I have to pay for touch
tone service; even though I use the slower rotary dialing mode when
placing a local call or when calling the local number to reach my long
distance service.  Does anyone know how the local phone companies can
justify charging for touchtone service for a non touchtone phone?

David Whiteman sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix21 sdcsvax!sdcc6![e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 20 Sep 1984 04:51:17-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (David
From: Ofsevit..229-6743..LTN2-2/C08)
Subject: long-distance pay phones in Japan...and, who's bugging me?

        In Japan they also have the system where you can call anywhere
in the country from properly marked pay phones (there are several
different colors with different levels of service) and keep feeding
coins to keep the connection alive.  A short local call is 10 Yen
(about 2.4 cents) and the few long-distance calls I made seemed very
reasonable.  There didn't seem to be the big premium for coin phones
that exists in the U.S.  All in all a better way to have pay phones.

        On a completely different topic:  Every so often (sometimes
several times a day) my home phone rings once and stops.  If I pick it
up during the ring, there is an immediate click and hangup.  I never
get threats, heavy breathing, or any other signs of prank callers.  My
theory is that TPC is trolling the lines looking for modems.  How do I
get them to stop?

                David

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 84 02:30:50 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Flipped Tip and Ring, Modem/line test patterns

I wanted to make sure my software was going to work with a pair of
Codex 224 modems, so we had 2 new phone lines added to my office. The
lines worked fine from a phone, but when I connected the phone via the
modem, dialing didn't work. You guessed it. After flipping things,
everything worked OK.

Is it normal for modems to flip Tip and Ring? Actually, I think they
are failing to flip them since the normal cords flip them. In any
case, the obvious setup didn't work. Codex isn't exactly a tiny
outfit. Are phones without diodes really rare enought so they could
have missed something like this?

None of our phones around here have diodes. Is that uncommon?
unreasonable? I assume it's a chicken and egg problem. If you started
out without them, you had to get your Tip and Rings sorted out, and if
you had them sorted out, why bother with the diodes... Do they charge
extra for them? Is there any reason not to get them?

Once it was working, I sent several hundred packets back and forth to
determine the error rate. I never saw a CRC error. Are there any bit
patterns that are known to provoke errors? (I remember getting several
for a disk years ago.) Or better, has anybody published a table of
patterns for each modem?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 84 13:07:29 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESSex

The word is out: Rutgers will sometime soon be converted from Centrex
to something wild and wonderful called ESSex.  This is still a
CO-based system but with lots more features.  Right now, we have this
crazy kludge that first of all is split across two central offices.
The 932 exchange is half New Brunswick and half Piscataway, with tie
lines between the two.  If you're on the Piscataway side of the river,
and dial 2-7nnn or some other extension located on the other side of
the river, you hear the delay typical of two ESS offices talking to
each other.  Now they want to change that and give us full
programmability - imagine what fun we're going to have finding the
bugs!!  One *major* problem is that Rutgers is almost 100% old black
*rotary* dial phones [eccch], and quite a few of the ESSex features
require touchtone.  Rather than a global upgrade, they are going to
arrange something like that if your department will pay for it, you
can upgrade your phones.  Naturally, everyone will start bringing in
their $10 one-piece cheapferns so they can have touchtone...

Well, this is about all I know right now.  Now, does anyone out there
have or have messed with ESSex, and can tell us something about how it
works so we're prepared for the change?  What are its good
points/lossages/just plain war stories?

Can't wait till December...

_H*

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 84 13:07:43 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: finding your own number in NJ

As far as I know NJ [201] has never had any ''funny'' ANI numbers.
The best way is to dial 0 and say ''This is an installer, what line am
I on?'' -- works every time, even at odd hours of the night.  NJ TSPS
ops are trained to give out the number when they hear the magic words
''installer'' or ''repairman'', no questions asked.  This will
probably work everywhere else, too.

_H*

------------------------------

From: Christopher A Kent <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Sep 1984 1620-EST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #87 (re: 1+)

Boy, I don't know what all the furor is about -- where I grew up
(Cincinnati, NPA 513) you've had to dial 1+ for toll calls for at
least 15 years. If you dial a toll call without the 1+, you get told
to dial again with 1+. I wonder why it's just now showing up in other
parts of the country?

chris

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #91
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 18:04:58 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Saturday, 22 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
                          who is bugging you...
                         Re: who's bugging me...
                   Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #87 (re: 1+)
             Re: AT&T long distance (TELECOM Digest V4 #90)
                      finding your own number in NJ
                              Re: (re: 1+)
                   Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #87 (re: 1+)
                  Re: long-distance pay phones in Japan
                           80 cents a packet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 19:57:55 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: who is bugging you...

I think it's EXTREMELY unlikely that the "one ring" calls that a
TELECOM user reported are "TPC searching for modems."  First of all,
even if such scanning was going on, they wouldn't bother calling
several times a day!  Maybe one call a year or something.  But in any
case, an effective modem "searcher" most certainly wouldn't drop off
as soon as you answer, since most modems delay a couple of seconds
after answer (at least) before sending carrier.

Most likely you're just the target of some bored kids.  Ignore the
problem as best you can and it will probably fade away...

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 84 23:51:56 edt
From: chris.maio@columbia
Subject: Re: who's bugging me...

I don't remember where I heard this from, but I've always been under
the impression that those annoying single rings are the result of the
phone company "polling" the line to determine how many phones you are
using.  The idea (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that each ringer
on a standard phone draws about an amp, so if your line draws 5 amps,
you've got 5 phones plugged in.  If you've only told the phone company
that you have two phones, you get a call from them asking you to pay
the extra rental charges.  This happened once to someone I know, but
fortunately, the phone company only "found" one of the two extra
phones.

The phone company also (used to?) sweep the lines with a 600-volt
signal periodically, which I'd heard was an attempt to destroy
components in home-brew equipment.

- Chris

P.S. In New York City, you can dial 958 to get the number you're
calling from.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 84 9:26:50 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #87 (re: 1+)

I have had 1+ in Delaware (NPA 302) for as long as I can remember, but
not requiring the 1+ sometimes raises interesting points as to what
exchanges are or aren't in use.  I know of a few instances in other
areas THERE where 1+ hasn't been required (475, 478, 674--at least the
pay phones in those exchanges). 475 & 478 are both local to some
215-area points, so that makes all of Delaware AND those 215-area
points reachable by dialing only 7 digits!  From 475, you're local to
874 and 876 (Chester, Pa.), but 875 is Laurel, about 90 miles
downstate.  I said very recently in this digest that when 1+ is in
use, you can't make a toll call by dialing only 7 digits.

It confused me initially when I found out that you can make toll calls
within some areas by dialing only 7 digits; you have to pay attention
to your local calling area, and a slip of the dial might send you far
away from your destination within local area and/or area code.  Lack
of 1+ is understandable in NYC and Washington DC (although NYC now
requires 1+ for calls to other areas), because of local & message-unit
calling areas covering those entire area codes.

Wasn't 1+number used for any toll call within Cincinnati Bell area at
one time?  (That area covers 513 and also part of 606.)  In other
words, if you were in 513, could you omit the area code on some toll
calls to northern Kentucky? (Cincinnati exchanges are local to some
northern Kentucky points.)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 84 09:41:41 edt
From: "John Levine, P.O.Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349
From: (617-494-1400)" <ima!johnl@cca-unix>
Subject: Re: AT&T long distance (TELECOM Digest V4 #90)

If you read more carefully, you'll find that what AT&T is doing is far
more sleazy than just switching to ENFIA B.  They want ENFIA B for
terminating trunks only, retaining their current ENFIA C (unequal
access) for their outgoing trunks.  This means that they'd still have
the current premium 1+ service for people who originate calls, but
have cheaper ENFIA B trunks for calls coming in.  Since ENFIA B and C
are supposed to be electrically similar, the net is that there'd be no
change in service, just a big saving for Ma.  Evidently whoever wrote
the tariffs neglected to say that incoming and outgoing trunks had to
match.  Pfui.

John Levine, ima!johnl or [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 84  11:36 EDT (Fri)
From: _Bob <[e-mail]>
Subject: finding your own number in NJ

    As far as I know NJ [201] has never had any ''funny'' ANI numbers.
    The best way is to dial 0 and say ''This is an installer, what
    line am I on?'' -- works every time, even at odd hours of the
    night.  NJ TSPS ops are trained to give out the number when they
    hear the magic words ''installer'' or ''repairman'', no questions
    asked.  This will probably work everywhere else, too.

Er, are there still installers?  No mind.  Just asking her "what
number am I calling from?" has always worked for me.

_B

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 84 10:15:12 PDT (Friday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (re: 1+)

It would appear that Kent's message was in reply to my last Telecom
message.  If so, he missed the point.  It is not that 714 area code
added 1+ for toll calls, but that they got rid of it! (and also added
1+ dialing for out-of-area-code calls, but that is a different use of
1+, and irrelevant to this).  My complaint was that the system's
reaction to dialing the now unneeded 1+ shouldn't be a recording, not
the opposite case of failing to dial a necessary 1+.  /Don Lynn

------------------------------

From: Christopher A Kent <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Sep 1984 1223-EST (Friday)
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #87 (re: 1+)

Yes, I was also confused the first time I came to Palo Alto and
discovered that I didn't have to dial 1+, for any calls! I still dial
1+ out of habit.

Yes, in the Cincinnati Bell area, you can dial certain toll calls into
606 (northern Kentucky) withouth 1+. But calls to Dayton, which is
also in 513, require 1+.

chris

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 84 12:01:00 PDT (Friday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: long-distance pay phones in Japan

Few people used to have private phones in Japan, and so pay phones
were (and still are) quite common. In fact, the rates for calls from
home phones are the same as those from pay phones.
--Dan

------------------------------

Date: 21-Sep-84 12:43:38-PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 80 cents a packet?

    That can't be right.  At 56KB, costs would be several thousand
dollars an hour.  Please correct the note on AT&T's packet service.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #92
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 13:29:29 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Tuesday, 25 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
                            1+ handling in NJ
                    Hotel charges - a legal question?
                          Re: Who's bugging me?
                          Communications Forum
                             letter prefixes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 84 00:25:58 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1+ handling in NJ

   I have heard that most NJ phones won't even shut off the dialtone
   on leading 1+ (and this now has to change).

No, they have fixed that.  They *had* to do that before making 1+
official.  Even the crossbar offices now recognize a leading 1, where
they used to ignore it completely.

800 numbers still don't require 1+.

10 still gets you *immediately* to TSPS [under ESS], so no
preparations for equal access have been made here yet except 950.

I still hate 1+.  It will probably be another 5 years before they
start using any of those n1x or n0x ''exchanges'' anyways!  Feh!

_H*

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 84 00:26:27 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel charges - a legal question?

On a number of occasions I have had to call the desk and *ask* what a
given hotel's surcharge policy was, because it was not documented
anywhere in the room.

First, I think surcharges for local calls are a crime, but apparently
it's legal.  *Why* is it legal?  But a better question is: If I am to
pay for something, I have every right to know [without working too
hard] what the bottom line is.  If the hotel will not tell me what
they are going to charge for my calls, could it be shown that they are
infringing on my rights, and therefore invalidate the surcharge?  A
similar situation would be if you stayed a couple of nights and only
*then* found out you were paying $129 per night for the room.

And of course, charges for *picking it up* are entirely off the wall!
What can we, the public, do about this slimy ripoff that is infesting
every city?

_H*

------------------------------

From: decvax!ittvax!ittral!shackelt@Berkeley
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 84 03:20:25 edt
Subject: Re: Who's bugging me?


While it may be possible that the short ring could be the telco
testing your line to see how many ringers you have, ringers don't draw
anywhere near 1 amp unless you have a fog horn. Ringer impedance runs
around 8000 ohms at 60 Hz and less at the normal 20 Hz. The current is
so low in fact that a wet phone line would cause a false reading. Does
your phone ring a short burst on a rainy day? If so you may be getting
a wrong number.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 84 14:34 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Communications Forum

MIT Communications Forum

THE MIT COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEM

October 11, 1984 4:00-5:30

Marlar Lounge, 37-252 (70 Vassar St.)  MIT, Cambridge

David Clark, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science



A plan to provide a data communication network for MIT has been
evolving over the last several years, and implementation of the
network is now in progress.  Since the MIT campus has a rich set of
requirements, the design of this network provides insights for the
design of other sophisticated networks.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 84 14:48:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: letter prefixes

Is there any better way of finding letter prefixes (such as JUniper 5
in Silver Spring, Md.) than roaming hither & yon thru old
publications?

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #93
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 29-Sep-84 16:08:51 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Saturday, 29 Sep 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
                       Hi-tech answering machines
                                Codex 224
                            ringing only once
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 84  1817 PDT
From: Allan A. Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hi-tech answering machines


I am looking for a phone answering machine with the following
features:
        full function beeperless remote control;
        security code.  I found one from Radio Shack in the 85
catalog, Sharper Image has one from Panasonic, Codaphone has one.
They are about 250$.  However, none of them seem to allow user
changeable security codes.  Does anyone have any experience with these
units or know of any others that have the required features?  Please
answer directly to AAA@SU-AI as I am not on the list.P

------------------------------

Date: 27 September 1984 02:14-EDT
From: Minh N. Hoang <MINH @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Codex 224


I work for Codex... in the department that handles the 224 development
coincidentally.  I checked into your Tip and Ring reversal problem and
I guess it does exist if you expect the modem to reverse Tip and Ring
between the Telco and Telset jacks.

At the Telco jack, T, R, MI, MIC and the programming resistor leads
are arranged according to the RJ45S specification in FCC part 68
requirements.  English translation: that jack has the same alignment
as the one on the wall if you don't use the other leads (exclusion-key
telephone, programmable mode DAA.)  Similarly the Telset jack is RJ11
and also looks like the one on the wall.  So the standard modem board
just pass T/R through.  We did put provision into the printed circuit
wiring so that T/R can be reversed on board but that has to be done by
a technician (ours, according to pt. 68).  That involves cutting 2
wire straps and installing 2 other.

But don't get your tools yet.  The cable(s) we supply with the unit do
not
-- should not -- reverse T/R.  The plugs should have the same
alignment.  You might have gotten a 'defective' cable, I have seen a
few 8-pinners reversed...  Anyway, phones without diode protection
aren't that rare. But they are like acoustic-coupling modems...

On the lighter side, thanks for the indirect compliment to our modem's
performance.  Hmm... if y'all want errors maybe we shouldn't spend
those few months tweaking the adaptive equalizer.  The modem was
designed to work well over international circuits - as a V.22 bis.
Thus you will have problem determining the bit error rate over typical
ATT-C lines.  We did digital loopback tests overnight to our remote
beta sites and collect 1-2 errors in >12 hours.  A high of about 10
was collected over a 3-day weekend...  If you want to characterize the
modem seriously, you will need a telephone channel simulator to
introduce controlled amounts of noise, phase jitter etc.  For BER
test, we generally use the standard 2047 pseudo-random pattern along
with those bit-error rate tester.  Well, the modem isn't sensitive to
that either.

Cheers.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 84 07:38:11 est
From: [e-mail] (Dave Curry)
Subject: ringing only once


Several years ago, ringing everybody's number once to see how many
phones he had used to be one of GTE's (Lafayette, Indiana) favorite
pasttimes. They stopped doing this 7 or 8 years ago, supposedly
because some guy sued his telco for invasion of privacy or some such
and won. GTE, being afraid of getting sued, stopped trying to spy on
its customers this way.

I'm not sure if the above is correct -- perhaps someone who follows
the phone laws can confirm or correct it. I do know, however, that GTE
(at least around here) does not do any of that stuff anymore. Perhaps
all the deregulation has something to do with it too -- maybe some of
those little "beep-beep" ringers don't show up like they should, or
maybe so many people have extra phones now it just isn't worth the
hassle.

--Dave Curry {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax}!pur-ee!davy eevax.davy@purdue

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 84 14:58 EDT
From: [e-mail]


MIT Communications Forum

COMPETITION FOR INTELSAT

Thursday, October 18, 1984, 4-6 p.m.

Marlar Lounge, Bldg.  37-252, 70 Vassar St., MIT, Cambridge

For two decades INTELSAT has had a near monopoly of international
satellite telecommunications.  This was justified on many of the same
grounds as AT&T's monopoly of domestic telephony:  the merits of
uniformity and standardization; cross-subsidy of less-developed by
more developed areas; and economies of scale.

Orion Satellite and several other potential competitors have recently
applied to serve the lucrative North Atlantic routes.  This has
touched off intense debate about "cream-skimming," the value of
INTELSAT, and America's international communications policies.

Christopher Vizas, Orion Satellite Corporation

Joseph Pelton, INTELSAT

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 18:44:27 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Wednesday, 3 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
                       Hi-tech answering machines
                             thanks, but...
                               FAST Modems
                      Radio Shack answering machine
                              7D in Jersey
               Correct rates for ACCUNET(R) Packet Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 September 1984 02:46-EDT
From: Paul R. Grupp <GRUPP @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Hi-tech answering machines

The top of the line Radio Shack answering machine *DOES* allow you to
pick your code #.  You do so by entering it in the main unit with a
cord connecting the remote while you enter it.  The only possible
problem is if the remote's batterys go OR power go off on the main
unit when it's backup battery is dead then they will NOT talk to each
other.  The remote also has many other features that most do not.  It
is definatly worth looking at.

Regards, Paul Grupp

------------------------------

Date: Monday,  1 Oct 1984 09:57:46-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (David
From: Ofsevit..229-6743..LTN2-2/C08)
Subject: thanks, but...

        Thanks to all who had suggestions on why my phone was ringing
once and hanging up when I answered.  Unfortunately it seems more and
more to be pranksters.  It happens if I let it ring 2 or 3 times, and
lately I have heard talking in the background before the hangup.

        Any suggestions on what I can do about it, short of torturing
every urchin in the neighborhood?

        Thanks again,
        David

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Oct 84 15:37:11 EDT
From: Doug Kingston <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAST Modems

        I need a information on the fastest available modems for
dialup (switched) telephone lines.  Price is no object.

                                        -Doug-

------------------------------

Date: 1-Oct-84 14:24 PDT
From: Steve Kleiser  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack answering machine

I have the top of the line answering machine (tad-150?) - the $300
job. I really do like it - but then, I also wish I had beeperless
remote - but at least I HAVE full function remote. This machine DOES
allow the user to change the security code at any time (by plugging
the remote into the machine and setting the code via LCD display).
What I really like is the recording of date and time of each call,
which is then displayed during message playback. With my old machine,
I used to include on the answer message "at the tone, pls leave your
name, phone #, and time you called ..." The people who got used to my
old machine still leave the time - sometimes WAY off (!).

Anyway, I gave up my requirement of a beeperless remote because of the
time feature, which I found in no other unit (at least I never found a
unit with time recording AND beeperless remote). Let me know what you
end up with, OK?

-steve-

------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 84 23:16:31 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: 7D in Jersey

Yes, New Jersey has always been and still is such that you dial the
seven digits within the area code.  [There are exceptions for the
fringe areas next to another area code, where 7D is local to places in
Pennsylvania or across the 201/609 border.  In these cases, if say
you're in 201 and can call 215-344 as local, you'd dial 201-344 to get
344 in Jersey, which, hopefully, is somewhere on the other end of the
area!]

When you think about it, requiring 1+ to get to points within your own
area code is really braindamaged.  If you dial 344-2954, where the
hell *else* is the call going to go, unless you have one of the above
kludges?  If you ask me, NJB has done it reasonably right all along,
and only now is getting bitten by the 1+ stuff because everyone else
is running out of exchanges.  1+, if used, should *only* be an
indicator to the office of ''Ten digits follow'', or if the second
digit is 0, do special things.

Note for 201 people: Ever try 620|630|640-nnnn?  You wind up at some
Washington, NJ intercept whose only job is to ask you what number you
dialed.  Is that a waste of their time and money, to say nothing of
three perfectly useable exchanges??  It might be also noted that those
calls are routed through *non*-CCIS trunks.  No, I didn't tell you
that....

_H*

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!ihldt!jhh@Berkeley
Date: 2 Oct 84 04:08:02 CDT (Tue)
Subject: Correct rates for ACCUNET(R) Packet Service

As suspected, the rates quoted in a previous issue were high.  Having
finally obtained a copy of the Press release, here are the correct
rates:

        $0.82 per kilopacket First 4000 kilopackets (per month)
        $0.77 per kilopacket 4001 to 8000 kilopackets
        $0.72 per kilopacket 8001 to 12000 kilopackets
        $0.67 per kilopacket 12001 and subsequent kilopackets

        $0.34 per kilopacket All non-business-hour usage

Each packet may contain up to 256 bytes.  Access lines cost $470 for
4.8Kbps, $615 for 9.6Kbps, and $1865 for 56Kbps monthly.  The link to
the packet switch must be obtained separately.

John Haller

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Oct 84 16:12 EDT
From: [e-mail]

A phone installer in Webster, N.Y. (Rochester Telephone Company) said
that the local #5 office sometimes scanned all lines looking for
leakage to ground. He said that this might cause a slight noise in the
phone. He was not sure of this though.

--Sidney Marshall

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #95
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 18:23:47 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Thursday, 4 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
                       submission from net.general
                                   1+?
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94
                        MIT Communications Forum
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Oct 84 18:35:28 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: submission from net.general

The issue which bothered me the most of the three I posted was the one
dealing with charges for data transmission over phone lines.
Apparently, just for modems to work correctly, the central office has
to sense when a carrier is on the line and do something special to
make sure it isn't inadvertently clipped or interrupted during the
data conversation.

