Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1988.volume.8/1987.vol8.iss001-071

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-26 | 578KB

From Communications Week, September 28, 1987:
Status: O

CALL IT CONTROVERSIAL: NJ BELL TO TEST SCREENING SERVICE THAT DISPLAYS
INCOMING CALLS

By Kathleen Killette

NEWARK N.J. -- Local telephone customers in New Jersey will be able to
screen their incoming calls in a controversial test by New Jersey Bell
Telephone Co., beginning in early November.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities recently granted the Bell
operating company permission to test a package of call management
services on about 250,000 local customers.

The test will occur in six exchange areas in Atlantic and Hudson
counties to determine whether the service, called CLASS, should be
offered statewide.  The experiment is scheduled to last until September
1989.

New Jersey Bell originally sought permission to test CLASS last
November, but withdrew the proposal in March for further study.  The
telephone company has said the delay had nothing to do with opposition
to one of the CLASS services, called Call Identification.

Call Identification would let users with special display attachments
view the number of the person placing the incoming call.  That would
enable the answering party to decide whether to take the call.

Some groups, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU,
have objected to Call Identification.  The ACLU argues that the feature
constitutes an invasion of privacy because unlisted phone numbers would
be displayed on the attachments.  But some law enforcement officials
hailed the plan, saying that it would let customers evade and even trace
abusive and obscene calls.

Another CLASS service, Call Trace, lets customers have the phone company
trace a call -- but only for law enforcement purposes -- by hanging up
on the call and dialing prescribed digits.

Other services grouped under CLASS include the ability to let customers
dial back the last incoming call whether or not the user answered it;
redial the last outgoing call; key in up to six "priority" numbers that
will give a distinctive ring to important call; block unwanted calls;
and forward calls.

In approving the experiment, New Jersey utilities commissioner George
Barbour said the only way to judge Call Identification fairly would be
to test the service.

But the utilities board will investigate whether its use could be
restricted and whether a beep tone or other signal could be developed to
let callers know that the called party subscribes to the service.

Excepting Call Identification and Call Trace, CLASS will cost
residential users $4 per month for the first service and $1.50 per month
for each additional service.

Business users will pay $6 per month for the first service and $2 per
month for each additional service.  Call Trace will cost $1 per
successful trace.

Call Identification will cost $6.50 per month for residential customers
and $8.50 per month for business users.  The display attachment, about
$65, is expected at electronics stores sometime this fall.

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

Date: Tue 29 Sep 87 23:43:16-EDT
From: Philip A. Earnhardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Error reporting by MCI

I recently attempted to make a long-distance call with MCI. The call did not
go through; the recording suggested that I call MCI and check on the status
of my account. The MCI account rep. didn't notice anything wrong with th
account. She did try the number I was calling and verified that it was just
a wrong number.

This seems an exceedingly cumbersome (and costly) mechanism for a LD carrier
to handle a wrong number. Is there some technical reason that MCI is doing
so badly, or is this broken for the normal reason?

--phil

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

Date: 30 Sep 87 01:53:46 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: "no main list"

If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
that and having it "unlisted"?

_H*

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

From: Wes Morgan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 29 Sep 87 13:46:19 GMT


[e-mail] (eliot lear) writes:
>
>
> How many people would like to know who is calling them before they
> pick up a phone?

I sure would...now if I can just wire in a busy signal for the folks
I don't want to talk with........

> The question of the day: Is it
> legal?  What if you have an unlisted number and do not want it
> revealed?  Has Ma Belle Broken a contract she made with you?
>
Hmmmmmm.....it seems me that unlisted numbers should be protected in
some way.  Now, Ma Bell might charge you for this additional protection,
but if they offer it to you, they are effectively out of their contractual
obligations.  The mere fact that it was available to you and you didn't take
it negates the contract.  <I think>....


> --
> Eliot Lear
> [[e-mail]]


Wes Morgan

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

From: mimsy!cvl!decuac!netsys![e-mail] (Len Rose)
Subject: Re: my new FONCARD
Date: 30 Sep 87 02:41:23 GMT
Reply-To: mimsy!cvl!decuac!netsys![e-mail] (Len Rose)


In article <[e-mail]> "Christopher A. Kent" <[e-mail]> writes:
>Advantages? I can see only disadvantages. It used to be that I could go
>to most any phone in most any large city and dial 950-0777 and get a
>Sprint dialtone. Then I entered my 9 digit access code, which was short
>enough to memorize, and dialed away.
>
>Now, I have to either memorize a new access number + a fourteen-digit
>Lose it and grant some sucker free reign over your phone bill.
>
>I'd like to know what bright boy at Sprint thought this up, so I could
>write him a nastygram personally; so far I've only been able to point my
>venom at Customeer Disservice. Even Ma Bell knows better than this.