So there is technology available to detect when someone is using a
modem on a telephone line, and presumably this technology could be
connected to the time & charges apparatus in the central office.  The
result would be that if you use your line for voice, one set of
charges apply, and if you use it for data, another set might apply.

This mechanism is rather crude though since I does not keep track of
the amount of bits being communicated.  The new all-digital telephone
systems will do this and charge by the bit for use of a special
digital data channel paired with a quality voice line (which is fairer
for us slow terminal hackers).  Some of this stuff is going into
medium-scale testing soon.  (There was an article about a large
experimental Japanese digital telephone system in IEEE Spectrum a few
months ago.  There was another article about internation datacomm wars
more recently.)

Since I know there are hundreds of telecomm engineers outs there, I
sincerely invite corrections and further enlightenment.  I was very
disappointed that I did not get a single response on this particular
issue.  Please don't leave me disappointed any longer!  (I don't read
any of the comm newsgroups anymore, so followup or direct reply will
have to do.)

Joe Falcone Eastern Research Laboratory decwrl!  Digital Equipment
Corporation decvax!deccra!jrf Hudson, Massachusetts tardis!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 1984  17:29 MDT (Tue)
From: "Frank J. Wancho" <WANCHO@SIMTEL20>
Subject: 1+?

According to one of those radio news tidbits, some motels in southern
Cal have been burned because PacTel REMOVED the requirement for 1+ for
calls made within the area code.  It seems callers were using 9+ with
no accounting instead of 8+.  Now, not only will the motel owners be
stuck for the unbillable calls, but will also have to bear the expense
of installing new equipment that supposedly detects and refuses a
non-local 9+ call...

--Frank

------------------------------

Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 16:53:28-PDT
From: Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94


Two items:

        I have ITTs answering machine and it works without a remote
unit.  You set up a code via dip switches under the machine and then
talk in the right sequence to activate.  You can erase all the
messages you heard or keep them for playback later - your choice.  It
is about 4 years old, so there is probably something even better out
now.
        The second pertains to the problem with pranksters.  Answering
machines are great!  Every so often some bozo decides that it's fun to
make me answer the phone; I just turn the answering machine on.  It is
very despiriting to pranksters and if its someone I really want to
talk to, I can hear it in time to pick it up (has a speaker so you
dont even have to get up).

                Chris.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 07:54 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MIT Communications Forum

The seminar by David Clark, "The MIT Communications Problem" has been
postponed to October 25 (originally October 11).  Same time, same
place.

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!ihuxk!rs55611@Berkeley
Date: 3 Oct 84 11:52:27 CDT (Wed)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94

A couple of ways to discourage prank calls, assuming they're pranks,
and not malicious:

1.  When you think someone is on the line (giggling, breathing, etc.)
    try to hurt their ears a little.  Blowing a whistle real loud
    into your mouthpiece works pretty well, assuming you're not on
    a digital (ie PCM) central office where your whistle signal will
    get clipped at +3 dBm anyway.  Even if clipping does occur,
    it will be pretty annoying to the prank caller.  If you don't
    have a whistle, give them a shot of Touch-Tone!

2.  Whisper, but loud enough for them to hear (as if you were talking
to
    someone else in the room with you), "Quick, turn on the tracing
    circuit!", or words to that effect.  Who cares whether this is
    technically plausible, the person on the other end is probably
going
    to hang up quickly!

Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #96
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 19:34:54 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Saturday, 6 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
                       Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94
                              AT&T and DNHR
     net.followup followup article to the one posted in net.general
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ihnp4!ihldt!jhh@Berkeley
Date: 4 Oct 84 17:07:47 CDT (Thu)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #94

Oops, the correct rate for a 56Kbps Accunet port is $1065 per port,
not $1865.  Who said slashes through zeros made things clearer?

In the my face is red department, John Haller

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 84 11:14:49 EDT
From: dca-pgs @ DDN1.ARPA
Subject: AT&T and DNHR


Data Communications, Sept 84.

"AT&T Launches NonHierarchical Network."

"Ever so quietly, AT&T Comms is slipping its dynamic non-hierarchical
routing (DNHR) scheme into place. Sixteen cities have been switched
over to the new routing procedure, and AT&T expects to have made the
full transition to nonhierarchical switching by 1987.

               . . . . . .

...the 'smart' offices avoid busy circuits by evaluating the
originating nyumber and destination, as well as time-of-day. AT&T
insiders say the large amount of extra line capacity gained from the
efficient DNHR networrk carries tremendous implications for services
AT&T will be able to offer its customers in the future...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(quote was from p. 15)

Does anybody have a good guess on when AT&T will be coming out with
their Software Defined Network (SDN) (virtual private network)
offering?

Have a nice weekend.

Best,
-Pat Sullivan

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Oct 84 13:44:59 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: net.followup followup article to the one posted in
Subject: net.general

Anything is possible. I have no inside information and could not
discuss it if I did. However, you are misinformed on a couple of
factual points.  First, telephone central offices (plain or digital
fancy) do not look for or detect data signals on customer lines. It
would be very expensive to modify them to do so - even the new
electronic and/or digital variety.  If they did, you could always make
voice calls and then switch in the modem after a delay (which is in
fact what you do now, except you switch in the modem as fast as
possible).  What the telcos probably want to do is introduce special
data lines (perhaps digital) as an improved service to their
customers. Then they might lobby to force data users to stop using
pots lines (Plain Old Telephone Service).  I forgot what the second
point was, if any.  Dick Grantges hound!rfg

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #97
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 7-Oct-84 03:30:12 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest            Sunday, 7 Oct 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
                            detecting modems
                  Re: Phone company scanning for modems
                         more net.followup stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Oct 84 16:30:36 pdt
From: braun%ucbic@Berkeley (Douglas Braun)

Does anyone out there have any references to any articles on the VLSI
ethernet controller chip that Intel, AMD, and others are producing?
Articles in practically-oriented magazines such as Electronic Design
News would be quite useful.

Thanx,
 Doug Braun

P.S. Please mail replies directly to above address at Berkeley.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 20:13:57 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: detecting modems

Since modems on long-distance voice-switched circuits usually need to
trigger the echo-suppressors along the path to ensure a full-duplex
connection (via a 2225 Hz tone) it would be theoretically possible for
the triggering of those suppressors to be used to indicate that a
modem call was in place over that circuit.  With CCIS, determining the
called and calling numbers would be practical.

Without monitoring of the data, however, there'd be no way to know
whether it was business data, residential data, hearing-impaired TDD
communications (ASCII mode), or something else.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 Oct 84 13:21:33 edt
From: mar@mit-borax (Mark A. Rosenstein)
Subject: Re: Phone company scanning for modems

What he may be thinking about is echo suppression on long distance
lines.  Long distance trunks have circuitry to make it easier for
voice to be understood, but which would screw up modem traffic.  Thus
these trunks detect the frequency which is used as carrier on the
answer end of the connection in Bell 103 (the same frequency is used
in most other protocols), and when they detect it turn off the echo
suppression.

As far as I know that is the only place the phone company checks for
modems right now, and they don't do anything else with that
information.  They do not have these circuits on individual customer
lines, and because of the expense probably never will.

                                -Mark
                                [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 Oct 84 18:53:31 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: more net.followup stuff

From: [e-mail] (Baker) Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA

Central offices do not and do not need to know if a modem is being
used.  On the other hand Echo suppressors that are used to prevent you
hearing your own voice returned after a few seconds on long lines,
need to be disabled for a full-duplex Modem to work.  It does this by
detecting the answer tone given by the Modem.  Note that this is the
same tone for all Bell standard Modems.  Digital central offices are
in no better position to interpret information passed through them.

There does seem to have been an interest in the past by phone
companies to try and charge Modem users more than voice users.  So far
none of them have been successful.

Paul Wilcox-Baker

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #98
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 7-Oct-84 22:01:26 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest            Monday, 8 Oct 1984       Volume 4 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
                   NYT- NSA Secure Telephone article.
                            Echo Suppressors
                           white house radios
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 1984 23:48-PDT
Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL
Subject: NYT- NSA Secure Telephone article.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


n062 1458 06 Oct 84 BC-PHONES 2takes NSA Seeking 500,000 'Secure'
Telephones Exclusive 6 p.m. EDT embargo By DAVID BURNHAM c.1984 N.Y.
Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency is proposing that the
government and industry be equipped with as many as 500,000 telephones
that can be secured against interception.
    The agency is convinced that the Soviet Union and the other
nations are obtaining important intelligence from United States
telephones.
    Although cloaked in secrecy, a program like the one the agency
proposes could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The project could
also lead to a new role for the intelligence agency in private
industry. Under the proposal, production of the secure phones would
begin in two years.
    The decision by the largest and most secretive American
intelligence organization to propose a major effort to combat
telephone eavesdropping was disclosed by Walter G. Deeley, the senior
official in charge of protecting government communications.
    He said in an interview that electronic eavesdropping by the
Soviet Union, other countries he did not name and corporations posed a
genuine threat to the security of the United States.
    ''I want the country to be aware that if we don't protect our
communications, it can do a great deal of damage to us,'' Deeley said.
''This is a problem that goes to the very fabric of our society. It is
not just a worry of the national security agencies.''
    He said he believed the United States was in ''deep trouble,''
adding: ''They are having us for breakfast. We're hemorrhaging. Your
progeny may not enjoy the rights we do today if we don't do
something.''
    A Reagan administration official familiar with intelligence
matters agreed there was a surveillance problem, but he also said no
final decision had been made to go beyond research or to request money
to produce the phones.
    In August, the National Security Agency sent a letter to more than
2,000 major corporations saying, ''The U.S. has initiated an effort to
develop low-cost, user-friendly secure telephone instruments.''
    The number of secure telephones currently used by government
agencies is classified information. But the Carter administration said
there were 100 such phones in the government, and it planned to buy
150 more. The cost of each phone then was $35,000. The Reagan
administration has bought an unknown number of additional secure
phones.
    The phones proposed by the NSA would be used by the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Defense and State departments, military
contractors and other private corporations such as banks that handle
information of possible use to a foreign power.
    The NSA was set up by President Truman in a secret executive order
in 1952 to conduct electronic intelligence all over the world and
protect the sensitive messages of the United States. It has used its
secret budget, now estimated at $4 billion a year, to make itself a
major sponsor of advanced computer research, and it has played an
important covert role in shaping national communication policy. Its
top officials almost never grant on-the-record interviews.
    ''Anyone making a phone call to the West Coast or Boston from the
Washington area has no idea how the conversation will be
transmitted,'' Deeley said. ''It might go via fiber optics,
conventional cable, microwave towers or one of the 19 domestic
satellites. If is going via satellite you can presume the other guy is
listening to it.''
    Asked for specific examples of electronic espionage, he said he
could not disclose them because they were classified. Citing
individual cases, he said, would give the Russians important clues
about the ability of the United States to detect their efforts.
     Deeley said his agency was developing a similar program to
improve the security of computerized data. ''This area has blown up
extraordinarily fast,'' he said. ''In many ways computerized data is
more harmful than telephones because it's all record information.
    ''The financial institutions have become aware of this problem.
The insurance companies are becoming aware. The rest of the private
sector companies are just now beginning to see that if they are going
to survive, they have to protect their communications.''
    He said increasing American use of communication satellites and
microwave transmission towers made it economically possible for almost
any nation and many large corporations to intercept messages, then use
high-speed computers to sort them out.
    A spokesman for the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. said he
could not estimate the amount of telephone traffic that was subject to
relatively easy interception because it was transmitted by microwave
towers or satellites. But he added that one rough indicator was that
70 percent of AT&T's domestic equipment and 60 percent of its overseas
equipment transmitted telephone messages through the atmosphere rather
than by cable, which is harder to intercept.
    Few members of Congress other than members of the Senate and House
intelligence committees are aware of the NSA's plan. One exception is
Rep. Glenn English, D-Okla., chairman of the House Government
Operations Subcommittee on Information. In a letter Sept. 24 to the
General Accounting Office, a congressional investigative arm, he said,
''There can, of course, be no objection to maintaining adequate
security for classified information.''
    He said, however, that he knew ''from past experience that the
national security bureaucracy has a tendency to require a degree of
protection for classified information that may be excessive.'' He
added, ''Technological security measures are very expensive, and my
concern is that the unnecessary use of these measures is a waste of
scarce federal funds.''
     English asked the GAO to prepare an unclassified report on
whether the proposed protective measures were necessary and worth the
cost.
    Henry Geller, director of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration in the Carter administration and now the
head of the Washington Center for Public Policy Research of Duke
University, raised questions about the project.
    He said that when the Carter administration studied Soviet
eavesdropping, it decided that its biggest security agency should be
responsible for assuring the communications security of the American
military and American intelligence services but that the Commerce
Department should be responsible for working with private companies.
    ''There was a strong belief in the Carter administration that the
United States has a long and important tradition that the telephone
systems and broadcasting groups are independent, privately owned
entities,'' he said. ''Adopting a plan that gives the NSA, a branch of
the Pentagon, an important role in the communication network of
private corporations and civilian agencies of government is a
significant policy change that should be carefully examined by
Congress before it is adopted.''
     Deeley said his agency's concern prompted it earlier this year to
award five of the major American communication companies small
contracts to conduct individual studies; the object would be to
determine whether they could mass-produce a low-cost, easy-to-use
telephone that would be difficult to intercept. The companies are
AT&T, the GTE Corp., the ITT Corp., the Motorola Corp. and the RCA
Corp.
    Deeley did not describe the telephones, but experts in the field
said each would presumably have a small computer that would transform
the voice signals into a stream of coded digits. They said this would
require time and expensive equipment for an outsider to decode the
message.
    However, after the coded message was transmitted by conventional
means to another special telephone, the receiving unit's computer
could quickly turn the digits back into an understandable voice.
    As a result of the preliminary studies supported by his agency,
Deeley said that he hoped to get bids on the project in November and
sign an agreement with two of the five companies before the end of
this year, and that production of the devices could begin before the
end of 1986. ''We're talking about a half a million phones,'' Deeley
said.
    While the Carter administration paid $35,000 for each such phone,
Deeley said the NSA hoped that mass production could cut the cost.
    ''Communications security is like insurance,'' he said. ''It has
no intrinsic value until it is needed. Some people buy insurance, some
don't. If you are a responsible person with a family, you take out a
little term insurance. If you aren't, you buy a case of beer.''
    Deeley said a major investment in secure telephones by the private
sector would result in a substantial reduction of the cost of such
equipment for the federal government.
    ''If Exxon or Hanover Trust want to protect themselves,'' he said,
''they ought to be able to get the right equipment to achieve that
goal. If they don't care about other people reading their mail, that's
their business.''

nyt-10-06-84 1808edt ***************

------------------------------

Date: 07-Oct-1984 0952
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Echo Suppressors

Echo suppressors are currently only used on circuits longer than
approximately 2000 miles.  In addition, the echo suppressors are in a
layer of the network not at all related to accounting and billing.

You can rest assured that the telcos are not today, nor will they in
the near future, be using anything related to echo suppressors to
determine whether a modem is in use.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 18 September 1984  21:06-MDT
Sender: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!mpackard@Ucb-Vax
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!mpackard@Ucb-Vax
Subject: white house radios

The most distressing thing to hear is the secretary of state
discussing problems or passing information over a clear radio, but it
happens all the time.  Just listen to HF in the 11.200 to 11.300 band
and you will here just about everyone of importance talking around the
subject.  The fact that the military spends billions on communications
gear, doesn't mean they use it.  Usually the operator is lazy and just
gets a frequency the fastest way he can.  "get me a freq as soon as
possible I must speak to the president" and the operator says gee not
again, Oh piss I'll just give him the HF.  The easiest way to
determine an aircrafts communications capability is to look at it's
antenna's. (you can't tell which ones are the bogus ones) Don't forget
to examine the skin for bumps which house some of the antenna's.  The
reason for bumps is because the maintenance types have to fix them
sooner or later.  uok!mpackard

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #99
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 10-Oct-84 21:32:22 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Thursday, 11 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
               "false" alarm about telecom rates (for now)
                      AT&T's "Notes on the Network"
                           Re: Telecomm rates?
                     Secure military communications
               Ref: Telecom 4-97 ..VLSI Ethernet Chip info
                           New Jersey dialing
                 British Break-up of the phone-monopoly
                     NSA concern over phone tapping
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday,  7 Oct 1984 21:05:53-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Joe Falcone, HLO2-3/N03, dtn
From: 225-6059)
Subject: "false" alarm about telecom rates (for now)

CC:


I've gotten a few notes insisting that it wasn't possible for the
phone company to charge special rates for a phone line that was used
for data purposes for various reasons (regulatory and electronic).
Well, it was tried once, as described by this reposting from
net.followup.  It is also true that carrier sensing is relatively
straightforward and could be tied in to a time-and-charges scheme, but
probably will never happen because of the new special digital data
networks.  My thanks to ea!mwm for the SW Bell account.

Joe Falcone

>Newsgroups: net.followup >Path:
decwrl!amd!fortune!hpda!hplabs!pesnta!petsd!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!u

        iucdcs!ea!mwm
>NSubject: Re: new twist on computer "crime" and la >Posted: Thu Sep
27 12:17:00 1984 > >Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-371600:ea:4300008:000:1465
>Nf-From: ea!mwm Sep 27 14:17:00 1984

/***** ea:net.general / decwrl!falcone / 12:25 am Sep 25, 1984 */
Quite a while ago, some of the local telephone companies were
proposing changes to the tariffs which would consider any line used
for data transmission (modems) a BUSINESS line and therefore subject
to the business rate schedule.  For most of us, this would result in
rather stiff rate increases.  After an initial flurry of messages on
the net about this, I haven't heard a thing.  Anyone following this?

Joe Falcone /* ---------- */

Much of that came from cases here in Oklahoma. A BBS had his phone
rate tripled, with no additional service, because the existing laws
made any store&forward device some sort of "information terminal."
After hassling the guy (Robert Braver, by name. His BBS is the USEMC,
phone number 405/360-3020), the phone company backed off. Something to
do with the new tariff associated with the divestiture on Jan. 1,
1984.

Currently, Southwestern Bell in Oklahoma will charge you a high rate
if you hook up a modem and plan on both incoming and outgoing calls
through the computer. If you are going to do just one or the other,
they only charge you the standard residential rate.

My understanding was that Oklahoma was a test case for Southwestern
Bell, and they were going to extend the high charge practice to other
states if it worked. Since they aren't charging all modem users a high
rate ($54/mo, as opposed to $10/mo), I suspect that they've given up.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 1984 00:57-PDT
Sender: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
Subject: AT&T's "Notes on the Network"
From: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL

Does any one have information on where I can order the book-
  Notes on the Network by AT&T?

Thanx, Mark Mhamill@SRI-CSL

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 22:56:29 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Glaser)
Subject: Re: Telecomm rates?

There is a thing on most phone lines (particularly long distance
trunks) called an echo supressor.  Part of the 103/212/VA3400 modem
protocols is a magic tone to disable these beasties as they alter the
signal and echos aren't a big problem in full duplex modems anyway
(transmitting and receiving use different frequencies).

Steve Glaser (tektronix!steveg)

------------------------------

From: <bang!crash!frankb@Nosc>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 23:56:16 pdt
Subject: Secure military communications

I don't know about communications in the civilian sector of
government, but I know that those of us in the military who had
security devices used them.

I was in a tactical military intelligence unit in Germany for two and
one-half years, from January 1982 to June 1984.  During that time, I
witnessed the transition from the old voice encryption system (Nestor)
to the new (Vinson).  We practiced both systems often, while in the
field and in garrison.  This was necessary with Nestor, as it was a
cumbersome and somewhat unreliable (due, most likely, to its old age)
system, involving a lot of work setting little switches, and trying to
get the little "sandwiches" (as we called them) to fit in their slots.
Vinson is much better, being much more reliable (I never witnessed a
failure), providing a better level of security, and being a lot more
friendly to those using it.

We always used our encryption systems for communications, even those
of relatively minor importance.  For this reason, my unit, as well as
many other tactical MI units, was never outsmarted due to a breach of
security.  The same cannot be said of combat units.  I do not know why
they have yet to being using encryption gear such as we had, but it
will be a problem in wartime.  It was incredibly easy not only to find
US units in an exercise, but to jam and deceive them as well.  Some US
combat units practice abhorrent security procedures; weaseling your
way into their nets was a simple matter.  However, there were
(possibly) just as many units which had good radio discipline.  This
means requiring proper authentication when sending a message, and
always questioning the security of your net when you have even the
faintest notion something funny is going on.

Incidentally, from what I saw during my time in the Army,
communications security (COMSEC) is getting better, along with many
other components of military operations.  Perhaps, in a few years,
there won't even be any major COMSEC violations anymore.  Perhaps...

Frank Boosman sdcsvax!bang!crash!frankb@nosc

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday,  9 Oct 1984 05:16:34-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (John M. Potucek @261-3297)
Subject: Ref: Telecom 4-97 ..VLSI Ethernet Chip info

Date: Tues. 09-Oct-1984 @0818EDT From: John Potucek

In snswer to the request from Doug Braun on VLSI Ethernet Chips...
There is in the September 1984 issue of Computer Design a fairly good
article on the very same subject. Included is a listing of the
pertinent VLSI devices with part numbers which compose the various
manufacturers chips/chipsets. I hopr that this helps, doug


BCNU,

/jmp

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 84 15:17:01 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Jersey dialing

Before New Jersey went to 1+ dialing, some points there required 1+ on
all toll calls.  What becomes of 1+ on toll calls within an area code
there? (Also, how are local calls across area code boundary to be
dialed?  Such calls in, say, NYC require 1+area code.)

(By the way: I was in NJ on Sunday 16 Sept., and saw the present
instructions on a pay phone, prefix 609-423 near Paulsboro along
I-295.  As reported earlier in different words, the instructions are
just like those for NYC--but this pay phone's instructions did NOT
single out the home area code for 0+ calls!)

[You still have to dial 0-201-XXX-XXXX if you are within 201 and want
operator assistance in completing the call. Sigh. --JSol]

------------------------------

Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 15:21:52-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Break-up of the phone-monopoly


[ the following information was extracted from an article in "The
Economist"
  of Oct 6-12, 84, page 88.  "The Economist" is the most informative
weekly
  publication printed and is available by subscription in the US at a
weekly
  cost of a little more than $1.  You'll never touch Time and Newsweek
again.
  Note: all monetary figures below are in Sterling, not dollars.  -
Werner ]

British Telecom (BT), Britain's state-owned telecommunications
utility, will be sold to the public next month.  The government hopes
that the 51% of BT being sold will fetch at least $3.5 billion (US$4.3
billion).  The sale, the largest ever on the London stock exchange, is
both important to the treasury and the biggest test of the
Conservative government's determination to reduce the role of the
public sector by the "privatisation" of state assets.  Will BT be a
greater success in the private sector than it has proved in the state
sector?

It will be hard for BT to fail completely.  It controls the
fourth-largest telephone system in the world, after the US, Japan, and
West-Germany.  It's network connects 29m telephones, roughly 5% of the
world's total.  It handles 60m calls a day and employs around 241,000
people.  Yet it's market is far from saturated: Britons each make 383
calls a year compared with 667 by the Danes and 1,441 by the Americans
[US only, probably].  Most important, in the first 5 years, it will be
almost as much a monopoly in the private sector as it has been in the
public ....

[it goes on describing how the Conservatives, after gaining power in
1979, seperated BT from the post-office, and prepared it for
privatisation.  It discusses it's 5 divisions in some detail, it's
efforts to leap-frog from some VERY old equipment to the latest
technology, digital System X, optical fibres, X-stream, mobile
services, value-added services, etc.  lots of figures and statistics.
It is really interesting how the Brits try to take care of the social
responsibilities in communications and at the same time encourage
competition and guarantee a profit.  Competition is stiffled somewhat
and consumer interests are not served completely, as the following may
exemplify:]

Most important, BT will be allowed to increase its charges for a
"basket" of its services - all trunk and local calls and exchange line
rentals to business and residential subscribers - by a maximum of the
retail price index minus three.  In other words, if inflation is 5%,
BT's maximum price increase will be 2%.  This basket covers about half
of BT's revenues, but less of profits because it does not include the
highly profitable international services.  BT can juggle the increase
between items in the basket (and is anxious to make residential
customers pay their way), but there is an understanding that increases
in line rentals will not exceed the RPI plus 2.

[it is really interesting, even educational, how the Conservatives try
to make the change to privatisation survive the next
Labour-government, who is sure to come and sure to be tempted to roll
back these changes.  It is also most interesting to speculate what
will happen, when significant work-force reductions will be the result
of modernisation.  Remember, this is the country where the change to
electric trains did not mean the man shovelling the coal was out of a
job.  ]

As BT gets more efficient (around 15,000 people will have left the
workforce in the three years to next March) it could reap considerable
rewards: one more local call a week at cheap rate per residential
subscriber adds $44m to annual revenues; one more trunk call over 35
miles each week adds $354m to revenues.  Almost all of this would flow
through to profits.  This is in contrast to American regulation, which
imposes a limit on the rate of return
- and so limits the incentive to improve.

The government is rigging things as far as it dares in BT's favour.
It plans to restructure the utility's balance sheet for privatisation
so that debt as a proportion of equity will fall from 92% in 1983-84
to 45%.  No network competitor other than Mercury wil be permitted
until at least 1990.  Until July, 1989, it will not be possible for
independent companies to buy capacity in bulk, and so at a discount,
from BT and then re-sell the lines to subscribers at a price lower
than BT's.

[ and now the trick to survive the next Labour government, a real
cutie ]

All employees on privatisation will be given $70-worth of free shares
- and will get two free shares for each one bought up to a limit of
$100.  In other words, each employee could own shares with a face
value of $370 for an outlay of only $100.

Similarly, each telephone subscriber who buys shares of $250 (payable
in three calls) will qualify for an $18 rebate on his quarterly
telephone bill.  The aim is no secret: the more people become
shareholders, the more difficult it will be for a Labour government to
re-nationalise BT.

[ now IF those shares are really WORTH $250, this is a steal and a
truely significant example, how a public utility could be financed and
owned by the general public.  I, for one, would like to see telephone
and cable-TV owned by the members of the local community, and paid for
as part of the house-mortgage payments.  In this manner, the physical
plant would be TRUELY owned AND paid for, by the public, and it's
administration would have to be responsive to the public, as everyone
has the power of a share-holder, which is a totally different
ball-game from the government running it which often seems to get away
with ignoring it's "share-holders".  Schools and hospitals should be
run the same way, with Federal guide-lines to guarantee a certain
quality and national minimal standards, but responsive to local
superior or special demands.  The reason, I name these 2 areas, is the
fact that after health, housing, education, and personal freedom, I
consider communication and transportation the next most significant
items on my list of communal interests, where cost and profit and
control should be shared by all, as well as certain losses due to
providing a certain amount of basic services to everyone to guarantee
opportunity for growth to the disadvantaged

  -- sorry, guys, about the quasi-philosophical/political
side-tracking; I got carried away. hope you reward my typing-efforts
by some typing of your own - telecommunications-topics, including
social, economic and political implications, of course.  Flames and
insults directly to me, please.  I will collect them and post
noteworthies, edited (censored ??) for public consumption.  ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 84 23:54:18 pdt
From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore)
Subject: NSA concern over phone tapping

What a joke!  The NSA-designed phones will of course use DES chips
(where else will you get 500,000 chips capable of "secure" speech
encryption in 2 years) which they can read but few others can.
Putting half a million cheap, *truly* secure phones on the US/world
market would make it possible for all countries and interested parties
to keep their information safe from the NSA.  Somehow I think they're
sharper than that -- so what's the hidden purpose?

Maybe this means they have recently developed hardware and/or software
for relatively cheap (eg non-Cray) breaking of DES.  They can now
affort to decrypt on a large scale (eg at point of interception, for
filtering before transmission to NSA), while nobody else can.  DES is
used so little these days that encrypted traffic stands out from the
usual cleartext and can be singled out for attention by interceptors
with limited decrypting capability.  (The gov't under Carter only had
150 DES phones???  Who could you call?)  With these new phones, lots
of who-cares stuff will be encrypted, making it harder for people
without their new algorithms to decide what to decrypt.

The other half of the joke is that the NSA's job throughout the world
is to do exactly what they accuse other countries of doing.  They are
suspected of doing it in the US too.  They had the law rewritten
several years ago to permit interception of "envelope" information, as
long as they don't listen to the people talking (or sending computer
data, etc).  This allows them to legally intercept domestic microwave
traffic and analyze the touchtones therein to determine who is calling
to/from numbers they are interested in (eg foreign embassies,
suspected drug dealers).  This "envelope" loophole also allows them to
install interception equipment which is capable of full undetectable
wiretapping, but of course they don't exceed their legal charter.
Right.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #100
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 21:43:11 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Friday, 12 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
                 [Carl Moore (VLD:  New Jersey dialing]
                            NSA breaking DES
                       AT&T Tariffs on modem lines
                             AT&T ISN Query
                 St. Mary's men make phone booth history
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 7:36:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Carl Moore (VLD:  New Jersey dialing]

[You still have to dial 0-201-XXX-XXXX if you are within 201 and want
operator assistance in completing the call. Sigh. --JSol] **********
Yes; the instruction card I saw on pay phone (609-423) said 0+areacode
+number for all 0+ calls.  That instruction is the same in NYC--but
the instruction cards I saw there (before 212/718 split) did single
out area 212.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1984 09:20-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NSA breaking DES

Wait a minute ...

The last I heard about the NSA's ability to crack DES was that they
could do it if they spent considerable funds and built a machine with
1 million custom processors to perform the decryption in parallel.
Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean they actually have,
or even hope to have, the capability.

On the other hand, if they are actually building such a machine ...

--david

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 11 Oct 1984 06:52:33-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Lester Waters)
Subject: AT&T Tariffs on modem lines


The following (LONG) article is forwarded from an article composed by
a system operator of our local computer bulletin board (CBBS/NW) as I
thought it would be of general interest to many people on the net.

                ***********************************

Well, it seems that Mother Bell is at it again.  In light of the
impending break up, she has decided to "suddenly" implement a little
known 1965 tariff.  This "Information Terminal Service" tariff would
seem to be another in the long line of efforts to minimize the
impending "losses" which the Bell Company sees coming as a result of
the impending government imposed breakup.

If you have not seen the number of messages on the local bulletin
board systems (which would be effectively forced out of operation
should this tariff go into effect), or the numerous articles that have
been going around in the trade papers lately, let me bring you up to
date.

This tariff imposes a monthly charge of approximately $50.00 on each
modem connected to a residential phone line ($38.00 in Oklahoma where
the tariff is currently in effect) and increases the charge for
touch-tone service by about $2.00 regardless of the frequency of use.
This would probably be substantially higher for a business line.

One of the more amusing reasons I have seen given for the sudden
implementation of this new charge was "Because of the expense of
providing 'Data Grade' lines for use with these devices".  Funny, but
I don't remember requesting a "Data Grade" phone line.  It even says
in the modem manual that the modem was designed for use on "Voice
Grade" phone lines.  Does this mean that what we now consider a
standard phoine line (marginal though it may be at times) we should be
paying more for?  And does it mean that a "Voice Grade" phone line
will be considerably worse?

This seems to me, not unlike a measure proposed a few years ago by an
Eastern senator which would have imposed a $50.00 yearly tax on all
computer terminals both in commercial and private use.  When asked for
the reason for such a tax, he replied "because there are so many of
them that they need to be taxed".

Consider for a moment the possible effects of such a charge beyond the
obvious effects on the public bulletin board and remote access
systems.  The possibilities are indeed frightening as this would not
only effect the no-charge systems such as CBBS/NW and the Beaverton
RCP/M (just to name 2) but the large commercial systems such as
Compuserve and The Source as well.

This tariff would seem to be a throwback to the days before the
landmark "Carterphone" decision which made it legal to connect
privately owned and produced equipment (that had been FCC approved) to
the phone network without the use of a phone company supplied DAA
(Direct Access Arrangement) device.

At that time, since the only people who could supply the DAA device
was the phone company, and since the DAA could not be purchased but
only rented from the phone company, the phone company was assured of
receiving their "cut".

At the time this tariff was instituted (judging from the date quoted
by phone company representatives) it might have been construed as an
attempt to prevent anyone else from getting into the business of
building modems.  Since in 1965 about the only people building modems
were the Bell system itself so it would have received little
opposition.

Consider also some of the other new (or "revised" as the phone company
would rather refer to them) charges that will most likely be coming up
soon after the 1st of the year (the date of the Bell system breakup).

*Message Unit Billing:* This is the way that long distance calls are
billed.  Only after the 1st of the year you will probably be billed in
this manner for local calls as well rather than the monthly flat rate
that most of us now pay.

*Answering Unit Billing:* An "unofficial" rumor that has surfaced from
some phone company representatives.  Currently, only the phone that is
originating (making) the call is billed for time spent on the line.
Unser this method of billing, the answering unit would also be billed
for connect time.

Now consider some of the things that are already being billed...

*Network Access:* This is the basic charge for hooking up to the phone
network.  It currently also covers your charges for local calling and
usually does not vary regardless of the number of local calls placed
in a month.  The question now is; when the phone company begins
Message Unit Billing for local calls, will the Network Access Charges
be reduced or eliminated?  Probably not.

*Extended Area Service:* This is the charge for connecting to other
"local" exchanges that are not part of your phone company's operating
area.  An example would be a GTE customer in Beaverton who is calling
a Bell system customer in Portland.  While this is considered a local
call, you are billed for the ability to connect to the Portland
system.

*Regulated Lease:* This is the rental charge you pay on any phone
company equipment that you have in your home (the only simple, honest
charge that I can find on the bill).

*Other Charges:* This is not meant to be a vague category, but this is
what it says on the bill.  I have no idea what it covers.

These combined with things like Federal Excise taxes, 911 Emergency
taxes, late payment charges, and others (which are all billed
separately) make for quite a phone bill.  And we have not even
considered long distance charges...

The really curious part of all this is that even the phone company
does not seem to know just how they want to implement this new charge.
In Oklahoma, it seems to be a surcharge just as described in the 1965
tariff.  However in Seattle the word is that they intend to bill any
line that has a modem on it as a business line.  Confused?  Me too!

It would appear that the phone company is selecting random areas to
implement these new charges as test cases.  Perhaps to see which
variation of the surcharge receives the least resistance after which
they would start to impose the charge on a nationwide basis.

Personally, I don't believe for a second that the "breakup" of the
Bell system will prevent the system from at least "recommending"
procedures for the network at large.  All in the interest of reducing
losses of course, while the newly "independent" companies regain
control of their separate operations.

Well, I fear that this article has rambled far enough for one session.
If you would like more information on how the battle is going, I will
conclude with names, addresses, and phone numbers of the organizations
that have formed to contest these new and questionable charges.  I
will also attempt to update you as new news becomes available.  I will
also be attending a meeting of the Seattle based Telecommunications
Users Group (TUG) coming up on 10/15/83 at which the sloe topic of the
meeting will be the charges that I have discussed here.  I hope to
bring back news (hopefully good) from that meeting.  Representatives
from the Bell system, as well as from numerous modem and computer
manufacturers are expected to attend.  I have also suggested that
CompuServe and The Source be contacted so that they might also be
represented.

Seattle contacts:
                Telecommunications User's Group (TUG)
                  Brian Sullivan or Glenn Gorman (206)
                 746-0145 [phone]

Oklahoma contacts:
                   Oklahoma Modem User's Group
                    911 West Imhoff Rd., #634
                        Norman, OK.  73069 Robert Braver, President
        24 hour hot line (recorded message updated daily)
                        [phone]

Periodic updates will also be available on CBBS/NW [phone] or
[phone] as further information becomes available to us.

Downloaded from USENET

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 13:29:07 EDT
From: dca-pgs <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T ISN Query

I'm trying to get a good handle on what ISN is.  A typical ad decribes
some but not much.

Typical ad:

"We'll Make You A Star."

"...The network brings together the star topology, a Packet Controller
with a centralized transmission bus, and a collision-free network
access protocol, making it truly unique in local networks.  ... ISN
even provides centralized control and administration; and, because all
interfaces are housed in a central cabinet, security is high. ...
Moreover, you're always assured of fast response time because of the
shortness of the net's centralised transmission bus. ... "

---------------------------------------------------------

So; apparently this is a logical token ring.  Is AT&T making this a
co-packaged offering with PBX products, to run on in-place wire plant?
This would add to its appeal, but the add didn't say. Is anyone "out
there" installing or using ISN?  All info & war stories appreciated.

Best,
-Pat Sullivam (try "Sullivan", I went to a going-away
   luncheon and now can't spell my name!)

------------------------------

Date: 8-Oct-84 23:03 PDT
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems Div. - McDnD
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: St. Mary's men make phone booth history

TO NATURAL-DISASTERS:  I send this to break the L O N G silence this
distribution list has had.

Times Tribune (Monday, Oct. 8, 1984)

   Moraga, Ca.

   At St. Mary's College, it's thumbs down for goldfish swallowing,
   thumbs up for stuffing people into phone booths.

   On Saturday, 24 students at the tiny school crammed themselves into
   a Pacific Bell phone booth, breaking the 1959 national record by
   one small body.

   That body belonged to 5-foot-2, 120 pound Irwan Kamdani, a senior
   who moved here from Indonesia four years ago.

   "I don't know if we have anything like that there," he said.  But
   this was great."

   In less than 10 minutes, the booth was scientifically packed with
   24 aching, contorted men in a contemporary recreation of the stunt
   staged on a spring night in 1959 in response to losing a basketball
   championship.

   Sure, nobody could breathe.  And yes, it hurt to be on the bottom
   of a human pile.  But the final word: it was fun.

   "Swallowing goldfish," said Mike Wilson, number 19 in the pile,
   "now that's stupid."

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #101
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!hudson!ihnp1!ihnp4!ucbv
        ax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 21:23:23 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Monday, 15 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
                               Carterfone
                            NSA breaking DES
                             Re: FAST Modems
               Let's not blame the breakup for everything
                  Florida Wideband Fiber Optics Network
                          NOTES ON THE NETWORK
                                AT&T ISN
                                AT&T ISN
                       Recognizing Digital Signals
                      Two modems on one phone line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 21:38:45 EDT
From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Carterfone

Actually, the act behind the Carterfone decision was even a more
facist act by the phone company.  The Carterfone was a device that
could be equated to the modem Acoustic coupler and was used to patch
the phone into a radio.  There was no electrical connection involved.

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1984  19:39 PDT (Thu)
Sender: TLI@USC-ECLB
From: Tony Li <Tli@Usc-Eclb>
Reply-to: Tli@Usc-Eclb
Subject: NSA breaking DES


In a paper by Diffie and Hellman, they describe a method for
exhaustive search which would enable someone to break the DES using a
large parallel architecture.  This, however, is not the same thing as
the NSA breaking the DES.  The NSA in it's infinite wisdom, helped
design the DES.  The possibility exists that there is a trivial method
of attacking the DES, and that the NSA may have it.  It may not take
more than a Vax....

Cheers, Tony ;-)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 84 20:11:04 PDT (Thursday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FAST Modems


In many cases, 9600 bps 4 wire leased line modems can be used over the
dialup network by using two phonelines at the same time. Two phone
calls are placed, two phone lines are required at each modem location.

"Dual dial backup" equipment is available from several vendors
including Paradyne and Codex.

Larry

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 12 Oct 1984 06:03:06-PDT
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Let's not blame the breakup for everything

Les Waters' reprint from the CBBS is full of so many inaccuracies that
it isn't worth even responding to specifics.  Once again, somebody who
has an axe to grind and knows little about the telephone industry has
written a Phillipic that seems to blame divestiture for everything
from the Spanish Inquisition and the Thirty Years' War to the sinking
of the Andrea Doria.  Come on, folks, let's be reasonable!

"Information Terminal Service" tariffs go back many years; the
Oklahoma case was based on an ancient state tariff that predated the
widespread use of time-sharing, not to mention micros.  It's a state
regulated matter, which hasn't been affected by the divestiture at
all, and if you don't like it, you can let your state regulators know.
In Oregon, one sole Commissioner runs the show and sets all telephone
rates.  Other states have larger commissions, but I doubt if many of
them would really want everyone who bought a $229 modem at Toys-r-Us
to pay $50/month for $9 residential service.  If Telco thinks the CBBS
is a commercial venture for money (there are some out there, of
course) then they pay business rates.  It worked that way before 1983
and it still does.

Other local charging plans have been batted around for decades.  New
York City hasn't had flat-rate residential or business service for
many years, and the Bell System (AT&T) started a big "usage sensitive
pricing" push around 1974.  Never mind that most of their costs are
usage insen- sitive, USP gives them an excuse to keep "little old
lady" basic monthly rates down to about a fifth of cost in exchange
for ripping off blind anyone who has the temerity to pick up a phone
(or modem).

The "access charge" thing goes back to 1930 (Smith Vs. Illinois, US
Supreme Court), and is the FCC's conceptually reasonable (if screwy in
implementation details) way of recovering the fixed ("monthly") cost
of stringing miles of wire to all yer houses, when part of that cost
is legally Interstate and under their, and not the state's,
jurisdiction.  They used to let AT&T Long Lines own that cost, but MCI
discovered that they could get away with using the wires without
paying for them.  That's another story, though.

Local telephone rates haven't been deregulated.  Before any screwy
"new" tariffs take effect, the state has to let them.  But as long as
people scream out in self-righteous pain about paying their $2 monthly
"access" charge and act as if every hike in the rate *level* were
going to put them out of house and home, then telcos will be forced to
look elsewhere for revenue to cover the huge fixed cost of all those
wires.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 84 10:52:05 EDT
From: dca-pgs @ DDN1.ARPA
Subject: Florida Wideband Fiber Optics Network


Microtel, Inc. of Boca Raton, FL, is an "intercity" (that is,
intra-Florida) carrier offering wideband network service via a Florida
state-wide FO network: LaserNet.  Standard trunk size is 405 Mbps. The
net uses NEC eqpt with repeater spacing of 25 miles.

LaserNet offers VF, T1, T1C, T2, T3, and 90 Mbps (2XT3) interfaces.
Microtel is a partner in the Southeastern Communications(tele-)
Network (STN) and plans to expand the LaserNet to the Washington, DC
area within the next 2 years.  The tariff tends to run about 30% less
than AT&T.

For more info:  Mr. Charles Siperko VP, Operations Microtel, Inc.
7100 West Camino Real Boca Raton, FL 33433 305-392-2244

---------------------------------------------------------------


Best,
-Pat Sullivan
 DCEC/R610

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 12 Oct 1984 11:23:55-PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NOTES ON THE NETWORK

Notes on the Network may be obtained by calling the AT&T Customer
Information Center in Indianapolis at 800-432-6600.