Chris..the problem is that without going to this particular format,they
would lose millions of dollars to people using "hacker" programs coupled
to a pc and reaping hundreds of valid 9 digit codes.

Unfortunately,it will only take a short while for the people writing
these "hacker" programs to increase their dialing digits and random
number routines to cope with it..

The only way to solve this form of telephone fraud is to put ANI on
each 950 dialup and spend megabucks prosecuting the hackers.


Believe me,they had no choice.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1987 11:49 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: my new FONCARD


> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 87 13:36:47 edt
> From: [e-mail] (Seth Benjamin Rothenberg)
> Subject: Re: my new FONCARD

> Reading the fine print, I found that the FONCARD is valid only
> for calls on Sprint's Fiber Optic Network(FON).  To use the
> FON costs roughly twice what it costs to use the regular nextwork.
> I threw mine out.
> Seth Rothenberg
> [e-mail]

I just called a customer service representative at US Sprint (phone
number is 1-800-531-4646, if anyone else wants to call) and asked
about the FONCARD and cost.  I learned that the FONCARD can be used
just like any other telephone credit card, and that, just like any
other credit card, there is a surcharge for using it.  The surcharge
for inter- and intra-state calls is $0.55.  Evidently, MCI and AT&T
have higher surcharges for inter-state calls.

For those of us who have been old, loyal GTE customers, this $.55
surcharge is new, but I guess unavoidable, since all the other
long distance companies charge surcharges.

I complained about the new access code, and the CSR indicated that
US Sprint is receiving a lot of complaints, but, as I expected, he
indicated that the long access codes are for our security -- to
prevent unauthorized use of credit cards.

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

Date: 30 Sep 87 10:54:22 PDT (Wednesday)
Subject: Re: my new FONCARD
From: [e-mail]


I received one of the new FONCARDs about a month ago. My understanding
is that Sprint introduced the new system, with longer acct numbers that
you listen for a voice prompt before typing in, is to make it more
difficult for computers to access their network (under the theory that
this is how crackers find acct numbers, they keep trying random digits
until one works).

Personally, I dislike the FONCARDs for the same reasons as everybody
else. Maybe it's time to call MCI...

/Don

PS. A co-worker whose home phone is in the same exchange as mine just
received a letter saying that since Dial-1 service is now available
they're turning off 950-XXXX access for his account. The interesting
part is that our exchange won't have Dial-1 service for another two
years (a call to the local TelCo confirmed this). I didn't receive a
similar letter, so maybe it was sent in error. Otherwise Sprint will be
losing at least two customers.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
 6-Oct-87 19:37:41-EDT,13055;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at  6-Oct-87 10:48:59
Date: 6 Oct 87 10:48-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #4
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 6, 1987 10:48AM
Volume 8, Issue 4

Today's Topics:

                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                           Sprint mistakes
                          Re: "no main list"
                          Re: my new FONCARD
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                        Re: RingMaster service
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                              Call Trace

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

From: [e-mail] (Ian Clements)
Date: 2 Oct 87 02:07:29 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: sgi!ian
From: [e-mail] (Ian Clements)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CLASS
Summary: Great !  It's about time.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Oct 87 02:07:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 12


It's about time that this service is offered.  As someone who has recieved
many crank calls and finding out that the phone company basicly can't do
anything unless the caller made "life threatining" remarks, I find this
useful.  What better way to great a crank caller than by telling that person
where they are calling from !

Since most CO's are digitaly switched I would assume that those whose numbers
are unlisted could easily be programmed out.

[e-mail]
"On a clear disk You can Seek forever !"

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

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 12:37:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Sam Ho)
Subject: Sprint mistakes


We also got a letter stating that 950-0777 service would be shut off
immediately, since Dial 1 service was now available, and to just dial
1+ phone number to automatically route calls to Sprint.  Unfortunately
for Sprint, our primary LD carrier is MCI, and 1+ calls do indeed go to
MCI.  It looks like Sprint sent out those letters to a lot of people
who shouldn't have got them.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 13:14:10 PDT
From: amdahl![e-mail] (Generic UUCP user)

Last, but not least, manufacturers understand that in order sell ISDN
equipment, such equipment will have to be compatible with the current Public
Switched Network and with functions provided by and within it;  therefore,
initially
Path: amdahl!fai!stevem
From: [e-mail] (Steve Minneman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ISDN Summary
Keywords: ISDN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Oct 87 18:28:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Minneman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 38


In article <[e-mail]> mit-amt![e-mail] (Jim Davis) writes:
>
>I'm looking for a discussion of ISDN, on about the technical level of IEEE
>Spectrum or CACM.  I'm especially interested in how it affects user
>interface.  For example, now that DTMF is not used for signalling (the D
>channel handles that) can I be sure I'll be able to control e.g. my home
>answering machine remotely?  Now I *don't* want someone to answer
>this quesion, nor do I want to read the Specifications (which are surely
>overkill):  what I want are pointers to decent summaries, even up
>to book length.
>
First, you must understand that the ISDN is still in the definition process --
there are still holes in the definition and there are conflicts between some of
the definitions generated by 2 or 3 main groups who are defining it.

Secondly, because the lower layers are still being defined, there is very
little printed matter available in the form of summaries, especially as it
applies to the user interface.

Every effort is being made during the definition process to not define the
user interface.  This is being left to the manufacturers (that's how they
distinguish their equipment from that of another manufacturers').  The
definition of the ISDN is being accomplished in a form which hopefully
maximimizes the extent to which existing applications can be implemented in
or interfaced to the ISDN with their user interface intact.

Last, but not least, manufacturers understand that in order sell ISDN
equipment, such equipment will have to be compatible with the current Public
Switched Network and with functions provided by and within it;  therefore,
initially (and probably for a very long time) ISDN equipment will be
compatible with existing facilities and functions (if you plan to be able to
sell it).
--

        Steven A. Minneman (Fujitsu America Inc, San Jose, Ca)
        !seismo!amdahl!fai!stevem

The best government is no government at all.

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

From: steinmetz!davidsen@steinmetz. (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: "no main list"
Date: 2 Oct 87 17:03:17 GMT
Reply-To: crdos1![e-mail] (bill davidsen)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (*Hobbit*) writes:
|If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
|that and having it "unlisted"?

If your number is unlisted it is not available from directory
assistance. If it is "no main list" is isn't in the phone book, but can
be gotten by anyone on request. That's what my business office thinks,
anyway.
--
    bill davidsen        ([e-mail])
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Hofkin)
Subject: Re: my new FONCARD
Date: 2 Oct 87 23:08:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Hofkin)


A Sprint representative told me that the 950 numbers would be going
away soon.

On a tangent, the Sprint bill I got today had as letter fro Robert H.
Snedaker, Jr., the president, promising that the billing system will
be back on scheduyle real soon now.  Tough, I already switched to MCI.
Five months of harrassment from the receivables management department
(threatening legal action when I already had my cancelled check back
-- repeatedly!) was too much.  Quoth the service rep, "We hope our
old customers come back, because we always intend to have the cheapest
rates."  You get what you pay for, apparently.

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

From: steinmetz!davidsen@steinmetz. (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 2 Oct 87 17:08:21 GMT
Reply-To: crdos1![e-mail] (bill davidsen)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:
|
|I sure would...now if I can just wire in a busy signal for the folks
|I don't want to talk with........
|
|> The question of the day: Is it
|> legal?  What if you have an unlisted number and do not want it
|> revealed?  Has Ma Belle Broken a contract she made with you?
|>
|Hmmmmmm.....it seems me that unlisted numbers should be protected in
|some way.  Now, Ma Bell might charge you for this additional protection,
|but if they offer it to you, they are effectively out of their contractual
|obligations.  The mere fact that it was available to you and you didn't take
|it negates the contract.  <I think>....

I would not see a problem here. Your number is unlisted, but you can
give it to people if you choose. I don't see that giving the number by
calling someone is in need of protection. If you don't want them to have
your number, don't call. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to make
untraceable calls, and it defeats the reason for having the "know your
caller" service.
--
    bill davidsen        ([e-mail])
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

From: News Owner <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Oct 87 03:45:18 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: watmath!utgpu!taras
From: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: RingMaster service
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Oct 87 02:16:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Lines: 21
Checksum: 62402

In article <[e-mail]> think!ima![e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:
# Sounds like a clever way to get some revenue from CO equipment that has to be
# present anyway to support the dwindling number of party lines.