The following books may be ordered from: AT&T Bell Labs,Room 1E 335
101 Kennedy Parkway,Short Hills,NJ 07078 or by calling AT&T at
201-564-2582.

   Publication Yearly Fee Bell Labs Record $20 Telephony $30 Bell
System Technical Journal $35

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 84 17:10:40 EDT
Subject: AT&T ISN

Pat,

        Take a look at the description on Computer Technology Review,
Summer 1984,pp 279, for a rough description of the basis of ISN.  It
is a contention bus(es) system [3 busses actually] that avoids the
problem of collisions [ala Ethernet].  It is an 8.64Mbit/sec bus so
the claim of "fast response time because of the shortness of the net's
centralized transmission bus..." is a bunch of marketing hype.
Response time depends on system loading, etc.  Besides, one of the
things you can do is decentralize it by connecting remote packet
controllers to the central node via fiber optic cables. It is really a
star configuration and they push the idea that it doesn't have
collisions like ethernet, but they don't tell you that the central
clock module in each packet controller is not redundant (sp?) so if it
dies, so does your network.  They also don't (yet) have interfaces to
ethernet, etc.  It is not clear to me how to ship IP packets across
this thing (assuming an interface to an IMP exists).  But then again,
the only folks that have come here to talk have been more the
marketing type and not the technical type.  Until I can talk with some
of the technical types I'll stay skeptical about its usefulness as a
data switch.  It is supposed to use in-plant wiring (25pair cables to
your existing phones).  Adding a box on the side of your phone (the
phone is digital - 19.2Kb data rate) allows an RS-232 connection
(19.2Kb data).  The remaining bandwidth (out of 64Kb) is for
signaling.  The folks who have been here have not mentioned host
interfaces (ie. high speed).
        -tcs
        Terry Slattery U.S. Naval Academy 301-267-4413
        ARPA: tcs@brl-bmd UUCP:decvax!brl-bmd!usna!tcs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 84 17:23:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]

     I run a BBS which is up only when I'm not using the machine (plug
- Detroit FIDO PCUTILboard - [phone]) and, for various reasons
would like to busy-out the line when I'm using the machine.

     Now, I know that other people do this all the time, but I a bit
leary.  I mean, the god-awful racket the phone makes when you take it
off the hook, along with the STERN message ("Please hang up.  Please
hang up NOW!) lead me to beleive that, just maybe, Ma doesn't want me
doing it.

     So, is there some "proper" way to busy-out a line?  Obviously, I
don't want to pick up the receiver and hear the racket, so I need some
sort of a box (I presume a resistor across the line?).

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 84 07:19:30 pdt
From: (Mike O'Dell[x-csam]) mo@lbl-csam
Subject: AT&T ISN

It isn't a token ring at all.  It is, however, DATAKIT in disguise.
The box in the closet is an adaptive time-division switch which
provides circuit switching.  Connections are established by first
saying to the network (in effect) "Hello Central!  Connect me with
number 46."

Just what you'd expect from the people that brought you cross-bar
relays.

        -Mike

------------------------------

Date: 11-Oct-84 18:56:26-PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Recognizing Digital Signals

     In a limited sense, long-distance telephone systems do recognize
data signals.  Normally, voice connections over long paths, especially
long ones, pass through units called ``echo suppressors''.  These are
basically voice-actuated switches that make the path half-duplex.
While the long-haul system is full-duplex, subscriber loops, being
only two wires, are not, and something must be done to prevent hearing
your own voice delayed by twice the propagation time of the circuit.
Echo suppressors perform this function but prevent full-duplex
communication.
     Modems intended for use on the switched network turn off the echo
suppressors by issuing a tone at the start of the connection (this is
one of the functions of the standard modem answer tone) and as long as
some signal is transmitted thereafter, the modem suppressors remain
off.  This makes the connection full-duplex and modems must be able to
cope with echo, which they typically do by assigning different
frequency bands to the originate and answer ends of the connection.
     This is well-known and documented as a feature of the AT&T
system.  As far as I know, the other vendors also obey the same
echo-suppressor control protocol.

                                        John Nagle

------------------------------

Date: Sat 13 Oct 84 12:49:34-EDT
From: Alexander M. Fraser <T.ALEX@MIT-EECS>
Subject: Two modems on one phone line

        I would like to get my two modems to talk to one another on
one phone line.  I have a 1200baud internal modem for one of my
computers so unfortunately I can't directly connect them.  Is there
any local/ non-charging ('cept for message units of course - they're
OK) number that will just keep the phone off of the hook, and be
silent?  If not, how should I go about this (aside from using another
phone line I mean)??
        Alex

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #102
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 17:35:55 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Wednesday, 17 Oct 1984    Volume 4 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
                      Two modems on one phone line
                             Eavesdropping.
                      Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #101
                       Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #101
                    Long Distance Information service
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1984  21:01 MDT (Sun)
Sender: KPETERSEN@SIMTEL20
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20>
Subject: Two modems on one phone line

If the two modems do not require the d.c. current that is normally
present on the phone line, you should be able to connect them together
using one of those modular "Y" jacks that are sold to allow plugging
two devices into the phone line.  Just don't plug it into the phone
line.  The modems should talk to each other if you have a command to
force "answer mode" on one and "originate" on the other.
--Keith

------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 1984 06:20-PDT
Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL
Subject: Eavesdropping.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


n062 1528 14 Oct 84 BC-EAVESDROP High-Level Group to Combat Soviet
Eavesdropping By DAVID BURNHAM c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - President Reagan, acting on on intelligence reports
that Soviet eavesdropping is a serious security threat, has ordered
the creation of a cabinet-level group to combat it.
     Reagan signed a directive three weeks ago spelling out the extent
of the threat and ordering a government move to reduce the loss of
government and private industry information that might help the Soviet
Union or other nations.
    According to the unclassified version of the president's order,
equipment that is used to eavesdrop on telephone conversations and
other kinds of electronic messages is now widely available and ''is
being used extensively by foreign nations.'' The order added that the
technology ''can be employed by terrorist groups and criminal
elements.''
    With the widespread use of microwave towers and satellites to
transmit telephone messages and other data, the messages of
government, businesses and individuals have become increasingly
subject to interception. Antennas in Cuba and on Soviet trawlers
cruising offshore reportedly are able to identify and record much of
this traffic.
    While the Ford and Carter administrations were concerned about the
problem and ordered some changes in government practices to deal with
it, Reagan's National Security Decision Directive 145 is the first
public assertion by a president that international eavesdropping
constitutes a threat to the United States.
    The president's directive was obtained after Walter G. Deeley, the
National Security Agency's deputy director for communications
security, disclosed in an interview that the agency hoped to equip
government and industry with 500,000 special telephones. The
telephones are meant to make it far more difficult for eavesdroppers
to conduct electronic surveillance.
     Reagan said that both government and privately owned
communication networks transmit large amounts of classified and
unclassified information that, when put together, can reveal important
secrets.
    ''The compromise of this information, especially to hostile
intelligence services, does serious damage to the United States and
its national security interests,'' Reagan's directive said.
    ''A comprehensive and coordinated approach must be taken to
protect the government's telecommunications and automated information
systems against current and anticipated threats,'' the document
continued.  ''This approach must include mechanisms for formulating
policy, for overseeing systems security resources programs, and for
coordinating and executing technical activities.''
    The directive, written by the staff of the National Security
Council, established the Systems Security Steering Group, made up of
the secretaries of state, treasury and defense, the attorney general,
the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the director
of central intelligence.
    In addition to setting overall policies, the directive said the
steering group was responsible for reviewing all communication
security proposals before they were submitted ''to the Office of
Management and Budget for the normal budget review process.''
    The directive's explicit requirement that the budget office review
and approve all electronic security programs appeared to thwart
efforts by the National Security Agency, which suggested this summer
that it should become the ''national focal point for communications
security requirements and funding.''
    The National Security Agency is the nation's largest and most
secret intelligence organization. With an estimated annual budget of
$4 billion, its twin missions are to collect electronic intelligence
all over the world and protect the sensitive communications of the
United States. It also serves as the principal adviser to the
president and the National Security Council on communication security
questions.
    Reagan's directive set up the National Telecommunications and
Information Systems Security Committee, subordinate to the
cabinet-level steering group. This committee has 14 members, including
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the director of the top security agency.
The committee was ordered to establish two subcommittees, one focusing
on telephone security and the other on computer security.
    In a third major assignment, Reagan authorized the security agency
to serve as the ''national manager'' for telephone and computer
security. In this role, the agency was authorized to conduct, approve
or endorse all government research on this problem.
    The president's directive also orders the agency to examine
government telecommunications and computer systems to determine their
''vulnerability to hostile interception and exploitation.''
    The order explicitly authorized the agency to monitor ''official
communications'' but added that such monitoring ''shall be conducted
in strict compliance with the law, Executive Orders and applicable
presidential directives.''
    The presidential directive did not say the agency had the right to
monitor the communications of private corporations, but guidelines
under which such monitoring may be conducted were approved by Attorney
General William French Smith earlier this year. nn

nyt-10-14-84 1825edt ***************

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 10:56:49 cdt
From: ihnp4!tellab1!rcl@Berkeley (Opus)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #101


Regarding "Notes on the Network";

This book was replaced in 1983 by "Notes on the BOC INTRA-LATA
Networks".  the new "Notes..." may be purchased from the same source
listed for the old "Notes..."

Ron Lewen (ihnp4!tellab1!rcl)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 16:55:15 EDT
From: Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #101

What are the data rates associated with the popular trunk types?

        In particular, I know that T1 is 1.544 Mbps, how about T2 &
T3?

------------------------------

Date: Tue 16 Oct 84 16:04:17-EDT
From: Robert Scott Lenoil <G.LENOIL@MIT-EECS>
Subject: Long Distance Information service

Now that MCI and SPRINT are offering long distance directory service
comparable to AT&T's, one question comes up: how are they doing it?
Are they buying the service from AT&T, or do they have access to
directory information via the RBOCs?  (By the way, MCI's service, like
AT&T's, allows two free long distance information requests per month,
with all others at 10% off AT&T's rates (currently $.50).  SPRINT does
NOT allow any initial free requests, and their price is the same as
AT&T's; no deals here.)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #103
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 17:10:18 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Thursday, 18 Oct 1984     Volume 4 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
                       Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #102
       Jove: joint networking proposal by IBM and British Telecom
                   Name and address service in Alabama
                 Net 1000 - AT&T's Answer To AUTODIN II?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 84 20:16:18 EDT
From: Robert Jesse <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #102

"Please hang up and try again.  If you need help, hang up and then
dial your operator."
        A recorded message that interrupted a news conference
        between astronauts in the space shuttle and reporters
        on the ground.

-- U.S. News & World Report, 22 October 1984 "Current Quotes"

------------------------------

Date: Tue 16 Oct 84 22:32:06-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jove: joint networking proposal by IBM and British Telecom

[ excerpts from an editorial in The Economist, Oct 13-19, 84, page 13
]

         NO, BY JOVE

THE PROPOSED IBM AND BRITISH TELECOM JOINT VENTURE FOR A DATA
TRANSMISSION NETWORK IS ANTI-COMPETETIVE

... [such a request] lies in the British government's in-tray, in the
form of an arcane request for a telecommunications license.  Britain's
trade secretary has to decide on a proposal by BT and IBM for a joint
venture, aptly if unwisely called Jove, to run a value-added network
(van) in Britain.

...

As British trade secretary, Mr Norman Tebbit should none the less
refuse to let BT and IBM do what they want:  their proposal runs too
big a risk of interfering with the competitive free-for-all that is
Britain's, and Europe's, only real hope of getting back into the
technology game.

LET THE MARKET SET THE STANDARDS The hundred or so computer and
communications companies that have filed hostile comments about the
proposed venture make two main objections to it.  The first, which
they wrongly rate more important, is that the van will run on a
communications standard called Systems Network Architecture [SNA]
which is owned by IBM.  The opponents say that the use of IBM's
proprietary standard will give IBM a big advantage - not just in the
market for British vans, but also in the markets for the computers,
other machines, and other networks (such as local ones) which will
eventually hook up to the van.  Jove's detractors want the British
government to back an alternative called Open Standards
Interconnections [OSI], which is being developed in international
committees and will be owned by nobody.

These arguments of Jove's opponents against SNA are hard to credit.
An industrial standard, wether proprietary or not, is best established
not by a committee but when enough customers buy it to make it a
standard.  That process of standardisation by consumer choice should
not be interfered with.  If SNA does become a network standard, IBM's
advantage, if any, will be slight.  It will be stuck with the
standards as much as anybody; and even some of IBM's critics admit
that it will not require superhuman effort to build good links between
SNA and OSI ones.

The charge of anti-competitiveness, the second main objection to Jove,
is much more serious.  Believers in competition need to be thoroughly
suspicious of a proposal by the world's (and Britain's) biggest
computer company and Britain's near-monopoly telecommunications
company to start holding hands.  It is technically true, though only
just, that IBM and BT are in different businesses.  But any IBM
executive who proposed such a deal with one of America's regional (and
still mostly monopoly) telephone operating companies would be laughed
out of IBM's boardroom, just before being laughed out of court.

The real problem is that the British government's too-cautious partial
deregulation of BT has left the company with powers that are
inherently anti-competitive in the context of the deal it wants to
make with IBM.  It is not clear wether anybody else who wants to offer
a service like Jove would be allowed to provide it.  Even if
competition in this kind of van market were open to all comers, the
overawing team of BT and IBM, backed up by BT's control of the
physical network, would all too likely be an effective deterrant.

IT IS THE SECONDARY COMPETITOR WHO MATTERS Worst of all, the deal
threatens to discourage secondary competitors - those who want to
provide not a van of their own, but equipment or services to ride on
the back of the IBM-BT van.  These are exactly the people on whom a
revival of British electronics depends.  Competing with BT should be
made as easy as possible for them.  In America, anybody with a product
or service to latch on to the public network has the right to full
technical details about how the network operates.  In Britain,
unhappily, even a privatised BT will be able to keep much of that
information secret.

The simplest course would be to say NO to the two companies.  Until BT
proposed something grander, IBM was preparing a limited van of its own
- which could still offer BT some salutary competition.  But an
outright rejection is not essential.  It might be more helpful to let
the van run, but on conditions that forced BT and IBM to make
knowledge about the inner workings of the network available to
competitors.  However it is done, the British government needs to make
sure that Jove has some company on Olympus.

[ either way, it seems to me as if IBM is ready to gobble up another
big market.  while Europeans still huddle in their traditional, and
mostly government controlled committees, IBM is ready to do something.
It's amazing when you think about it, to see IBM leading the pack.
But European governments are simply too unwilling to give up control
over the communications industry, otherwise the market forces would
have achieved long ago what governments have successfully obstructed,
the merging of the European companies into fewer but more competitive
giants of international scale.  The products would not necessarily be
better, but at least there would be products coming out at a faster
rate, possible even competing more successfully in the world markets.
Why are these developments important to us outside Britain?  Well, for
one thing, we'll have to interface and live with whatever de-facto
interface the British communications scene presents to us, and
furthermore whatever alternative technologies are defeated by IBM
there, will be less likely to even be available as an option for us
here.  Besides, when not depressing, it's often amusing, even
educational, to watch developments in Europe. - Werner ]

------------------------------

Date: 17-Oct-1984 1243
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
Subject: Name and address service in Alabama

South Central Bell has just announced that in conjunction with a
change in the pricing for D.A. service within Alabama (now 40 cents
per call with NO allowance, no exemption from hospitals and hotels,
and 25 cents from coin phones unless charged to a calling card, in
which case 40 cents applies) names, addresses, and ZIP codes can be
provided if a number is given.

Alabama used to refuse to give you the address, even if you needed it
to verify that you had been given the number for the right subscriber.

The bill insert claims that the service is only provided on Alabama
customers to callers within Alabama, but it seems to work from outside
the state as well (it should, since that costs 50 cents, except from
Canada).

There is a form with the bill insert so that name and address will not
be provided to callers who provide a telephone number.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 84 12:37:06 EDT
From: dca-pgs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Net 1000 - AT&T's Answer To AUTODIN II?

I was reading in the 17 Oct issue of MIS Week that Net 1000 is in
heavy seas ("A Hole In Net 1000", Robert Feldman, p. 1). Apparently
Ford Motor Co., who was to have been a majotr customer, dropped Net
1000 last week in favor of Tymnet/Tymshare.  Reason: Insufficient
nodes/access points into the network. That was a big part of why
AUTODIN II was cancelled; of course , the DoD's reqt for survivability
made that part of the argument even stronger.  EDS Inc. appears to
have been successful with a strategy of highly centralized nodes, (e.
g., VIABLE), but VIABLE is less a distributed network than a number of
quasi-independent host servers which are interconnected by thin VG
pipes for non-real-time Q/R and nighttime file dumps. I would guess
that remote VIABLE terminals are heavily multidropped.

I guess NET 1000 and AUTODIN II could be termed how-to-do
packet-switching unprofitably, by overcentralizing, while EDS/VIABLE
could be called how-to-do "everything but packet-swirching"
profitably.

Best,
-Pat Sullivan

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #104
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 23:42:54 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Sunday, 21 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
                      Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #103
                           two quick questions
                Re: Usage Sensitive Service and Fairness
                      Finding out your phone number
                            Md. local options
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 17 Oct 84 15:28:15-MDT
From: The alleged mind of Walt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #103

Re: British Telecom & IBM's proposed VAN

The big problem with SNA as an interface standard is that IBM can
change the standard any time they want, and in fact can do the
development work in house and announce the new standard and the
product that uses it at the same time.  This makes competeing with
them highly unprofitable, because you are always trying to catch up to
get your market back.  The real advantage of having a standard set by
an organization like the CCITT or ISO is that the changes are out in
the open and predictable, so that everybody has at least equal time to
work the problems, if not equal resources.  The best solution for the
UK, in my opinion, would be to ban British Telecom from the VAN
business, and allow other vendors to build VANs on top of BT circuits
the way Tymnet and Telenet do in the US.

Re: Net 1000

Actually, they aren't really planning to have a two-node network as
such, but they put Ford on the testbed before the other nodes were
running.  The last time I talked to them, they planned to have a
network of reasonable size running sometime in 1985.  Having acquired
some personal experience with the problems inherent in networking, I
think they might be a little optimistic.

Regards -- Walt

------------------------------

Date: Wed 17 Oct 84 22:48:02-EDT
From: Bob Soron  <[e-mail]>
Subject: two quick questions


        First, I'd appreciate any recommendations for speaker- phones.
Please respond directly to me, since I'm not a big fan of netwide
commercials or plugs; I'll gladly summarize to the digest if there's
any interest.
        Second, we have an old 10-button Touch-Tone phone. Are there
any phone collectors out there? Might this be -- now or in the future
-- a collectors' item? I don't even remember how long ago we got it --
it was as soon as the service was introduced in this area. (It's
hardwired, so I don't know how -useful- it is, even if one can live
without the * and # buttons.)  ...Bob

------------------------------

From: <hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff@Berkeley>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 84 23:00:46 pdt
Subject: Re: Usage Sensitive Service and Fairness

There have been some accusations on this list that AT&T (and, after
disvestiture, the local phone companies) have been pushing for Usage
Sensitive Service even though they do not have usage-sensitive costs.
I would like to argue that this is not so.  Although I have a strong
personal interest in avoiding USS (I take the Usenet news feed over my
home phone line), I fear there are some very good business reasons for
a phone company to want it.

It is true that most of a telephone company's costs are for plant and
equipment, and are usage-independent.  But that equipment is capable
of handling a certain fixed maximum load.  If that maximum is
exceeded, even if only for short periods of time, more expensive
equipment must be installed.  Thus, the phone company has a very
strong financial incentive to keep you from exceeding that maximum.
The simplest way to do this is to encourage you to limit you calling,
even in the local area.  I think a lot of phone company executives are
probably sweating profusely under the specter of more and more
hour-long modem calls from cheap PC's flooding a system that was
designed on the assumption that the average call length was a few
minutes, while the state PUC refuses to let them adjust rates to
suppress it (or at least make the people who are causing the need for
new equipment pay for it).

Not to sound pro-phone-company.  No GTE customer can be that.  But
they really do have a problem here.  USS is one solution.  I would
like to hear others proposed, especially ones that preserved our
current privilege of cheap digital communications.

        Geoff Kuenning
        ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff

------------------------------

Date: 19 October 1984 01:36-EDT
From: Donald E. Hopkins <A2DEH @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Finding out your phone number

In the Washington/Maryland/Virginia area, the operators ask for a
password when I call them up and ask for the number that I am calling
on. They explain that they are not allowed to give out that
information. I know that it is available to them, though, as once, one
DID give it to me, and another time, on another exchange, one started
to read it off, stopped after saying the fourth digit, and then
realizing what she was doing, asked for the password. I asked her why
they had that policy, and she said that if I were calling from an
unlisted number, it would be wrong for them to give me the number. I
wasn't, though... *SIGH*...
        -Don

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 9:23:23 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Md. local options

The following types of local service are in the just-released Oct.
1984 Northeastern Maryland phone book:  Unlimited Service (flat rate)
Per Call Service (message rate) New Local Measured Service (timed
calls)

with the latter 2 having the same fixed charge!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #105
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 21-Oct-84 23:01:30 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Monday, 22 Oct 1984      Volume 4 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
                         Secure Voice Facilities
                       Today's World of Phones...
                         usage sensitive pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 84 18:14:58 CDT (Thu)
From: nbires!uokvax!emks@Berkeley (Kurt F. Sauer)
Subject: Secure Voice Facilities

/***** uokvax:fa.telecom / ucbvax!telecom / 6:57 am Oct 11, 1984 */
What a joke!  The NSA-designed phones will of course use DES chips
(where else will you get 500,000 chips capable of "secure" speech
encryption in 2 years) which they can read but few others can.
Putting half a million cheap, *truly* secure phones on the US/world
market would make it possible for all countries and interested parties
to keep their information safe from the NSA.  Somehow I think they're
sharper than that -- so what's the hidden purpose?  /* ---------- */

John,

The US government only uses DES for sensitive *unclassified*
information.  There are better algorithms/systems for encrypting data;
they're used to protect classified information.  I can't elaborate
much, but users don't just "pick" keys, they're provided.  (I.e. the
government won't just give the phones to just *anyone* who happens to
want one.)

                kurt

[...I think "cheap" and "truely secure" are mutually excl.
properties...]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21-Oct-84 11:48:09 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Today's World of Phones...