I dunno.  All the new equipment is electronic and does not require any
extra hardware to support RingMaster service.  Party line service was
supported on step by step type exchanges, amoung others, and I am sure
that some poor old telco engineer would not want to install that equipment
on their new modern exchanges.  Besides that old equipment is usually more
valuable as scrap.
--

                 Taras Pryjma
                uucp: [e-mail]
                bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
                Bell: [phone]

Fear is never boring.    hmmm.  hmmmm.
                    YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn those trap doors!  Yup.  Fear is never boring.

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

From: "T. Pryjma" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RingMaster service
Date: 4 Oct 87 02:16:53 GMT
Reply-To: "T. Pryjma" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> think!ima![e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:
# Sounds like a clever way to get some revenue from CO equipment that has to be
# present anyway to support the dwindling number of party lines.


I dunno.  All the new equipment is electronic and does not require any
extra hardware to support RingMaster service.  Party line service was
supported on step by step type exchanges, amoung others, and I am sure
that some poor old telco engineer would not want to install that equipment
on their new modern exchanges.  Besides that old equipment is usually more
valuable as scrap.
--

                 Taras Pryjma
                uucp: [e-mail]
                bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
                Bell: [phone]

Fear is never boring.    hmmm.  hmmmm.
                    YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn those trap doors!  Yup.  Fear is never boring.

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

Date: 6 Oct 87 04:31:53 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)

Path: flmis06!mikel
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: unlisted numbers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Oct 87 04:31:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T, Altamote Springs, FL
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>  I always got upset arguing with sales and wrong callers. My most successful
>  stretegies now: wrong numbers: "what number are you calling?" If not my
>  number, "you have misdialed". If my number, "where did you get that number"?
>  (note any repeats here from other callers-- they are a clue)-- then, "I'm
>  sorry, someone has given you the wrong number." For sales calls: "I don't
>  accept this kind of call, thank you" followed by hanging up immediately.

I used to get upset too, and try to complain to someone about sales calls,
but found that futile.

Recently I was agrevated when trying to make airline reservations, when I
received the message "Our computers are down at the moment, please try
again later". This gave me an idea when receiving sales/renewal/questionare
calls, I simply answer "Sorry, my computer is down at the moment." and
they never bother to call back.

It also probably leaves a lot of the clerks dumb founded, no expecting
to receive such a reply! :-)
--
                    Mikel Manitius @ AT&T
                    [e-mail]

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

Date:     Tue, 6 Oct 87 00:35 EST
From:        <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Call Trace

hello,

   It is very interesting thing. My home is at Pittsburgh, Pa. I wonder
if Alantic Bell will be serve Call ID and Call trace for protect our
abusive calls. It is useful for BBS to monitor unauthorized use to logins.

   I am very surprised that Sprint lose millions dollars for hackers stole
access codes. I felt sorry for you.

-- Tim Stark

BitNet: 11tstark@gallua
Arpanet: [e-mail] (note: new internet address soon)

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 6-Oct-87 19:39:28-EDT,11552;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at  6-Oct-87 10:56:29
Date: 6 Oct 87 10:50-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #5
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 6, 1987 10:50AM
Volume 8, Issue 5

Today's Topics:

                          Re: my new FONCARD
                            X.25 Gateways
                            "no main list"
                              ISDN notes
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
                      Re: Secure Cellular Phones
           Re: "separate data network" is silly speculation

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

Subject: Re: my new FONCARD
Reply-To: "Christopher A. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 13:42:44 -0700
From: [e-mail]

Perhaps it's time for us to call Sprint Customer Disservice and flame
at a few supervisors. They need to know why they're losing customers.

chris

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Lyall)
Subject: Re: my new FONCARD
Date: 30 Sep 87 20:50:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (0000-Pete Lyall)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seth Benjamin Rothenberg) writes:
>
>Reading the fine print, I found that the FONCARD is valid only
>for calls on Sprint's Fiber Optic Network(FON).  To use the
>FON costs roughly twice what it costs to use the regular nextwork.
>I threw mine out.

I called to see what the deal was and was told that the only
difference charge-wise was that there is an initial .50 charge when
you use the card. You can however terminate the first call and make
subsequent calls without redialing, or being re-charged. Is anyone
aware if this untrue, or if there are other gotchas??



--
                                                   Pete Lyall

Usenet:     {trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex}!wlbr!pete
Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 Sysop) OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud)

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

From: steinmetz![e-mail] (Mike Gionfriddo)
Subject: X.25 Gateways
Date: 30 Sep 87 22:19:21 GMT


We are undertaking a project to allow our minicomputer product (Search) to
have a gateway into our on-line service via an X.25 connection (Telenet).
Initially, this gateway will be for "dial-in" service only, but eventually we
would like to have Search to be able to communicate to our on-line service
with some application specific protocol.  We must also permit an X.25
connection to exist on a LAN environment.  This project is geared towards
the university environment, hence our solution for an X.25 connection
must be flexible.  Search runs under UNIX, VMS, VM/CMS, and MS/DOS and
supports a number of hardware configurations.  The product is written entirely
in C.  I am looking for any advice in this area, however I have a few
specific questions.

1) Assuming a site has a Telenet connection, am I looking at a hardware and
   software combination solution.

2) Is there a software product available that will allow my application to
   tap the X.25 connection directly from either the host or LAN?  Ideally,
   something in the form of a library of function calls.

3) What type of LAN environments should I expect in a university environment?
   Will every LAN - X.25 configuration be different?

4) What are the costs of some of these communication packages?

We would like to form an alliance with some software/hardware/communications
organizations that can provide solutions for our networking/communications
needs instead of re-inventing the wheel.  Please reply via mail.  If
there is enough interest I will post a follow-up.  Thanks in advance.
--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||  Mike Gionfriddo  ||  [e-mail]          ||  Umm, my favorite soup,  ||
||  [phone]   ||  ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1  ||     Cream of Nowhere     ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

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

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 19:23:57 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "no main list"

   Date: 30 Sep 87 01:53:46 EDT
   From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
   Resent-Date: Wed 30 Sep 87 16:27:48-EDT
   Resent-From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
   Resent-Sender: [e-mail]
   Resent-To: ;@Telecom-Individual-Recipients

   If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
   that and having it "unlisted"?

   _H*
   -------

Easy, you can get the number from your local Directory Assistance operator.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 20:53:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "no main list"

> If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
> that and having it "unlisted"?

They will still give it out at Directory Assistance.
                                ...Keith

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 12:38:15 PDT
Subject: ISDN notes

 MSG:FROM: SPGDCM  --UCBCMSA  TO: NETWORK --NETWORK           09/30/87 12:38:13
 To: NETWORK --NETWORK  Network Address

 From:    Doug Mosher                 <SPGDCM at UCBCMSA>
          MVS/Tandem Systems Manager  [phone]
          Evans 257, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
 Subject: ISDN notes

 To: [e-mail]

 Jim Davis asked for a pointer to ISDN specs, and did not want an answer to his
 example question. I am, however, commenting on that question for others who
 may be interested. I have some questions myself, and would rather not have to
 research the spec.

 My understanding is as follows:

 Once a voice connection is completed, by existing equipment or by newly
 proposed ISDN equipment, one may then send "in-band" (voice-frequency) tones
 across the wire, and receive them at the other end, as one pleases. For
 example, one could call existing answering machines, use bank information
 services, use modems in the old style, or play Yankee Doodle for that matter.

 If one wants, there will be newer ways to set up calls, signal, or send data;
 but these are optional, require the user to do something new, etc. The
 existing processes are not obsoleted.

 An example of this, of sorts, is at UC Berkeley, where we use DMS-100
 equipment. This equipment does all its "dialing", and even multi-button phone
 operations, using out-of-band ISDN signalling. But once a connection is made,

 (a) if one creates tones externally (external beepers, sponge-cup acoustic
 couplers), and act upon these tones externally (at one's answering machine or
 regular modem at the other end), the tones still act as before.

 (b) the DMS-100 instruments even try to "help out"; normally the numeric
 keypad actuates the newer ISDN signalling. But once a connection is made, the
 system reacts to keypad use by emitting the older DTMF tones on the line, to
 be helpful. The actual process is to use ISDN signalling from one's phone to
 the central equipment, which then issues the DTMF tones on the circuit.