PHONES By ANDREW POLLACK c.1984 N.Y. Times News Servvice
    NEW YORK - When the historic breakup of the American Telephone and
Telegraph Co. was announced in January 1982, executives at scores of
telecommunications companies were certain that a huge, lucrative
market had been laid at their feet. ''It's what we've been pushing for
for a long time,'' William G. McGowan, chairman of the MCI
Communications Corp., said the day he heard the news.
    McGowan probably winces when he remembers those words now. On
Monday, MCI reported a plunge in quarterly profits from 1983. In
addition, its third-quarter revenues actually dropped from the prior
three months.  Its main source of comfort is that none of its
competitors - including AT&T itself - is doing any better.
    The year 1 A.D. (after divestiture) has proved a bonanza of sorts
for consumers, who have seen prices for long-distance phone service
and telephone equipment plummet as myriad companies battle for their
business. But it has been a brutal year for MCI, ITT, GTE-Sprint, and
other contenders for shares of what had once been the domain of AT&T.
For them the Jan. 1 breakup of the old phone monolith has brought
price wars, management shake-ups, foreign competition, depressed
profits - even red ink in some cases - and plunging stock prices.
    ''No one's doing well,'' said James M. McCabe, telecommunications
analyst for Prudential-Bache Securities. ''It's a miserable market for
everybody.'' Wall Street isn't predicting a rapid recovery. Asked
about his list of recommended stocks, William Becklean, Kidder,
Peabody & Co.'s telecommunications analyst, said, ''It's kind of dried
up.''
    AT&T has fought harder to protect its markets than competitors had
expected. It has slashed prices and rolled out new products at a rapid
pace. Although its efforts have often been clumsy and ineffectual -
AT&T, too, is having a bad bottom-line year - even a staggering
elephant inflicts damage on those around it.
    What is more, the breakup has called attention to the new market
opportunities, attracting Japanese and European companies as well as
the newly independent Bell operating companies. Thus, the few
companies that once had considered AT&T to be the only competition are
finding themselves competing with one another and with newcomers.
    Severe competition is expected to continue for at least another
two years, and a shakeout is inevitable. No one doubts that the big
companies such as MCI and GTE-Sprint in long distance and Northern
Telecom and the Rolm Corp. in so-called private branch exchanges -
telephone systems used mainly in offices - will come through the
debacle intact. But the future of some of the smaller contenders
remains uncertain.
    There have already been casualties. In the residential phone
market, Phone-Mate and Technicom International had to be acquired by
other companies just to survive the fray. Datapoint, Rockwell
International and Telesciences have folded their tents in the private
branch exchange (PBX) business. In long-distance service, U.S.
Telephone was bought out after it plunged into the red and its chief
executive resigned.
    There are some healthy companies, too, of course. The local Bell
operating companies, still isolated from most competition, are doing
well. So are players in certain market niches, such as data
communications and equipment used by the phone companies themselves.
    Indeed, industry executives, despite the bruising of 1984, remain
optimistic about the breakup's ultimate effect on the survivors. ''I
still think it's going to be an opportunity,'' said Allan L.
Rayfield, president of diversified products and services at the GTE
Corporation. ''I'd say in the ability to grow the business and attract
the customers, we are better off,'' said William E. Conway, chief
financial officer of MCI.
    For now, however, gloomy news abounds throughout the industry.  In
the last 10 days alone, GTE reported losses in both its telephone
equipment business and in its communications sector, which provides
long-distance and data communications service; ITT said it was laying
off about 800 employees because of problems in its telecommunications
business; Rolm, the major manufacturer of business telephone equipment
that is being acquired by the International Business Machines
Corporation, reported an operating loss for the quarter.  And the
third-quarter earnings that AT&T itself reported this week were a
sharp drop from its second quarter and well below analysts' cheery
expectations.
    All of the companies are suffering from a fierce struggle to
position themselves in the new era of telecommunications. ''I've seen
in 18 months as much change in products and markets and customer needs
as I saw in the past 10 or 15 years,'' said Desmond F. Hudson,
president of Northern Telecom Inc., the United States arm of the
Canadian telephone equipment giant.
    Many of the entrenched telecommunications companies, most of which
had cheered on divestiture, had it better in an odd way when they were
still fighting a monopolistic AT&T. MCI, for instance, had taken huge
bites out of AT&T over the last few years by charging lower rates for
long-distance telephone calls. Because it could not get equal
connections to the AT&T-owned local networks, its service was a bit
awkward for users, requiring that they punch in complex numerical
codes to tie into the MCI system. MCI's connection costs were low,
however, and it passed those savings on to consumers in the form of
lower long-distance prices.
    Now, however, the AT&T breakup has given MCI what it always
thought it wanted - equal access to the local networks. The unwelcome
side effect is that its costs - and thus its prices - are no longer
well below AT&T's. MCI, in effect, used to offer a unique product. Now
it offers the same product as AT&T and a host of smaller newcomers and
is feeling the effects of competition.
    ''MCI was always yelling for equal access,'' said Becklean of
Kidder, Peabody. ''They never wanted equal prices. But unfortunately,
you can't get one without the other.''
    Although price cutting and other forms of fierce competition have
characterized the entire telecommunications industry this year,
different sectors have been hit with differing degrees of ferocity.
    The first market to turn sour was the residential phone market,
which started to go bust even before the breakup occurred. Customer
phone sales were deregulated last year, and people began buying their
phones rather than leasing them. It seemed like a great opportunity
for manufacturers of all sorts of telephones.
    But consumers did not react the way phone makers had hoped. Many
continued to lease their phones. And many bought the AT&T equipment
that they already had in place. ''The consumer was a little slower
than we expected,'' said Rayfield of GTE, which recently liquidated
500,000 phones at bargain-basement prices.
    Meanwhile, new, often defective, phones flooded the market.
Factories had sprung up throughout Asia with one thought in mind: to
ship cheap phones to the newly deregulated and vast United States
market. Everyone from blow-drier makers to consumer electronics
companies entered the business.
    The result was a huge pile-up of inventories. To make matters
worse, there was a consumer backlash against relatively poor quality
phones.  Also, a government-ordered switch in frequencies used for
cordless phones made most of the existing ones obsolescent.
    The punishment was brutal. Phone-Mate, long a major manufacturer
of answering machines, reported a huge loss and was taken over by
Asahi Corp., its Japanese supplier. Technicom International is merging
with its majority shareholder, TIE-communications, to stay afloat.
Teleconcepts, Webcor Electronics, Comdial and Dynascan have all
sustained heavy losses.
    In contrast to that kind of bloodbath, the situation in private
branch exchanges - machines that connect all the phones in a large
office - has been downright tranquil. Ever since the government's
Carterfone decision of 1968 opened telephone equipment up to
competition, a group of companies has steadily gained ground at the
expense of a Bell monopoly that was lackadaisical in marketing and
lethargic in innovating. Led by Northern Telecom, Rolm and Mitel, they
whittled AT&T's share of PBX shipments to below 25 percent.
    Since the leading companies were already firmly entrenched by the
time the breakup took place, there was not much benefit they could
derive from it. In fact, they will probably lose market share. AT&T
has become more aggressive in its own marketing. Japanese and European
companies are making inroads, as are start-up domestic concerns.  And
most of all, the newly independent Bell operating companies are coming
on strong.
    To make matters worse, the overall growth of the PBX market is
slowing to less than 5 percent a year, compared with 8 percent or so
in the late 1970s and 1980s. That leaves an estimated 40 companies
vying for a PBX business that can now support maybe a half-dozen
players.
    The result is the usual price war and consequent profit plunge.
PBX systems once sold for $1,000 a line; prices are now down to $600
to $700 a line. Earlier this year, prices plummeted briefly to as low
as $400 a line - well below break-even for any of the companies.
''There is no such thing as a final price'' anymore, said James T.
O'Gorman of the ELRA Group, a consulting firm that advises companies
on the purchase of telecommunications equipment ''The PBX market is in
trouble,'' said Alan Fross, vice president of the Eastern Management
Group, a Parsippany, N.J., consulting firm.
    Some of the upheaval is traceable to the entry of the Bell
operating companies into the market. The consent decree breaking up
the Bell System originally prohibited the local phone companies from
selling equipment to customers. But Judge Harold H. Greene changed the
decree to allow the companies to sell, but not to manufacture,
equipment.
    That has been a mixed blessing for the PBX companies. Some -
notably NEC, Japan's leading telecommunications company - have
increased their sales by using the Bell operating companies as
distributors.
    But for others, the operating companies represent an unwelcome new
source of competition. This is especially true for the legions of
small distributors, known collectively as the interconnect industry,
that sell and install business telephone equipment. The Bell companies
often compete with existing distributors carrying the same products,
which only adds to the confusion and price competition.
    Union College in Schenectady, N.Y., which is in the market for a
new PBX, last week received three bids for the same Northern Telecom
PBX
- one from Northern Telecom itself, one from Continental Telephone, an
independent telephone company, and one from a distributor.  It also
received three bids on an Intecom PBX - one from the manufacturer, one
from General Electric and one from Nynex, the Bell company serving New
York State. Not only are the Intecom bidders offering the same
equipment, but they have all contracted with the same local company to
perform the installation. Yet all three offered different prices.
    The school has not yet decided which bid to accept. ''It should be
interesting,'' said Diane Winkler, the school's telecommunications
manager.
    Nor are the Bell operating companies sticking to their own
backyards. Both the Southern New England Telephone Co., which serves
Connecticut, and US West, which serves most of the Western part of the
country, are vying for business in New York, along with Nynex.
    The operating companies are also attacking in another way. They
are reviving Centrex, a service that connects phones in a building
through the phone company's switching center, rather than through a
box on the customer's premises.
    Most people expected Centrex, which offered few sophisticated
features, to go the way of the dinosaurs. Instead, the Bell companies
have cut prices and started to incorporate many of the features found
in PBX's, such as the ability to transfer a call automatically to
another phone if the first one is not answered or is busy.
    The North American Telecommunications Association, which
represents the interconnect industry, has cried foul. It filed a
complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, charging that
adding such features violates the ban on the Bell companies providing
computerized or ''enhanced'' services from the same facilities that
provide basic telephone service. The FCC has not yet acted on the
complaint.
    The association predicts even tougher times ahead for its
industry. It estimates that total shipments by the interconnect
vendors - all those besides AT&T and the Bell operating companies -
will drop from 1.4 million lines worth $1.13 billion at the
manufacturer's level in 1983 to 990,000 lines, worth only $700
million, in 1985.
    The major players are developing new, more sophisticated PBX's.
For example, PBX's are now being made to transmit data as well as
telephone conversations. Perfecting them will require a heavy and
risky investment in software, one that not all of the interconnect
companies may be in a position to make.
    Mitel, once a front-runner, has had serious problems with its
newest PBX, leading to losses, and it is unclear whether, in the
current unforgiving market, it can ever fully recover. GTE has also
had production problems with its newest PBX, contributing to the
company's equipment losses. AT&T is having production wobbles with its
new System 75 PBX and its equipment subsidiary is eternally in a state
of reorganization.
    Nevertheless, AT&T is too big to fall by the wayside and has the
resources of Bell Labs behind it. Rolm-IBM and Northern Telecom also
are certain to remain major players. Intecom, NEC, GTE, Mitel, ITT and
others are fighting for the remaining spots in the top five.
    It is, however, in the market for long-distance service that the
breakup has created a truly unprecedented opportunity to pick up
market share. For the first time, the alternative long-distance
companies will be given ''equal access'' to the local telephone
systems.  That means consumers will be able to use a competitive
service without dialing many extra digits and without needing a tone
phone.
    For the competitors, the opportunity comes at a high cost. Since
May, all of the long-distance companies have had to pay higher charges
for access to the local networks. In areas with equal access, they
must pay the same charges as AT&T. And late last week the local
companies asked the FCC to allow them to raise those access charges.
    A year ago access charges were 17 percent of MCI's revenues, said
Conway. Today they are 26 percent and the percentage will go up as
more equal access is phased in.
    AT&T, meanwhile, has lowered its rates by 6.1 percent since May.
That has forced the other long-distance companies to remove their
monthly service fee and take other measures to stay price competitive.
    To win new customers, companies have been advertising heavily and
also spending money to build new networks. MCI is investing about $1
billion this year and plans to spend $1 billion next year. GTE is
putting almost as much into Sprint. Earlier this year, Sprint had to
quit accepting new customers in some areas because it ran out of
capacity.
    MCI said that in cities with equal access, it is winning 10 to 15
percent of the market, triple its current market share. Rayfield of
GTE said Sprint is winning 6 to 15 percent of the market in equal
access cities.
    But price competition, combined with rising costs, has resulted in
lower revenues for the companies, even when their volume sales
increased.
    Both MCI and GTE-Sprint picked up many new customers in their
third quarters, yet saw their overall revenues drop from the second
quarter. In the old days, MCI used to grow 20 percent between
consecutive quarters.
    Profit margins were squeezed badly, too. MCI's earnings for the
quarter were only 3 cents a share, an 86 percent drop from the 22
cents a share it earned in the third quarter of 1983. Toward the end
of the quarter the profit squeeze became so painful that MCI had to
raise its rates back up.
    Clearly, the companies need better market penetration to get a
robust bottom line. But they are not gaining as quickly as they had
hoped.
    Part of the problem is that consumers are not forced to choose a
long-distance company. If they do not specify differently, they are
assigned by default to AT&T. Indeed, in Charleston, S.C., the first
city to get equal access, AT&T retained 75 to 80 percent of the
customers.  Nearly half of those were customers by default, people who
failed to specify a carrier.  ***************

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 84 20:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Joseph W. Dehn III)
Subject: usage sensitive pricing

While it is true that the cost of the plant is insensitive to usage
only up to some level of usage, after which more capability must be
added, it is also the case that a large part of the plant is
completely insensitive to usage.  What is not clear to me is what
fraction of the plant has this characteristic.

The lines from my house to the central office, including the part that
enters my house, the part along the street, all the poles, and
whatever circuitry is involved in connecting the line to the switching
equipment, all must be installed and maintained in exactly the same
manner whether I make one five minute call per month or stay
continuously logged in to some computer.  This part of the plant is
physically large, and does not seem (to the outside observer) to have
benefitted much from advancing electronic technology.

The actual switching equipment, and the trunk lines between local
central offices, however, seem to be subject to decreasing cost due to
advances in electronics, fiber optics, etc.  Thus, the part of the
plant which would have to be expanded if there were more usage seems
to be the part which should be a decreasing part of the total cost.

Does anyone have any meaningful estimates of how these costs break
down?  How are they changing?

                              -jwd3

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #106
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 22-Oct-84 23:31:04 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest           Tuesday, 23 Oct 1984     Volume 4 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
                               Last miles
                       Hi Tech Answering machines
                           Mending the breakup
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 1984 13:29-EDT
Sender: [e-mail]
Subject: Last miles
From: [e-mail]


While the discussions about 56K and 288K dial-up are invigorating,
some of us brutes are still struggling along at 1200 bps.  Question:
I've had a couple of scalding experiences with signal loss in the
"last mile," between the CO and customer premise.  The only remedy I
have found to date has been to install RJ45S jacks and get modems with
RJ45S plugs.  This seems to cut down the level of noise that can
debilitate users.

Are there other remedies?  I notice that modems like Hayes do not even
seem to bother with RJ45S -- does anyone have any experiences with
what happens when the data going gets tough?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 84  1041 PDT
From: Allan Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hi Tech Answering machines


Here are some responses I got which did not also go to the list.  I
also found out that the Radio Shack beeperless is an oddball.  It
listens for sound, any sound as control input.  It would run down a
menu and expect you to say something or punch any button to choose
that menu item.  This is used for the security code input also.

Thanks to everyone who answered.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


I own (and use) a Code-A-Phone Model 2530 answering machine which I
purchased last February.  It seems to almost meet your requirements.
I paid about $145 plus sales tax for it.  I have seen it for sale for
as little as $140.

It has full-function remote control from standard touch-tone
telephones.  It provides an (only) three digit user security code,
which is not user changeable.

The major disadvantage of the machine is the "fast-forward" feature --
it doesn't go to the next message.  It simply "fast-forwards" while
you are holding down the button.

The quality is good.  It is very small, using mini-cassette tapes.
There is no endless-loop for the outgoing message.  It simply rewinds
the outgoing message cassette after each usage.  This allows the
outgoing message to range from a few seconds to 1/2 hour.  It does
have an "outgoing message only" mode.

With the reservations mentioned earlier (short, non-user changeable
security code and not very good fast-forward), I highly recommend it.

David G. Cantor

--------


        I got an ITT machine about 3-4 years ago that had a settable
code that you can use get your messages without beeper.  It was about
$320 (I think) but at that time was the only one on the market that
worked without a beeper.  Basically you set some dip-switches on the
bottom of the machine to set the code, so it is easily changed.

                Chris.

        I have ITTs answering machine and it works without a remote
unit.  You set up a code via dip switches under the machine and then
talk in the right sequence to activate.  You can erase all the
messages you heard or keep them for playback later - your choice.  It
is about 4 years old, so there is probably something even better out
now.  Chris <[e-mail]>
-------




     Just a short response re answering machines: I am very satisfied
with the one I have had for the last year + 1/2 or so. It is an IQ3000
made by Phone-Mate. The machine can be set up to play 2 differnet
messages at up to 4 different times a day; (first message cannot
exceed 30 s, second cannot exceed 30 min); There is a 3-digit security
code you can change at the machine- (the machine allows you to play
back, AND record new messsages remotely, under TT-dial control); It
can be set to answer after 2, 4 or 6 rings, or to an "AUTO" mode,
where if you DONT have a message, it will always answer after the 4th
ring, and if you DO, it will always answer after the 1st ring (good
way to save of LD$); It will respond to line polarity reversal, or
lack of line current in order to know when to hang up; there is always
VOX control of in coming messages, and a host of other minor features.

..... A good place to buy one cheap seems to be E33rd Typewriter and
Electronics (when they have them)...  somewhere around $250 and worth
every penny

Steve Kleiser <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: Mon 22 Oct 84 14:21:57-MDT
From: William G. Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mending the breakup

Just out of curiosity:  Suppose we made a national decision that the
AT&T breakup was a mistake (I think we've already come to a national
realization of that...).  Suppose this becomes a campaign issue and
enough constituents are vocal enough about it that a majority of
congresscritters come to the conclusion that legislation to restore
the "telco monopoly" we all knew and loved/hated for so many years is
needed.  Could it be done?

That is, we now have a bunch of independent companies floating around
out there in the marketplace.  Is it constitutionally possible for
legislation to manipulate these companies into one big AT&T again?
(We've proven that the government can break Humpty Dumpty; can it put
him back together?)

Suppose we reach a national consensus on several points:

1) Long-Distance revenues SHOULD subsidize local phone rates.

2) Competition in LD services (cream-skimming) CAN be allowed in a
regulated marketplace -- AT&T would make less but still would make
enough.  (See note below.)

3) A national telephone system CAN have a mixture of leased and
customer-owned hardware, with interface standards providing the
insurance that the network will work.

Could not such a re-joining, at the same time it gathers back the
BOC's, also gather in all these "independent" phone companies that
have provided such poor service for so many years, and meld them all
into an integrated whole?  (No more Telecom complaints about General
Tel, for example!)

Would we not then have a "best of all possible worlds" situation, with
a single responsible national telephone entity, yet with an amount of
competition in telephone equipment sales and LD services, which will
give the lowest-cost residential phone service to the populace, and
also provide a single point-of-contact for maintenance and
installation, eliminating many of the problems the breakup has caused?

Can we do this without nationalizing the telephone companies?  This
sounds good, but I'm afraid the only way it could be done is to change
a lot of laws which would pave the way for future government takeovers
of other fields.  I wouldn't want to pay that cost; I'd rather put up
with the mess we've now created.

Note about AT&T income:  AT&T and the BOC's (and maybe the independent
telcos, for all I know) have always impressed me as being incredible
money-wasters.  In little things, like the failure of the cashiers at
the bill-paying windows to recycle the unused mailing envelopes [I pay
my bill in person at a Southwestern Bell Service Center], and in big
things, like political payoffs (there was some scandal about SW Bell a
few years back), inflated executive salaries and perks, excessive
numbers of employees, fancy offices and facilities, etc.  My wife has
worked as a temporary for the local SW Bell offices, and seen stuff
about charitable contributions and fancily-printed stockholder
reports, etc., which have no business being paid for by telephone
customers.  Such a restructuring as I mentioned above could also trim
out a lot of the waste and luxury that artificially inflates telephone
costs.  (As a career gov't employee, I see no reason for executives to
make more than the standard white-collar GS schedule pay rates; you
can live on them -- if everyone in every business was paid at roughly
these rates, we'd all get along OK, and there'd be a lot less
pretentiousness and silly extravagances...  I guess I'm sort of a
Puritan at heart...)

Anyway, as someone who has functioned all my working life with ugly
grey metal furniture and spartan surroundings, I have no sympathy for
those who contend that luxurious surroundings are in any way a
"necessity" to the sucessful operation of their business.  (Before I
get a flood of "you ought to see MY skungy office" protests from
various AT&T/Bell Labs/etc.  sites, let me emphasize that I realize
that the whole organization is not wallowing in luxury.  Probably the
people who do the real work are in cramped cubicles and sitting on
broken chairs at the same institutional grey-metal desks as are in
this office.  But there's enough wasted fanciness and featherbedding
which, if eliminated, would make up for an awful lot of reduced income
due to LD service competition and customer-owned equipment!)

Anyway, after all that, it boils down to:  is it possible to fix this
mess if we made up our national consciousness to do so?  I would think
we could.  Where do we start?

Will Martin

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest   V4 #107
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 13:45:58 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@MIT-MC>


TELECOM Digest          Wednesday, 24 Oct 1984    Volume 4 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
               putting the telephone company back together
                      Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #104
[This is the last digest to be prepared at MIT-MC. All future digests
will be prepared from BBNCCA. You should start sending submissions to
TELECOM@BBNCCA. TELECOM@MIT-MC will forward to BBNCCA, so will
TELECOM-REQUEST@MIT-MC. --JSol]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 84 15:48:46 PDT
From: "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
Subject: putting the telephone company back together

Will Martin asks if the telephone company can be put back together.

The answer is well known, but bears repeating:

        Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
        Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
        All the King's horses and all the King's men
        Can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

ted

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 84 20:19:49 edt
From: vax135!hpk@Berkeley (Howard Katseff)
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest   V4 #104


TeleText-5 is a news and information service offered to the public in
2 delivery formats: (1) Broadcast TeleText-5, delivered via the KSL-TV
signal using TV sets equipped with teletext decoders; and (2)
TeleText-5 delivered via telephone to computers equipped with modems.

Broadcast TeleText-5 is based on the North American Standard and
features high resolution graphics and color.  The service is being
demonstrated daily at KSL's Broadcast House. Interested individuals
and groups are invited to attend. Call [phone] for more info.

The dial-up service can be accessed by dialing [phone].
Telephone contention makes it necessary to limit 300 Baud calls to 5
selections and 1200 Baud calls to 10 selections. If no selection in 30
seconds the system disconnects.

Selection (D) downloads 5 news files at 300 baud and all files at 1200
baud.  It can be used as 1st selection only.

Technical data: Modem type 103/212A. 300/1200 baud. 8-bit ASCII word.
Parity ignored. 2 stop bits. Full duplex. No echo. 40 ch/line. RS232
terminal software.

KSL has authorized BYU's Daily Universe to offer a Utah County edition
of dial-up TeleText-5, using the number [phone].

Provo users should enter the password "KSL" when prompted for request
and user name.

TeleText-5 - an advertising supported service.

 Paul H. Evans manager/editor in chief
    David Webb editor
 Joanne Milner assistant editor

 Read. . . Listen. . . Watch

       TeleText-5
       KSL-Radio (1160)
       KSL-TV Ch 5

"The News-Information Specialists"

Please call again.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #109
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 27-Oct-84 09:21:45 EDT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: The Moderator (Jon Solomon) <Telecom-request@BBNCCA>

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Oct 84 18:27:47 EDT    Volume 4 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
                         New TELECOM location
                  Proposed AT&T International Rates
             British Telecom and IBM:  Application Denied
                           MCI credit cards
                              Last miles
                     MCI starts overseas service
                 Illinois Bell New Service Offerrings
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 84 14:01:42 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: New TELECOM location
To: /src/jsol/.telecom/mailbox*@bbncca.ARPA

TELECOM will now originate from BBNCCA. Submissions will be accepted at
TELECOM@BBNCCA, and communication with the moderator will be accepted at
TELECOM-REQUEST@BBNCCA.

A couple of changes will be made in the processing of digests for telecom:

1) Submissions will no longer be formatted to fit within 70 columns.
Submissions will appear as they are sent, so be sure and format
the output as you want it to appear. There are simply too many issues to
deal with when justifying and I don't want to ruin tables and other
information which is preformatted.

2) The date of each digest will be the exact date and time that I prepare
the digest. I have a program which will make the digest, and it will insert
a datestamp. Previously I have been sending issues out using the next day's
date.

Enjoy,
--JSol


------------------------------

Received: from BBN-UNIX.ARPA by BBNCCA ; 16 Oct 84 20:03:37 EDT
Received: from 26.7.0.16 by BBN-UNIX ; 16 Oct 84 20:03:21 EDT
Received: from DEC-RHEA.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
        id AA04653; Tue, 16 Oct 84 17:02:24 pdt
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16-Oct-1984 2001
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Proposed AT&T International Rates

AT&T has proposed new rates for international calls to all points other
than Canada, Mexico, and Cuba.  If approved these rates will go into
effect in late November, 1984.

Shown below are rate comparisons from the current to the new for direct
dial only.  Direct dial rates apply even if the operator places the
call for you if your area does not allow customer dialled IDDD calls.
Higher rates apply for calls to countries where direct dial service is
not yet available (higher rates apply to the additional minutes as well;
in the current rates they are $1 or $2 more than the dial-additional
minute charge).

In each case the rate for the first minute is shown followed by the rate
for additional minutes.  The time periods are known as Standard, Discount,
and Economy.  Under the current rates, there are no special weekend rates.
Under the new rates, some countries can be called at the Discount rate on
Saturday (Sat) or Saturday and Sunday (SS) during what would otherwise be
the Standard rate.

        New rates                               Current Rates

United Kingdom of GB and NI             UK and Ireland
    S    7a-1p  1.65    1.09                    1.95    1.18
    D.SS 1p-6p  1.24     .82                    1.46     .89
    E    6p-7a   .83     .60                    1.17     .71

Irish Republic
    S           1.93    1.16
    D.SS        1.45     .87                    Same as above
    E           1.16     .70

Germany (Federal Republic)              Continental Europe
    S           1.98    1.16                    2.23    1.25
    D           1.49     .87                    1.67     .94
    E           1.19     .70                    1.33     .75

France
    S           1.97    1.14
    D.SS        1.48     .86                    Same as above
    E           1.18     .68

Italy
    S           1.96    1.17
    D.Sat       1.47     .88                    Same as above
    E           1.18     .70

Rest of Europe
    S           2.15    1.22
    D           1.61     .92                    Same as above
    E           1.29     .73

Australia                               Pacific Region
    S    2p-8p  3.36    1.38             5p-11p 3.96    1.48
    D.SS 8p-2a  2.52    1.04             10a-5p 2.98    1.12
    E    2a-2p  2.02     .83             11p-10a2.38     .89

Japan
    S           3.49    1.52
    D.SS        2.62    1.14                    Same as above
    E           2.09     .91                    (rate increase for many calls

        )

Republic of China (Taiwan)
    S           3.96    1.58
    D.SS        2.97    1.19                    Same as above
    E           2.38     .95                    (rate increase for many calls

        )

Republic of Korea
    S           3.96    1.63
    D           2.97    1.22                    Same as above
    E           2.38     .98                    (rate increase for many calls

        )

Philipines
    S    5p-1a  3.96    1.58
    D    1a-10a 2.97    1.19                    Same as above
    E    10a-5p 2.38     .95                    (Rate increase for many calls

        )

Pacific Region except above
    S    5p-12m 3.76    1.53
    D    10a-5p 2.82    1.15                    Same as above
    E    12m-10a2.26     .92                    (Rate increase for many calls

        )

Israel                                  Near East
    S    7a-4p  2.94    1.27            8a-3p   3.46    1.25
    D.SS 4p-1a  2.21     .95            9p-8a   2.59     .94
    E    1a-7a  1.76     .76            3p-9p   2.08     .75

Near East except Israel
    S           2.94    1.27
    D           2.21     .95                    Same as above
    E           1.76     .76                    (New rates: SS for Israel onl

        y)

Africa                                  Africa
    S    6a-12n 2.56    1.34                    2.71    1.39
    D    12n-5p 1.92    1.01                    2.04    1.04
    E    5p-6a  1.54     .80                    1.62     .84

Indian Ocean                            Indian Ocean
    S    6p-1a  5.15    2.14                    4.90    2.04
    D    1a-11a 4.38    1.82                    3.68    1.53    Significant
    E    11a-6p 3.86    1.61                    2.04    1.22    Increase

India                                   India
    S           5.46    3.08                    5.75    3.26    Down
    D           4.69    2.62                    4.31    2.44    Up
    E           4.10    2.31                    3.45    1.95    Up

Central America                         Central America
    S    8a-5p  2.30    1.06             5p-11p 2.46    1.06    Note
    D    5p-11p 1.73     .80             8a-5p  1.85     .80    Time
    E    11p-8a 1.38     .64             11p-8a 1.47     .64    Change

Carribean/Atlantic                      Carribean/Atlantic
    S    7a-4p  1.58    1.05             4p-10p 1.58    1.06    Note
    D    4p-10p 1.19     .79             7a-4p  1.18     .80    Time
    E    10p-7a  .95     .63             10p-7a  .95     .64    Change

Colombia                                South America
    S    8a-2p  2.60    1.22             7a-1p  2.60    1.11
    D    2p-12m 1.95     .92             1p-10p 1.95     .84    Increase
    E    12m-8a 1.56     .73             10p-7a 1.56     .67

Venezuela
    S   7a-1p   2.45    1.00
    D   1p-10p  1.84     .75                    Same as above (Reduction)
    E   10p-7a  1.47     .60

South America except Columbia and Venezuela
    S           2.86    1.22
    D           2.15     .92                    Same as above (Increase)
    E           1.72     .73

------------------------------

Received: from UTEXAS-20.ARPA by BBNCCA ; 24 Oct 84 03:21:31 EDT
Date: Wed 24 Oct 84 02:21:11-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Telecom and IBM:  Application Denied
To: [e-mail]

[ The Economist, 20-26 October 1984, page 70 ]

        British Telecom / IBM  -   Wedding Off
        --------------------------------------

... the department of trade and industry's "no" was based on the
anti-competitive threat it saw in the proposal.  ...

... Now BT and IBM may become rivals.  the DTI's rebuff to their joint
proposal contained encouragement for a go-it-alone IBM vans.

Two aspects of the decision have wider implications.  One involves
establishing a standard way by which computers in a network talk to each
other.  Opponents of the IBM/BT venture made much of the fact that it would
use IBM's proprietary network standard, SNA, and not the OSI alternative
favoured by the EEC.

The government seems to be gung-ho for OSI.  As the DTI killed the IBM/BT
scheme, the treasury recommended official procurement of only OSI-based
(or fully OSI-compatible) equipment.  This will please the French and
West Germans.  Both have opted to support OSI rather than SNA.  OSI is in
its infancy, but is touted as a way to let a European information industry
flourish in the face of American and Japanese competition.

The other aspect concerns BT's brand new watchdog, the Office of
Telecommunications Policy (Oftel).  The BT/IBM scheme was its first big
test.  Oftel opposed the vans; so its director-general, Professor Bryan
Carsberg, must be relieved that his submission formed the basis for the
DTI's decision.  This does not end the worries that Oftel's staff of 50 may
prove inadequate to grapple with a privatised BT.  But at least Oftel knows
it can expect some backing from the DTI.

[ now let's watch if IBM got a product ready to gobble up the market - Werner

         ]
[ PS: Sprint has followed MCI to offer discount international calls.
        see NY Times, Oct 23, page 34 ]
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by BBNCCA ; 24 Oct 84 19:54:09 EDT
Date: Wed 24 Oct 84 19:21:07-EDT
From: Robert S. Lenoil <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI credit cards
To: [e-mail]

After receiving my new MCI credit card, I was disturbed at how little
information was provided on the rate structures when using that card.
After calling MCI, here's the scoop:

There are two access numbers to make an MCI credit card call.  The first,
a no-coin-necessary (although MCI doesn't mention this) 950-xxxx number,
can be used from most major cities.  The rates are normal MCI rates, plus
a 50 cent surcharge.  For more rural areas, there is an 800 number to dial
up.  The rates are above normal MCI rates when using the 800 number, and
a one dollar surcharge applies.

What disturbs me is that NOWHERE does MCI mention that there is a surcharge
for using their credit card; I only found out after speaking with them.  Can
they get away with this?
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by BBNCCA ; 24 Oct 84 22:54:12 EDT
Date: 24 October 1984 22:55-EDT
From: Minh N. Hoang <MINH @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Last miles
To: TELECOM @ MIT-MC


The RJ45S jack allows for an external programming resistor to set the
modem output level so that the central office sees the max. allowable
signal.  Many modems operate only in permissive mode and output its
transmit signal at -9 dBm or less. The phone company likes it that way.

When the line is noisy, and you can't get another one, the alternative
is to slow down.  Yes, that means going back to the old Bell 103 300
baud FSK whistler.  FSK transmission will get you through lines where
all other (personal opinion...) modems can't even detect carrier.  The
FSK working threshold is 3-5 dB signal-to-noise ratio.  A good 212 dies
around 10-13 dB SNR.  And you should have 2 good modems at both ends,
unlike my current dial-up line...

Minh


------------------------------

Received: from 26.7.0.16 by BBNCCA ; 25 Oct 84 12:58:42 EDT
Received: from DEC-RHEA.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
        id AA26690; Thu, 25 Oct 84 09:58:51 pdt
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25-Oct-1984 1257
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI starts overseas service

MCI now (as of last week) offers service to Belgium, Greece, East Germany,
the United Arab Emirates, Argentina, and Brazil.

Their rate to Belgium compares with AT&T as follows:

        STANDARD                DISCOUNT                ECONOMY

MCI     1.89    1.15            1.29     .89            1.19     .68

AT&T    2.23    1.25            1.67     .94            1.33     .75
New
AT&T    2.15    1.22            1.61     .92            1.29     .73

(The "New AT&T" rate is the proposed, not yet approved or implemented,
restructuring of AT&T's overseas rates, due some time in November).

They plan to begin service to a few other places, notably the U.K. and
Australia in December and January.

From places with "equal access" you simply dial 10222 to select MCI, and
then continue as normal (011+).  You do not need an account with MCI; you
will be billed through your local phone company along with all your other
calls.

For other places, you have to have an MCI account, and access them with
950-1022 (or other numbers in the few places that's not available) and
then have to dial account code and so on.

------------------------------

Received: from UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA by BBNCCA ; 25 Oct 84 15:31:05 EDT
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 84 10:14 CDT
From: "Tony R. Barron" <cepu!bradley![e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell New Service Offerrings
To: TELECOM at BBNCCA

Ameritech, parent company of Illinois Bell, and the same folks
who brought you restructured Centrex, is testing a new
Party Line offering in Chicago. It's hailed as an entertainment
service which connects up to 14 callers to a 24-hour-a-day
party line. Callers from selected exchanges can now
dial one of four special numbers to bridge into the on-going
conversation. Costs are 30 cents for the first minute and 8
cents for each additional minute.

Chicago residents can now satisfy their secret urges to play
Phil Donahue for about the price of a movie...

"We're the phone company. We can do anything."



------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #110
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 14:06:20 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Oct 84 13:21:38 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
                            RJ41 and RJ45
               Multiple carriers FROM the UK to the US
                       MIT Communications Forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 26 Oct 84 02:10:59-PDT
From: David Roode <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ41 and RJ45
To: [e-mail]
Location:  EJ286    Phone: [phone]

These two data-connect options differ.  One provides information
to the modem to let it adjust its performance to suit
the previously determined characteristics of the loop
to the central office.  The other is a combination of
a line with a guaranteed minimum signal level and a resistor
in circuit with the line to reduce the signal level to a guaranteed
maximum level.

Does anyone know which of RJ41 and RJ45 fits which of these
two descriptions, and can anyone shed any additional light
or offer corrections?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 26-Oct-1984 1226
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Multiple carriers FROM the UK to the US

I just received the following from Jeremy Barker in the U.K.

 BT now has agreements with MCI International and GTE Sprint to operate
 international service between the US and the UK.  This is all well and
 good, now MCI and Sprint customers in the US will be able to make
 cheaper calls to the UK than AT&T currently provides.

 There is however a VERY SERIOUS CATCH.  Calls from the UK to the US
 will be RANDOMLY ROUTED by any one of the three carriers.  BT
 customers will not be able to select which carrier is (or is not) to
 be used.  Knowing the kinds of problems with fade and noise on the
 current lines, and the poor (randomly cut, etc.) connections provided
 by MCI and the like in the US I forsee a substantially higher
 percentage of failed and inaudible calls.  (Even though BT goes to
 great length to say that all that will change will an increase in the
 number of transatlantic circuits and that this will result in fewer
 failed calls due to network congestion).

I should point out that Telex has been this way for years, since there
have "always" been multiple Telex carriers.  Telex traffic to the U.S.
can be routed either by translation of the first several digits of the
Telex number, or as is most commonly done, by weighting the random
selection algorithm to correspond to the same percentages as the
incoming traffic indicates.

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 29 Oct 84 06:34 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  MIT Communications Forum
To:  [e-mail], [e-mail],
     *[e-mail], [e-mail]

MIT COMMUNICATIONS FORUM:  November 29, 1984 4-6 p.m.  Room 37-252

"As satellite communications becomes increasingly effective and
commonplace, the United States Information Agency has moved boldly to
use the technology in its public diplomacy program.  It has already
established its own private television network and has recently funded a
major feasibility study of direct satellite broadcasting for the Voice
of America.

"Although international shortwave radio broadcasting is an accepted
medium of public diplomacy, satellite broadcasting and television are as
controversial as they are powerful.  What are the long-range
opportunities for using satellites and television?  How will they affect
or be affected by international attitudes towards information and
communication?  What will be the effect on Intelsat and on the
allocation of the orbital arc?  How will it change the domestic presence
of the USIA, including the prohibition against domestic distribution of
Agency productions?

Dan Mica, Chairman, House Subcommittee on International Operations;
Michael Schneider, USIA; Hewson Ryan, Director, Murrow Center for Public
Diplomacy, The Fletcher School


------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #111
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 16:58:22 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Nov 84 15:12:13 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
                          Found on a wall...
                                DNR's
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 84 01:30:50 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found on a wall...
To: [e-mail]

In my travels through the building's fern closets recently, while mapping
how they wired this place, I found the following scribbled on the wall:

        800-352-4732
        0480 + phone no.

Naturally, I tried it [with a touch-tone set, or course!].  When the 800
number answers, it gives a brief tone, around 1350 Hz [?].  Upon entering
0480, it rings once and gives three more tone bursts.  Entering a subsequent
number, with or without area code, delays for a bit, feeps a few more times,
and goes to a weird busy tone.  Terminating the subsequent number with ''#''
eliminates the timeout.

Ideally, this thing could be a voice-synth database that would tell you the
current cable/pair numbers for a given line.  I believe that I give NJ Bell
too much credit by assuming that they would actually have something like
that set up.  Anyone have any idea what this thing really is?

_H*
-------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 84 15:01:16 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: DNR's
To: [e-mail]

I have heard tales of a device called a Dialed Number Recorder [DNR] that
the telco sometimes places on a line to record any and all touch-tone
digits dialed, whether to dial an initial call or after it's connected.
The purpose is apparently to log activities of fone hackers and build a
case against them in event of toll fraud, etc.  It seems to me that such
a device would permit any telco employee free access to your personal
carrier passwords, banking services, and anything else you might do over
the fern using touch-tones.  Is this legal?   Does anyone know more about
these devices, what they do, and when they may be placed on a line?

_H*
-------

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #112
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 15:46:13 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Nov 84 22:27:27 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #110
                                DNR's
                          Found on a wall...
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #111
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #111
       Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine
                             800-352-4731
                       Re: TELECOM question...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 07:35:57 pst
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!darrelj@Berkeley (Darrel VanBuer)
To: ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #110

Paraphrased from part 68 of FCC Rules and Regulations:
RJ41S  Universal Data jack
RJ45S  Programmed Data Jack

Both jacks offer direct connection to the telephone line, plus contain
a Telco supplied resistor, which in the proper transmitter circuit results
in a local output between -12dBm and -0dBm out, with output at the central
office at -12dBm  (a permissive modem has a fixed output of -9dBm as a
compromise based on distribution of loop losses and desire to limit central
office levels).
A universal jack has a second, switch-selectable circuit which contains an
attenuator chosen so that a -4dBm level at the jack is attenuated to -12dBm a

        t
the central office.  This latter is for "fixed loss loop (FLL) equipment".
An RJ41 jack can be used for any modem (including RJ-11 permissive plugs),
however, I've never actually seen a FLL modem, so an RJ-45 will serve all
likely needs (including permissive plugs).  It's also quite a bit cheaper
than an RJ-41 jack because a single 1/2 watt resistor is much cheaper than
an attenuator.
A programmable-level modem can be converted to permissive RJ-11 plug be
providing a cable containing the -9dBm programming resistor, 5490 ohms.
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
[phone] x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
[e-mail]


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 16:04:37 pst
From: Phil Lapsley <phil%ucbeast@Berkeley>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: DNR's

     There is indeed such a thing as a Dialed Number Recorder, and your
summation of its function is essentially correct.  Out here in Pac
Bell land, the general usage is to place one on a suspected phone
phreak's line and record all the touch-tone or rotary digits dialed on
the line in question.  The "recording" is not an audio recording,
but a print-out on adding machine type tape.  If a review of the numbers
dialed on the line would seem to indicate fraud, then the device is
set to record the first "n" (generally 2) minutes of conversation,
for "identification purposes".  That is, if somebody makes a fraudulent
call, the telco can then use these tapes in court, presenting an
argument along the lines of "not only did the fraudulent call take place
over his line, but he even identified himself."