 (c) the PHYSICAL connection to external devices such as direct-connect modems,
 is, however, limited. To use a direct-connect modem here, or an answering
 machine, one must order a different type of circuit.

 We also participated in an experiment, during which I had a "DOV" unit (data
 over voice) at my home, and we had special equipment at the University. My
 home DOV box split the line into two plugs, one of which handled packet data
 at "9600 baud", and the other of which acted exactly like my regular home
 phone. While using my terminal on the new circuit, I could dial, send and
 receive calls, run my answering machine, and even run a second terminal
 connection using my modem, at the same time.

 This leaves open one ambiguity. If both the sender and receiver use
 "old-style" equipment, it appears things will remain the same and will work.
 If one uses a newer style circuit to call an older-style circuit, some aspects
 still operate. But if one adopts a newer ISDN circuit, for example at one's
 home, will this be similar to the university DMS-100 equipment, and make me
 forego my answering machine and modem, or will it be like the DOV connection,
 and allow both?

   8  ISDN notes

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

From: moss!ihuxv![e-mail] (Kekatos)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 30 Sep 87 20:23:14 GMT
Reply-To: moss!ihuxv![e-mail] (55624-Kekatos,T.G.)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (eliot lear) writes:
>
>
>How many people would like to know who is calling them before they
>pick up a phone?  NJ Bell has developed a service that will tell you
>the number of the person on the other end.  Word is that they will
>begin betatesting around November.  The question of the day: Is it
>legal?  What if you have an unlisted number and do not want it
>revealed?  Has Ma Belle Broken a contract she made with you?
>
>--
>Eliot Lear
>[[e-mail]]

Dear Eliot,
This fab new feature is brought to you by the labor of your buddies
here at AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill. It's called.....

IIIIIIII      SSSSSSS      DDDDDD      NNNN      NNN
   II        SSS     S     DD    D      NN N     NN
   II        SSS           DD     D     NN  N    NN
   II         SSSSS        DD     D     NN   N   NN
   II           SSSSS      DD     D     NN    N  NN
   II              SSS     DD     D     NN     N NN
   II        S     SSS     DD    D      NN      NNN
IIIIIIII      SSSSSSS      DDDDDD      NNNN      NNN

Yes, all the legal queations have been answered. There
is a option where the caller can withhold the display of
their directory number

   -- Ted --

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

From: decvax!utzoo![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 07:15:08 edt
Subject: Re: Secure Cellular Phones

> ... I can understand the secrecy regarding technical details,
> but can't see why the price would be restricted information.

To interfere with the inevitable Congressional investigation of why it
cost so much, of course!

                Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

From: decvax!utzoo![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 07:15:28 edt
Subject: Re: "separate data network" is silly speculation

> ... [ISDN] ... The resultant network would provide
> 64kbps circuit switching and voice (digitized at 64kbps) for about the
> same price, over the same lines, and throw in access to X.25 as well.

I feel compelled to inject a cynical comment here.  Anyone who thinks that
ISDN will be as cheap as analog voice service any time before the year 2100
is dreaming.  Until such time as ISDN becomes the default for POTS (Plain
Old Telephone Service), the phone companies will have enormous incentive
to charge all the traffic will bear, to help keep the POTS price down.

                Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 6-Oct-87 20:45:24-EDT,12290;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP; Tue 6 Oct 87 20:45:19-EDT
Date: 6 Oct 87 10:53-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #6
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 6, 1987 10:53AM
Volume 8, Issue 6

Today's Topics:

                         TELECOM Digest V8 #1
                       Charges for "unlisting"
                   "Auctioning" a telephone number?
           England to United States collect: on payphones!
                          Re: "no main list"
    Favorite responses to "wrong number" (was - unlisted numbers)
                          Re: my new FONCARD
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                                CLASS
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell

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

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 87 08:59:47 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #1

> Date: 25 Sep 87 22:47:49 PDT (Friday)
> From: Paul Gloger <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Listed Unlisted Number
> Reply-To: Paul Gloger <[e-mail]>
>
> I would like to have a home phone number unlisted, at least effectively
> so.  I seem to have the choice of either paying my local phone company
> (Pac Bell) to unlist it; or having it listed under a made-up name with
> an unlisted address, which the phone company will do for free.
>
> The made-up-name ploy is cheaper than unlisting, and seems just as good
> in every other respect.  Is there any reason I shouldn't do it?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Gloger <[e-mail]>
>
Because it's very illegal.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 09:51:39 MDT
From: William G. Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charges for "unlisting"

Does anyone know how the telcos now justify their charges for "unlisting"
now that they also charge for Directory Assistance? If anyone out there
has access to the data presented to their state's Public Service (or Public
Utilities, or whatever) Commission, I'd be interested to hear just what
argument a local telco now gives for charging customers to NOT be listed
in their various directories or number-giving services.

It was my understanding that, in past years, these charges were justified
by an increased load on Information or Directory Assistance, which was then
free; you were charged some fee for an unlisted number because people
couldn't find you in the directory and called Information, who then
expended resources to discover that you were unlisted and told the caller
that. This cost the telco some money, of course, so they charged the
person who was not listed to make up for it. Annoying but logical.

Now, though, the situation is changed. The telcos make money from calls
to Information/Diretory Assistance! They charge for most (or all) of such
calls, so they should be happy to have vast numbers of "unlisted"
subscribers generating extra revenue via fruitless Information calls.
So how do they NOW justify charging subscribers to be "unlisted"?

I'd like to know what creative excuses they've dreamed up...

Regards,
Will Martin
"[e-mail]"

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 10:09:54 MDT
From: William G. Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Auctioning" a telephone number?

I'm the executor of my mother's estate, and it occurs to me that I may be
remiss in my duties if I don't explore this possibility:

The home telephone number she had for decades is one I would expect a
business would want -- it is repetitive, easy to remember, and would
look good on a business card or letterhead -- it happens to be "771-1020".

If I just cancel this telephone service, that number goes back into the
pool of unassigned numbers and would eventually get assigned by the
telco (I don't know what procedure they follow -- anyone have any idea?
Do they hold given-up numbers for "n" months, and do they charge you
extra if you request a specific available number?). I would think that
the estate should profit somehow from the value of this number -- that
it should be able to offer to turn it over to a new business that is in
that exchange area (or do such geographic restrictions on an exchange no
longer apply?) for some finanial consideration, so the estate gets the benefit
rather than the telco. The telco would just be presented with a request to
terminate the existing serice and install the business's service with this
number and only charge the normal installation fees.

Anyone ever hear of such a thing happening before? Is it a reasonable
thing to do, or totally off-the-wall? Any suggestions, comments, or advice?

Regards,
Will Martin
"[e-mail]"

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

From: umix!itivax!chinet![e-mail] (David J. Carpenter)
Subject: England to United States collect: on payphones!
Date: 1 Oct 87 02:24:06 GMT


A friend of mine told me an interesting story.  Several students from the
university which he attends took a trip to England and got homesick.  So they
called their home campus from an England payphone collect, to a payphone
in the dormitory.  The U.S. party gladly "accepted the charges" from the
British operator, and they talked for two hours.

Suddenly, the connection was broken, and a U.S. operator
got on the line and asked "Who is this?  Is this your personal phone? [Yes]
Who is going to pay for this call? [I am, of course]. Well what is your
name?  [CLICK]".  The college student got cold feet.

Why was this possible in the first place?  How did the local phone company
finally after two hours figure out what was going on?  Who is really going to
pay for that call?
--
                    ...!ihnp4!chinet!qpsn!david
                    David Carpenter
                    [home] [phone]
                    [work] [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Rosenstein)
Subject: Re: "no main list"
Date: 1 Oct 87 17:56:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark A. Rosenstein)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (*Hobbit*) writes:
>If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
>that and having it "unlisted"?
>
>_H*
>-------

There are three directories: the printed phonebook, the one that
information operators look things up in, and the complete listing.
Non-published (as opposed to non-listed) means that the number isn't
in the printed phonebook, but information will give someone the
number.  This avoids calls from people who scan phonebooks, but still
allows someone who knows your name to get your number.  There are a
lot of numbers that information has that are not in the published
phonebook.  For example, in many places the phone company refuses to
publish the numbers for lesbian and gay organizations, although the
numbers are available through information.
                    -Mark

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph Hightower)
Subject: Favorite responses to "wrong number" (was - unlisted numbers)
Date: 1 Oct 87 16:40:50 GMT
Reply-To: ncrcae![e-mail] (Ralph Hightower)


When somebody dials a wrong number at my home and asks "Can I speak to
So-And-So?", I answer "No.".  If that doesn't put them off and they demand
to know why, I reply that So-And-So never doesn't live here, never has, and
never will.  I get offended at frequent wrong numbers and telephone
solicitors wanting to sell me something or ask for donations.