     Of course, if the call happens to be a data call, then they have
a tape recording of the first several minutes of your data transmission,
probably with your login and password.  It's anybody's guess as to
whether they actually decode this information or not.

     The legality of this has been extensively established.  The basic
conclusion of the courts is that the phone company has the right to
monitor calls which they suspect are fraudulent, so long as this
monitoring is not excessive (there have been cases of the telco
recording *all* the calls of a person over a month, which the
court felt was a little overboard -- one or two minutes being more
like it), and that such monitoring is used only for the protection of
the phone company (so if they hear somebody making a dope deal in the
first two minutes of the conversation, that's not admissible evidence
because it did not have to do with the telco.)

                                        Phil
                                (ARPA: [e-mail])
                                (UUCP: ...!ucbvax!phil)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 1984 17:30:30-EST
From: york@scrc-vixen
To: telecom@mit-mc
Subject: Found on a wall...

I tried calling the 800 number that was found on the phone closet wall
from my office in Falls Church, Virginia (near D.C., area code 703).  I
received the recorded message "we're sorry, you have dialed a number
which cannot be reached from your calling area."



------------------------------

Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 20:50:04-EST
From: Keith M. Gabryelski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #111
To: [e-mail]

In reply to the DNR message.

I have never heard of DNR, but I think I understand what you are
talking about.  About 6 months ago when I was taking a tour of a local
CO (under 1a ESS) a P-1 was telling me of something of that sort on
ESS.  It seems that when you make (or try to make) a call on ESS, it
(the system) records several things.

        Your number.
        The calling number.
        Whether you dialed TONE or PULSE.
                If the number you dialed was busy.
                If you recieved a "Trunk-Busy" (re-order).
                If the number you dialed Rang-out.
                If someone picked up the phone.
                If you got a "We're sorry, you're a putz.. recording."
                        (and what type of recording it was..)

This seems to be the same part of the system that checks for the
omnipotent 2600hz.  If it detects this infrequent (?) tone, it will
drop a trouble card and check for any strange MF tones.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, they do not record any DTMF tones from
your line after you are connected to the number you dialed.  They
actually have no right or reason to do it anyway.  (but ofcourse, they
have no right to listen in on customers calls... err check the line
for clarity while a customer is using the line..)

That last bit reminds me.. let me take you on an excursion for sec..
[Push]-- When I was taking that tour, I noticed speakers on some of
the coners of some walls.  When i asked what they were used for, I was
given some BS about intercom stuff..  I believed them.  Later, when I
was snooping around, I saw/heard a switchman listening to a
conversation through thoughs speakers.  I don't remember what they
said, but I am sure that person just picked a random CP and checked
out the conversation.--[Pop]

        Hope some of that helped..
                Keith
-------


------------------------------

Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 20:53:29-EST
From: Keith M. Gabryelski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #111
To: [e-mail]


     Just when we all thought Pacific Bell and the Los
Angeles City Attorney's office were going to behave like
responsible adults in dealing with Bulletin Board System
problems, they've decided to act like asses instead.

     According to messages left by Tom Tcimpidis and
others, the telephone company brought a great deal of
political pressure to bear on City Attorney Ira Reiner,
forcing Reiner to to prosecute him under a section of the
law involving "Computer and Credit Card Crimes."

     For those unaware of the rather boring history of this
case, Tcimpidis computer system was seized on May 16 of
this year when Pacific Bell discovered what investigators
claim was an illegal credit card number posted on a message
board.  Until recently, however, Tcimpidis was under the
impression that no charges would be filed against him.

     On August 29th, however, Tcimpidis was informed that
the City Attorney's office plans to file charges.  The full
extent of these charges and the laws under which they are
being filed are not currently known.  Tcimpidis, who is
suffering from two broken ankles, said the City Attorney's
office has ided to prosecute him under a new law
involving credit card and computer crimes.

     Lynzie Flynn, operater of a system known as "Lynzie's
Motherboard" has established a defense fund on Tcimpidis'
behalf.  She may be reached through her subscriber
system at [phone].  Or, checks payable to Lynzie's
Motherboard, with an indication that the donation is for
Tcimpidis's defense fund, should be sent to:

                 Lynzie's Motherboard
                 PO Box 284
                 No. Hollywood, CA. 91603

     Tcimpidis also is asking that computer bulletin board
operators as well as users write to City Attorney Ira
Reiner's office, expressing their opinion's of his actions;
using as few four-letter words as possible.

     In addition, it is important that anyone with copies
of messages appearing on Tcimpidis' system between February
and May 16 of this year to provide him with with a hard
copy of that material.  It can be sent to him at:

        Tom Tcimpidis, The Mog-ur
        P.O. box 5236, Mission Hills, CA 91345
        Voice 818-366-4837  Mog-ur's BBS 818-366-1238

[Re-printed from a local BBS]
-------


------------------------------

Date:  3 Nov 1984 1159-PST
From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI-20B@UCI-750a>
Subject: Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine
To: telecom@MIT-MC

                                CORPS

                               -------

                        Graduate Education in

            Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society

               at the University of California, Irvine


     This graduate concentration at the University of California,
Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to
investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting
which supports reflective and sustained inquiry.

     The primary educational opportunities are PhD concentrations in
the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and
PhD concentrations in the Graduate School of Management (GSM).
Students in each concentration can specialize in studying the social
dimensions of computing.

     The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many
interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's.  The faculty and
students in the CORPS have approached them with methods drawn from the
social sciences.

     The CORPS concentration focuses upon four related areas of
inquiry:

 1.  Examining the social consequences of different kinds of
     computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger
     society.

 2.  Examining the social dimensions of the work and organizational
     worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed,
     disseminated, deployed, and sustained.

 3.  Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the
     deployment and use of computer-based technologies.

 4.  Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the
     development and use of computing in pro-social ways.


     Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information
systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the
myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems,
expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated
command and control systems, and computing at home.  The questions
vary from study to study.  They have included questions about the
effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them,
the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and
cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences,
and their social carrying costs.

     CORPS studies at Irvine have a distinctive orientation -

(i) in focussing on both public and private sectors,

(ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within
      organizations,

(iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in
      vivo" in ordinary settings, and

(iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences.



         Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS


     The CORPS concentration is a special track within the normal
graduate degree programs of ICS and GSM.  Admission requirements for
this concentration are the same as for students who apply for a PhD in
ICS or an MS or PhD in GSM.  Students with varying backgrounds are
encouraged to apply for the PhD programs if they show strong research
promise.

     The seven primary faculty in the CORPS concentration hold
appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and
the Graduate School of Management.  Additional faculty in the School
of Social Sciences, and the program on Social Ecology, have
collaborated in research or have taught key courses for CORPS
students.  Research is administered through an interdisciplinary
research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the
Public Policy Research Organization.

Students who wish additional information about the CORPS concentration
should write to:

          Professor Rob Kling (Kling@uci)
          Department of Information and Computer Science
          University of California, Irvine
          Irvine, Ca. 92717
          714-856-5955 or 856-7403

                                or to:

          Professor Kenneth Kraemer (Kraemer@uci)
          Graduate School of Management
          University of California, Irvine
          Irvine, Ca. 92717
          714-856-5246



------------------------------

From: ihnp4!e.d.mantel@Berkeley
To: ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Date: 03 Nov 1984  19:05 EST
Subject: 800-352-4731

This sounds like a beeper service to me.



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 1984  03:00 EST
From: [e-mail]
To:   [e-mail]

Date: Mon 29 Oct 84 21:38:16-EST
From: Keith M. Gabryelski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM question...
To: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To: Message from "Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>" of Mon 29 Oct 84 1

        9:42:43-EST

Thanks very much for your quick reply, I now understand how that all
works.  Expect to see some input from me in the future.

I never even considered the thought of have OCC Phreak related stuff.
I didn't even think there were people on OZ that were using OCCs.  I
thought that stuff was limited to 12 year olds with VIC-20's...

I don't suppose you or anyone you know of has any information on
New England Bells (I think it is New England's) DMS-100 system.  They
seem to of switched over to Non-Bell equipment, instead using General
Electrics Switching system.  I hear-tell it is like ESS, with its
call-waiting/forwarding stuff, but have no idea of how it originaly
came about or why they didn't use ESS.  Also, I was wondering if it
had any special capabilities that ESS does not have.

        Bye Bye,
          Keith


------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #113
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 21:51:57 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Nov 84 21:00:51 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
                      Pay phones: the new enemy
                             Pen register
              Touch Tone (well, Touch Calling) Intercept
                    The L.A. BBS Credit Card Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun 4 Nov 84 20:56:18-PST
From: Jim Lewinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay phones: the new enemy
To: [e-mail]

Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 09:42:35-PST
From: Andrei Broder <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

        Man Loses Fight With Pay Telephone

   IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- Police responding to reports of a stabbing
found instead a bleeding 20-year-old man who lost a confrontation
with a pay telephone, authorities said.
   According to police, Richard A. Anderson had tried to call a
friend from a pay phone and when the call went unanswered angrily
tried to jerk the receiver out of the phone.
   Police said Anderson just managed to stretch the wire webbing that
covers the telephone cord. The receiver stayed put. So Anderson again
vented his anger -- this time by throwing the receiver, police said.
   But when the receiver reached the end of its cord, it snapped
back and the cord wrapped around Anderson's neck.
   The sharp edges of the wire webbing dug into Anderson's skin,
cutting him. When Anderson struggled to free himself, the webbing cut
deeper.
   ``Once we got out what had happened,'' said one police officer,
``it was, `Be real. This did not happen.'''
   Anderson was treated at University Hospitals and released.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 5 November 1984 12:12-EST
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Pen register
To: TELECOM @ BBNCCA

Devices to log all the numbers you dial from your phone (whether rotary
or touch tone) are called pen registers.  Currently any law enforcement
agency can ask the telephone company to install such a pen register on
your line, which they will normally do; a search warrent is NOT
required.  A Supreme Court case in 1979 (Smith v Maryland) determined
that the requirement for a search warrent before law enforcement
agencies could tap your phone only applied to the CONTENTS of the call,
but not to the dialing of the call in the first place (traffic
analysis).  This differs from the applicable law for First Class Postal
Mail where a search warrent is requried before the post office will
record the return addresses of anybody who sends you a letter.

Note that the reasoning in the Supreme Court case would not cover
recording of touch tones sent DURING the call.  This could be
interpreted as interception of the content.  However, other
intepretations of the wiretapping statutes (noted recently in TELECOM),
suggest that only ORAL communications protected.  Thus recording of
touch tones might be held unprotected by the need for a search warrent
for wiretapping.

I believe that legislation has been considered in the Committees on the
Judiciary which would apply Postal Service type standards to the use of
pen registers on your telephone line, thus overturning Smith v.
Maryland.  Write your Congressman.

Marvin Sirbu


------------------------------

From: Christopher A Kent <[e-mail]>
Date:  5 Nov 1984 1549-EST (Monday)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Touch Tone (well, Touch Calling) Intercept

Speaking of odd equipment dealing with Touch Tone...

When I moved last May, I decided not to pay for Touch Calling through
GTE any more; my phone has switchable pulse/tone dialing, so I was
happy to save myself a couple of $$ a month. I figured I could dial the
local access number on pulse and switch to tone when I needed it.

Well, when I moved in, I tried dialing with tone, just for grins. I got
an awful, ugly tone burst back from the CO, so I hung up, and dialed
with pulse. Then, when I had connected to the access number, I switch
to tone and proceeded to try to dial. I got the same ugly tone burst.
Apparently they have something on the line that is monitoring for DTMF
frequencies at all times, and bitches at me when it hears them... most
annoying. I can't dial through a secondary PBX, or anything. Do I have
a right to complain about this?

So far, I've just been dialing from the office, but I may have to break
down and get tone service again (and pay the bogus installation fee,
ugh).

Cheers,
chris
----------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 15:00:12 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: The L.A. BBS Credit Card Case
To: TELECOM@MC

While not saying anything one way or another about the guilt or
innocence in this case, there are two interesting points about this
case that are only occasionally mentioned (this info gleaned
from messages on other lists):

1) The TPC Credit Card number involved was apparently owned by a person
   for whom the BBS operator used to work, a position that he may have
   left under other than "ideal" circumstances.

2) The message in question was on the BBS for quite a long time
   (weeks?  months?) and was not just present for a short time.

The defense lawyer has explanations for both of these events, of course,
so one shouldn't say anything about guilt, but they are interesting
tidbits nonetheless which certainly serve to complicate the situation.

--Lauren--



------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #114
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 21:35:58 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Nov 84 17:21:22 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
                              LA BBS Case
                        Tone calling intercept
                               DMS-100
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 5 Nov 84 22:09 EST
From:  "Richard Kovalcik, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject:  LA BBS Case
To:  [e-mail]

Yes, I believe the explaination is that the number appeared on the BBS
system (long) before the BBS owner went to work for the credit card
number owner.  That is a pretty good explaination in my book.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 84 03:39:30 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

     With the discussions about recording called numbers, I thought
this would be an appropriate time to get an update on caller
identification to the called party.  I know this was discussed in
Human-Nets a couple of years ago (and possibly here more recently)
but I presume that equipment availability and laws have changed
in the mean time.

     (We're having a discussion in a legal forum here about it,
but don't have much technical information.  The social aspects
have kept us pretty busy.  If anyone wants to see what *true flame*
looks like, I'll be happy to send out copies of the discussion
so far.)

     Would appreciate any information about available systems,
costs, areas where this might be available now (other than 911),
specific laws either permitting or prohibiting, etc.

------------------------------

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Date:  5 Nov 1984  14:07 EST

Re: The number found on the wall in New Jersey:

The 800+ number you found at Rutgers is the number of a large
radio-paging system in the area.  The code 0480 selects a specific
pager, probably riding around on someone's belt.  The number you
enter after hearing three beeps is displayed (up to ten digits) on
the LCD display of the pager, and is the message to the pagee.  He
or she is probably trying to return your call, by dialing the number(s)
you entered.  After you've entered a message, the system acknowleges
your message by sending 20 more beeps, and then disconnects,
providing a re-order (fast busy) tone.

-Dave Levenson
AT&T ISL
Holmdel, NJ


------------------------------

Date: 06-Nov-1984 1245
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Tone calling intercept

Yes, you most certainly do have a right to complain.

The phone company can charge you for CCITT Q.23 (Touch-Tone) service only
if you are going to use it for network signalling to THEIR own switching
systems.

Once you have completed a call through their network, the Q.23 tones are
just data, over which they may not have any control, other than the normal
rules for what can be transmitted.  Q.23 signals are legal data transmission
signals under those rules.

It doesn't matter what you're talking to, a computer at your office or a bank

        ,
another common carrier, a private PBX call extender, whatever, that's not the

        ir
bag.

However -- in areas with TRUE equal access (10288 for AT&T, 10222 for MCI) yo

        u
do have to pay them to use Q.23 to access those carriers, since you are then
signalling to the local phone company's switch, not the carrier's switch.

But for the 950-10xx numbers or other access numbers, Q.23 is just data, and
is not subject to a charge.  They HAVE to fix that device so that it either
only works when you're trying to signal to them or take it off your line
completely.

You may have to fight this one all the way to the President of your local
phone company!

/john

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday,  6 Nov 1984 12:59:44-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: DMS-100

New England Tel, and many other BOCs, are buying the Northern Telecom
(Not G.E.!) DMS-100 central office as well as Western Electric's new
#5 ESS.  ESS is an AT&T trademark, and AT&T is no longer affiliated
with the Bell companies (did our correspondent forget?) so the Bell
telcos like NET are free to shop around.  Northern is affiliated
with Bell Canada, which long ago spun off from AT&T.

The DMS-100 is a large digital switch.  #1 ESS is analog, while most
implentations of the "new" #5 ESS are hybrids, with an analog crossbar
(solid-state diodes, not metallic) line switch and a digital center.
DMS-100 can handle about 800k CCS of traffic (over 20k simultaneous
calls) and up to about 100k lines in regular service.  It provides
all your usual features, including Centrex and PBX features; when sold
as a PBX, it's called the SL-100.

AT&T Technologies has been slow to deliver full-size versions of the
#5ESS, leaving NT and others a market window.  Analog switching is
hopelessly obsolete, since a digital switch can handle T-carrier,
fiber optics and digital radio transmission media without converting
to analog first.  DMS-100 uses one-line codecs on its line interfaces,
with one line per card mounted in a drawer arrangement.  It's very
compact and not outrageously expensive.  NET will be cutting one over
soon in Newton, Mass (ca. 40k lines) and already has a few running.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #115
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:19:12 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Nov 84 18:06:17 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
                             LA BBS Case
                      Wanted: Info on Smart PBX
                          Signalman Mark XII
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 16:58:05 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: LA BBS Case
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA

As far as I'm concerned, from currently available information, there
are just too many "coincidences" in the case for me to have much
(if any) faith in the BBS operator.  And in any case, I strongly
feel that people must take the initiative to be responsible for the
material on their BBS's in the long run.  If a message hangs around
for a couple of days that's one thing, but for weeks or months?

Some people claim that BBS operators should be immune to having
any responsibility for what's on their boards, and try to use
the USPS and telcos as an example.  However, I claim that a
much better analogy would be a physical bulletin board in a
corporate building, or a newspaper that took classified ads.
In both of these cases, any entity that allowed the use of such
facilities, over a period of time, for the posting of messages promoting
illegal activities would be (and have been found to be) responsible.

The fact that the BBS's do not use a physical medium like a wallboard
or newspaper does not change the fact that they are subject to the
same rules.

--Lauren--


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 84 14:19:01 pst
From: [e-mail] (John DeTreville)
To: Telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: Wanted: Info on Smart PBX

[This may be a repeat article. --JSol]

Here's a question for TELECOM readers:

Are there any PBXs available that can be configured as servers controlled fro

        m
some external computer system?  Various vendors seem to be offering smart PBX


stations that integrate some workstation functions, but they still make bette

        r
telephones than they do workstations.  Instead of taking this approach, you
could imagine using real workstations that communicated with the PBX over a
LAN , sequencing it through calls, being told of user inputs, etc.  The PBX
would know how to interface with the telephone environment; the workstations

        or
whatever could concentrate on integrating voice communication into a larger
user environment.

So, does any vendor offer anything along such lines?

Cheers,
John

------------------------------

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Date:  7 Nov 1984  15:41 EST

Dialed Number Recorders are provided by a company called Hekimian.
They are useful in gathering evidence against Phone-Phreaks, in that
they can detect and record DTMF (touch-tone(r)), MF addressing, and SF
supervision signalling.

I'm no lawyer, but I assume that the telco may connect one to a line
at any time they want to.  Having its record admitted as evidence in
a court of law may be more complicated.

-Dave Levenson



------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 84 17:03:10 EST
From: Eric <[e-mail]>
Subject: Signalman Mark XII
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Hi,

 I am considering  purchasing an Anchor  Automation Mark XII  modem,
but first I need some more information. I have heard that the  modem
loses in one major respect: it cannot send a break. Is this true, or
has it been corrected in later  versions? Are there any other  major
losses with  this modem?  Does  it give  off a  lot  of RFI?  Is  it
sensitive to outside RFI? How does it handle noisy/weak lines?

 Any other tips/ tidbits of  information regarding this modem  would
be much appreciated.

Thanx,
Eric
-------

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #116
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 21:29:55 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Nov 84 17:26:11 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
                             LA BBS Case
                 Re:  Anchor Signalman Mark XII Modem
                           RE:  LA BBS case
                      Smart PBX vs. workstations
                       Signalman Mark XII modem
                             Signalman XII
                         Anchor MKXII Modems
                    Tarriffs.....where to find...
                     that writing on the wall...
                        Re: Signalman Mark XII
                    Digital service to residences
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 8 Nov 84 21:20:19-PST
From: Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: LA BBS Case
To: [e-mail]


        I dont have much information about the case, but I would take
exception to Lauren's view.  BBS operators may or may not have the
capability to police everything.  I realize that this is not quite
the same thing, but at ECL, we have bboards that run upto 6000 disk
pages.  Completely impossible to reasonably police.  You would almost
have to show that there was complete negligence or knowledge of the
illicit use to fairly prosecute.
        The newspaper analogy falls down in that people cannot post
their own messages to a classified ad.  If the BBS operator is
not immune, then a complete change in the environment - ie elimination
of free posting - would necessarily be in order.  Is this desireable?
Maybe, maybe not - I am really not sure.

                Chris.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 1984 23:18-PST
Subject: Re:  Anchor Signalman Mark XII Modem
From: JOHN@SRI-CSL
To: Lavitsky@RU-GREEN
Cc: Telecom@BBNCCA

This is in response to your request for info on 'personal' experiences
with the Mark XII modem.  I recently did a performance evaluation of this
modem for my employer.   Data error rate was comparable to other intelligent
modems (low frequency of occurance over good quality local lines, both
1200 and 300 baud).  Didn't try to send a break (no need) but don't recall
seeing anything in the instructions stating there is a problem with this.
No problem with RF emissions noted (nearby FM radio).  The Anchor lacks a
monitor speaker, a useful feature, and doesn't have a switch to force the
RS-232C Carrier Detect lead TRUE.  (With CD low, many terminals won't
display the characters sent by the modem.  Thus, you will have to dial
"blind".)  RS-232C connection is a ribbon cable with IDC DB-25P connector
that hangs out the rear of the unit (which results in a manufacturer's
savings of about $5.00 over a DB-25S connector mounted on the rear of the
unit). However, this forces the owner to deal with a fixed (short ??) cable
length.

In summary, the Signalman Mark XII is a good value but users should be
prepared to live with its shortcomings.

John McLean
Telenova Incorporated

------------------------------

Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 02:06:45-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE:  LA BBS case
To: [e-mail]

Lauren, I agree that there are coincidences, to raise suspicions, but that
should not allow us to overlook the fact that they are not PROOF and, there-
fore, inadmissable.

I thought long and hard about it, and if PROOF is found for who did it,
I have no objections against some wrists getting slapped.  But no more,
really, as the deed is no more than a childish prank, and what society
needs is "to reform" rather than "vengeance", and a criminal record is
not the proper way to reform anyone.

Now, is it possible that a message stays on a BBS undetected by the SYSOPS?
Initial reaction is, no, why does anyone set-up a BBS, if not out of need
and fascination with lots of messages floating by.  Really?  I only have
to think about the temptation I feel to make my machines do some good for
someone while I sleep, and I can easily imagine creating some groups which
I would never look at.  So why didn't one of the steadier customers who
ran into the message bring it to the attention of the SYSOPS?  You and I
would have done so quickly, I'm certain, if for no other reason than to
protect the SYSOP, so could it be that someone did and could speak up?
I'd talk to the regulars of the BBS if I was the City Attorney.  But even
IF the SYSOP knew, I still don't see why he should be guilty of anything
for not having erased it.  Stupidity, maybe, but criminal?  certainly not
in my value-system (which is not identical with the current legal system,
I hurry to point out - but then all is in flux)

Now, the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that if I ever
set up a BBS, it's "as is", I provide the playground, you all are responsible


for what you do there.  So, I would not want to be bothered by anyone, and
might even ignore mail-messages, if they'd really pile up.  Well, I guess,
I'm not really BBS-SYSOP material, and wouldn't stick my neck out to become a


legal test-case.

And an analogy.  I enter and leave my house through the garage, and take a le

        ft
turn, religiously.  If someone would post an offending messages or someone's
credit card number on my front door, or (please, don't)  on the right side
of my house, it would go undetected for weeks.  So, am I negligent, suspiceou

        s
of having it put up myself because it's my neighbors, with whom I have an
argument over his noisy dogs? (not in reality)  Unless I'm caught doing it
no court will condemn me (I hope).

Moral:  current events have hopefully put all SYSOPs on warning that even
        if the court battle can be won, a little supervision can prevent
        a lot of prolonged troubles.  And if you ever encounter any
        questionable messages on any BBS, don't hesitate to notify the
        SYSOP in no uncertain terms what you think.  You might even
        indicate, that nasty developments might force you to testify in
        some court of law to the fact that the SYSOP had been made aware
        of the message on his system.  But remember, "uncertain terms"
        does not mean "nasty" or "accusing" - friendliness is what we
        good guys in the white hats are most famous for.
-------

------------------------------

Date: Friday,  9 Nov 1984 05:52:39-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Smart PBX vs. workstations

The whole question of "Smart PBX controlled by a LAN" or "PBX-based
workstation" is drenched in marketing hype but woefully short of
realistic substance.  The inherent concept of a PBX is that of a circuit
switch, voice-oriented, which must transfer audio (digitized PCM, most
often) in real time, since a transmission delay in the ms. range would
be noticeable as signal degradation (echo).  That's been a major reason
why "packet voice" has been a flop for all but the hairiest long-distance
applications where a little echo is expected.

"Workstation" is still a pretty nebulous term.  To me, it refers to sort of
a "super-PC", which uses a LAN to access data stored on a database or file
server and communicate with others.  LANs are bursty, fast and usually run
in packet-mode; PBXs have smooth, medium-speed (<= 64kbps) data flow
and require seconds to set up calls, unlike LANs which send virtual
circuits (or datagrams -- I'm not falling into that rathole) in
milliseconds.

Given those constraints, which basically mean that a PBX is a second-rate
workstation server, some vendors do have products planned in that space.
Rolm just announced "Cedar", a hybrid IBM PC-clone and telephone in one
box, for use (only) with its CBX, and they also have a telephone board
called "juniper" which plugs into the IBM PC and lets it act like a
fancy telephone, as well as be a terminal using the CBX as a data circuit
switch.  InteCom's LANmark is a high-speed packet switch that acts like a
LAN and is packaged inside its IBX PBX, and they are supposed to be doing
joint workstations with Wang.   And there will be more...

But what do you gain?  Too many folks are talking about "new PBXs" that may
have great data features but aren't reliable or mature for voice.  The
two functions are really quite different and so without doing an appli-
cations analysis, it's probably a good idea to avoid cosolidated voice and
data, the same way you'd avoid consolidated toaster-dishwashers (which
GE could, of course, make just as easily.)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 1984  07:22 MST (Fri)
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20>
To:   Eric <LAVITSKY@RU-GREEN>
Cc:   Telecom@MIT-MC, Info-Micro@BRL, Info-Cpm@AMSAA
Subject: Signalman Mark XII modem

If you do get the Signalman Mark XII, here's a tidbit from CIS that
may help avoid a potential problem.
--Keith

Sb: #Anchor MK XII Modem
    10-Mar-84  00:22:26

KUGRAM Vol 2, No 1, Pg 26, top left corner says:

  "The reason some people may have had problems using Anchor Modems is
that their phones had a serial number ending in DMG (i.e., 2500DMG).
This means that these phones are grounded.  There is a black wire
inside the phone just after the telco wire enters the case.  Cutting
this wire will disable the ground and allow the modem to function."

  Wonder if this might have something to do with some of the strange
problems A FEW people have with a modem that seems to work for most
others with the same equipment.


------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 8 November 1984  23:43-MST
From: bang!crash!bblue@Nosc
To: bang!lavitsky@Ru-Green
Subject:   Signalman XII

The Signalman Mark XII stock, does not send break.  However, Anchor
Automation does have a rom available on request that corrects the
problem.  I don't know why they don't just switch over to the new
rom...

The modem loses in a couple of other respects though - signficant
depending on your uses.  It has no hardware default switches, thus you
cannot set a power-up condition - it must always be initialized by
software control.  The led signal indication is quite limited.  For
example, send and receive data are the same led!

Those things aside, it is a reasonable performer for the price.  Just
don't expect too much from it.

--Bill Blue

                bang!crash!bblue@nosc
                {ihnp4, sdcsvax!bang}!crash!bblue


------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 84 09:49:46 EST
From:   Alexander B. Latzko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anchor MKXII Modems
To: [e-mail]



Eric,

I have been using seven (7) Anchor Mark XIIs at remote 1 and remote 28
(Rutgers University Newark for those in the great etheric mists) since
July and have had time to develop some opinions.

1> The modems I have support break.  I did get a special prom from Anchor but


was told the production line was going to be modified as of August 1984 to
include break.

2> They do not support the full Hayes command set but they do support enough

        to
be dialed by Xtalk VXI .

3> I could not check for RFI but sitting directly next to a TV and a Z-29
doesn't cause any screen glitches.

4> Reliability is ok but sometimes they become a little flakey in autoanswer
mode when they have been on for a month or two non stop.

alex
<latkzo@ru-blue>
-------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 84 13:15 EDT
From: "David H M Spector" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Tarriffs.....where to find...

Does anyone know where I can order the tarriff stuff? And, also how much
it costs??

                Thanks

                   Dave Spector


-------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 23:19:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

re: Anchor Signalman XII Modem

     The Mark XII does not send breaks in 212 mode, although it
does in 103 mode.  You can send the modem back to Anchor along
with $30, and they will upgrade it (a ROM for newer ones, a
whole new PC board for older ones) so that it will.

     Another flaw that people should be aware of is that it
does NOT observe RTS (it isn't even connected!)  This causes
problems with programs that expect the modem to drop the phone
line when RTS is dropped.  I have a fix that takes one transistor,
one resistor, and one cut trace.  (Send a message for a copy of
the pretty picture of how to do this.)

     I'm not in a position to make any quality measurements,
but I've been running one on a BBS (and also for calling out
to BBSs) and I've had no more noticible problems than with
any other 1200 bps modems I've used (Hayes and Vadic).  In fact,
it seems to cope with weak signals better than most.  (I've
had none of the flashing carrier lights I've had with Vadics...).

     I bought mine locally for $250, so I'm not complaining about
the flaws.  (Cermetek is advertising a "Hayes compatible"
1200 bps internal IBM PC modem for about $150 on a special
"buy direct" deal.)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 84 05:35:15 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: that writing on the wall...
To: [e-mail]

   The 800+ number you found at Rutgers is the number of a large
   radio-paging system in the area.  The code 0480 selects a specific
   pager, probably riding around on someone's belt.

Wow!  I wonder how many people I woke up?

We eventually figured that something like this was the case, and
ceased messing with it, in case we were beeping people out of
dreamland or dropping trouble cards all over creation.  If you know
any victims, please pass a sincere ''sorry guys!'' on from me...

I can't help being a *little* disappointed that it wasn't a nifty
cable/pair identifier service, via which we could find the physical
location of any of our dialup lines!

_H*
-------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 10:28 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Signalman Mark XII
To: Eric <[e-mail]>

Eric;
I will not make any pro or con recommendations but by the time you have
read this I think you will understand my position.

1) The Mark XII does not recognize the TR signal from the host machine,
and as such it becomes quite difficult to get it's attention to cause a
hang-up or reset software switches.
2) It is inconsistant in the return of result codes caused by phone
related activity. (i.e. some numeric result codes return the numeric
with a "CR" and some do not. This makes writing auto answer routines
very difficult.)
3) If the modem is software programmed in 300 baud and the incomming
call is connected a 1200 baud (as in an RBBS) the modem will not respond
to the software interupt signal (+++) from the host at 1200 baud, an
thus it is practically impossible to disconnect after the call until the
calling party hangs- up.
As an auto dial out-going modem I have no complaints, as a front-end for
an RBBS it is useless. The lack of a speaker is also a major draw-back
for dealing with ring-back systems.

You may now make your on decision concerning this unit.

Russ Pencin
Sysop- Dallas Connection.



------------------------------

Date: Tue 30 Oct 84 18:18:25-EST
From: Gene Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digital service to residences
To: [e-mail]

        CMU is currently planning some experiments with the local
operating company to try a data under voice scheme that would become a
tariffed service if it proved practical. The experiments (to begin in
about a month) would use apparatus at the subscriber and CO ends of
a subscriber pair to carry normal voice service and a 9600 bps serial
line. There is a "spine" at the CO, something (if not exactly) like
the PRONET token ring, which would route the lines to their destination(s).
        At the moment, existing tariffs preclude the local operating
company from reformatting or encoding the data; the user must accept
the bits out in the same format they went in.
        It is plausible that the system might eventually be able to support
data rates to 56 kbps, which holds out the promise of having your
favorite PC on a LONG extension of a campus network.
        The target price that CMU is asking for (based on line charges
and amortization of modem costs) is $50/mo. The Bell people seem to
think that they can manage this, but they have by no means guaranteed it.
        Look for new rumors in January.

                                                Gene Hastings
-------

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #117
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 02:33:05 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Nov 84  1:35:16 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
                          Re: Signalman XII
                           RE:  LA BBS case
                              BBS owner.
                           Anchor Signalman
                     BBS's -- who is responsible?
                               TARRIFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 13:43:47 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Signalman XII
To: bang!crash!bblue@NOSC
Cc: INFO-MICRO@BRL, TELECOM@MC

Another problem with that modem is that it apparently doesn't
support standard DTR!  This means that all enabling of incoming
calls and all hanging up of calls must be handled through online commands
to the modem, which most standard software, quite rightly, does
not support.  The lack of DTR support brands this modem a NO BUY
in my opinion.  DTR is a MINIMUM requirement for any modem.

--Lauren--



------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 13:05:57 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: RE:  LA BBS case
To: CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20
Cc: TELECOM@MC

I'm not claiming that current legal remedies are "correct" for such
situations, but I don't feel that BBS operators can properly be
considered to be "blameless" in such situations either.

As for your "number on the side of your house wall analogy"...
I don't buy it.  You don't promote the concept of people coming by
your house at all hours to read your wall!  If you did, you might
be more concerned about checking that wall from time to time.  The
BBS's, by their very existence, are actively promoting the idea that
people should use them.  For your wall analogy to work, you'd have to
take out an ad somewhere saying, "Come read my wall, it's fun and
interesting!"  There is a significant difference between a random
message in a random place and and an entity (like a BBS) set up
explicitly for the purpose of sending and receiving messages.

--Lauren--



------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Nov 1984  19:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
To:   [e-mail]
Subject: BBS owner.

Hhhhmmmm...

As I see it, the BBS operator should be convicted of felony-
stupidity.  I was a SYSOP for about one year.  You cannot got through
a week without knowing most (if not all) of the messages on your
board.

I don't know how he ran his board, but I would hope that he would have
the sense to get on the board every once in a while and read some of
the messages.  If not only to read the feed-back from its users,
atleast to see how his board was doing.

I admit, there were two or three message bases I never looked at, but
at the end of the week, it was almost impossible not to see messages
of questionable nature, (when doing backups or clearing the message
bases for more space).  I also remember getting messages concerning
certain posts, (usually about jokes of questionable taste).

I would think, (hope), that a user would bring up the fact that
something illegal was posted on the board (unless ofcourse if they
expected something of that nature on there.  ie, the BBS itself
supported illegal activities.)

But after all this, I don't think that the BBS owner should be
prosecuted.  I think the law should get on the BBS owners that openly
allow posts of questionable nature on their boards.  There are plenty
out there; owned, operated, and used by twelve year olds that get a
kick out of charging their phone bills to little-old ladies from
Tescalusca, Kansas.  (exageration, but you get the point).  I don't
see how the law can criminally neglect these systems that they would
have an open and shut case against but arrest a BBS owner on
questionable charges.

End of randomness..
                        Keith


------------------------------

Date: Friday,  9 Nov 1984 16:35:06-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Marshall R. Goldberg LJ02/E4 DTN 28

        2-2325)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Anchor Signalman

 I operate two BBS's running with tested BELL 212 modems.
 Several callers have problems with overloading using the Signalman
 modem. One user solves the problem by leaving hi telephone handset
 off hook. Another user returned his modem and got a Qubie.

 Marshall

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 19:06:54 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: BBS's -- who is responsible?
To: TELECOM@MC

I think the key element of this discussion revolves around who
is responsible for the messages on a BBS.  Now, if all users were
*known* in some manner to the BBS operator (via confirmed address/phone
number info, for example, and maybe signed statements of "BBS rule
understanding") then I can see how a BBS operator might be able to
freely operate without *much* concern for message content in most
cases.  But to the entent that a BBS allow anonymous, unverified use,
SOMEBODY must take responsibility, and it's going to have to
be the operator, since in most cases there is NO WAY to find the
originator of a libelous or illegal message!

If we accept the concept that certain sorts of messages are
illegal (soliciting for stolen goods, as a very simple example)
there would seem to be a need for SOMEONE to be responsible!  Otherwise,
the potential for abuse (and for such unfortunate events as lawsuits)
is pretty large.

--Lauren--



------------------------------

Date: Sat 10 Nov 84 15:44:28-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: TARRIFS
To: [e-mail]

If you want to get copies of  the actual tarriffs you have two  choices,
either deal with the  FCC and the various  state regulatory agencies  or
subscribe to a service which will provide them to you.

We use United Technologies MIS 8049 W Chester Pike Upper Darby, PA 19082
Tel [phone].

 Be prepared to spend considerable amount of time in filing and posting.
There  are  imnumerable   varities,  inter  Service   Area  (ex   LATA),
intra-Service Area, inter state, different carriers etc.  They range  in
size from the AT&T  WATS (FCC #2)  in one 2 inch  binder to the  Pacific
Bell California Tariff in 10 four inch binders and growing.
-------

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #118
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 23:11:32 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Nov 84 22:34:07 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
                        BBS's -- who is responsible?
                       The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #117
                           The disvetiture
                            Signalman XII
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Sun, 11 Nov 84 12:06:11 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        BBS's -- who is responsible?

The problem here is the conflict of rights.  The First Amendment to the
Constitution states:  "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech".  This was extended to State (and local) Governments
by the Fourteenth amendment.  On the other hand, there are well-known
exceptions.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium (unless there
is a fire); there are both civil and criminal penalties for libel; etc.

In the BBS case, there are a number of questions.

Should individuals be forced to give up part of a Constitutional
Right because the Telephone Company has failed to install appropriate
equipment to validate telephone charge calls?  It would be easy to
install equipment at each pay telephone that would require physical
possession of a charge card.

Is there a law stating explicitly that divulging a telephone charge
number is a criminal offense?  If so, is the law enforced fairly?  I
know of a dormitory at San Diego State University where a Sprint number
was posted -- on a bulletin board -- for a whole semester before Sprint
invalidated it.  During that semester, tens of thousands of dollars
worth of long distance calls were placed against that number.  No
prosecution took place.

Are other types of Bulletin Boards, such as those outside of super-
markets, those on University campuses such as UCLA, etc. normally
policed?  I know full well that the UCLA administration would not
take responsibility for UCLA Bulletin Boards.  Moreover since the
administrators are "pillars of society" and have fancy lawyers, the
Telephone Company wouldn't take them on.

The "responsible party" is certainly the poster of the message, not
necessarily the owner of the bulletin board.  The fact that the poster
is hard to find doesn't change responsibility.

ted

------------------------------

From: mcb%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch)
Date: Sun Nov 11 14:14:37 1984
Subject: The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case
To: telecom@bbncca

The real question raised by the Mog-ur case  (regardless  of  its
specific outcome) is whether we want, as a matter of public poli-
cy, to hold BBS sysops (and others in similar situations, includ-
ing,  for  example,  commercial services [The Source, CompuServe]
and those who post and redistribute Internet/Usenet digest) CRIM-
INALLY responsible for failing to detect and remove messages pro-
posing illegal activities.

Very rarely do our laws impose standards of  affirmative  conduct
that  result  in  criminal  sanctions  if  they are not performed
faithfully. These exceptions usually fall into  categories  where
serious  and  immdiate harm to persons would result: operators of
dangerous machinery or explosives; manufacturers/sellers of foods
and  drugs, and so forth. I don't think anyone has a problem with
holding a drug manufacturer criminally liable for failing to  in-
spect a batch of product for dangerous impurities.

Unfortunately, the L.A. prosecutor has misinterpreted the differ-
ence  between  CRIMINAL  and  CIVIL  standards of conduct. If the
Mog-ur sysop has breached a standard of conduct (and  I  draw  no
factual conclusions, based on third-hand evidence!) the remedy is
for the aggrieved party to sue for damages.

This way, both our society's interest in freedom of communication
and  expression  AND the aggrieved party's property rights can be
served in a controversial case.   And  ideally,  our  legislature
could more specifically define a standard of conduct that assures
that sysops and those in similar positions know what is  expected
>from  them. Personally, I would rather err on the side of permis-
siveness, but practically ANY reasonable standard of  conduct  is
better than having a gung-ho prosecutor try to create a whole new
class of information-age crimes.

                                Michael C. Berch
                                [e-mail]
                                ...ucbvax!lbl-csam!lll-tis!mcb

------------------------------

Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 11:54:53-EST
From: Doug Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #117
To: [e-mail]

It completely offends me that anyone could think that a Sysop should
be held responsible for the messages that appear on his BBoard.  It's
like saying that a paper manufacturer should be held responsible for
what people write on their paper.  It's like saying that the phone
company should be be resposible for what is said on their phone lines.
It's like saying that grafitti must be cleaned from bathrooms.  It's
like saying Thomas Jefferson should be resposible for everything said
by anyone.  It's disgusting!

                        -Doug Alan
-------


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 14:44 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The disvetiture
To: [e-mail]

From "Three Degrees Above Zero":

"The Bell System's financial position became increasingly fragile in the
decade and a half after Alexander Bell's original patents expired in
1893 and 1894. Many independent telephone companies sprang up.... By
1900 there were over 6,000 companies, and by 1907 almost half of the
telephones in the United States were non-Bell. Subscribers were becoming
increasingly dissatisfied with the service. For example, they would
often accidentally reach one of the other companies, and in most cities
they had to pay two or more telephone bills each month...."

Sounds familiar! As my pappy used to say, the more things change, the
more they stay the same.




------------------------------

Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 16:34:47-PST
From: Nicholas Veizades <[e-mail]>
Subject: Signalman XII
To: [e-mail]



We at Sumex are using these modems for autoanswers and having lots
of problems: Namely,

        The lack of DTR control. This problem was fixed by a slight
        modification on the Hardware. In other words a reset circuit
        was added and connected to pin 20 of the RS232 connector so
        that the local host can reset the modem at will.

        The modem seems to go to some weird mode at times and it will
        not accept any commands or will not answer the phone. This behavior
        is best detected by a flashing data LED most of the time but
        not always. Powering off and on is the only way to get the modem
        back in normal operation. No win in a multi user rotary
        system.

The people at Anchorman at first were very defensive and did not acknowledge
the faults of their modem. The service manager at Anchor even went as far
as to suggest to us to buy another brand since we were not pleased with
theirs. Finally recently the Anchor people suggested to return the
modems for a fix which we are in the process of doing.

As originates the Anchorman XII seems to work fine.


Nick.
-------


------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************