Also offensive are those callers that say "Congratulations!! You have won a
free trip to Hawaii.  All we need is your credit card number."  In my
opinion, you are setting yourself up for credit card charges charged by
someone not authorized to use your card.

It has been very pleasant at our house since we moved.  We had the phone
company disconnect our old service with no automatic new number referral.
That way anybody that calls us at the old number will get "That service is
disconnected."  They have to call directory assistance to get our new
number.  We haven't had any telephone sales calls at our new home.  Sigh, I
wish there was a service that did not allow sales calls to get through.

ralph@ncrcae

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

From: hqda-ai![e-mail] (David S. Hayes)
Subject: Re: my new FONCARD
Date: 1 Oct 87 18:47:41 GMT


In article <870930-113144-2280@Xerox>, [e-mail] writes:
> Personally, I dislike the FONCARDs for the same reasons as everybody
> else. Maybe it's time to call MCI...

     I dislike them for the $0.55 surcharge.  I used to have a
9-digit Travelcode number, to use with the 950-0777 access
service.  The Travelcode calls did not have a surcharge.

     When Sprint sent me a FONCard, they turned off my Travelcode.
I have not used my FONCard, and I will not use it, until they get
rid of the surcharge.  I used to make occassional personal calls
from work.  With the Travelcode, I could easily have them billed
to my home number.  Now, it costs 55 cents to do that.  Result:  I
make no daytime calls, and Sprint loses the revenue from those
peak-rate calls.

     I used Sprint for one reason:  THEY'RE CHEAP.  Now, maybe
I'll give AT&T a call, and check out the "Reach Out America" plan.

--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon    PhoneNet:  [phone]
UUCP:  *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin    ARPA:  [e-mail]

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

From: USENET news <aurora![e-mail]>
Date: 1 Oct 87 20:08:56 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: aurora!labrea!rocky!andy
From: [e-mail] (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Oct 87 19:50:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andy Freeman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Department
Lines: 19

There is a simple, but expensive, way to get around most of the
problems with an unlisted number when the caller's number is revealed.
Namely, get two lines and disable the ringer on one and use it
for outgoing calls and unlist the other.  Then all you have to
worry about is an association between the listed phone's number
and you.  The first thing is to de-list its address.  Perhaps
a wrong name as well.  Then all you have to worry about is
phone company security :-), and whether they give out information
they shouldn't :-(.

-andy

ps - It may be cheapter to just use a pay phone for calls to
people who shouldn't have your number.
--
Andy Freeman
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!sushi.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  [e-mail]
[phone]/723-3088 home/cubicle

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 20:16:18 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Subject: CLASS

Is this test scheduled for other areas?

--
# Henry Mensch / <[e-mail]> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
#      {ames,cca,rochester,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry

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

Date: Thu,  1 Oct 87 20:21:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Seth Benjamin Rothenberg)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell


This question makes me think of the 2 minutes-to-trace claim.
Now that the long distance carriers need to know the calling
number prior to completing a call, the equipment is in place
so that a trace should be instantaneous.  It may require that
the tracee be switched onto the same equipment as the 950-
exchanges use, but that should not be hard.  Does anyone
know if the time has, in fact, decreased?

And No, I don't want people to know where I am calling from.
If I say I am at home, I don't want them to know I am at
{the movies, ball park, concert}...
           Seth

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 8-Oct-87 18:18:30-EDT,10694;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at  8-Oct-87 11:25:38
Date: 8 Oct 87 11:23-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #7
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 8, 1987 11:23AM
Volume 8, Issue 7

Today's Topics:

                         Re: Sprint mistakes
                     Re: Charges for "unlisting"
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
           all this new stuff has been confusedly presented
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell

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

Date: 6 Oct 87 12:53:00 EDT (Tue)
From: Boss Hog <[e-mail]>

living together
Path: array!dciem!utzoo!utgpu!taras
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: RingMaster service
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Oct 87 02:16:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Lines: 21
Posted: Sat Oct  3 22:16:53 1987
Checksum: 62402


In article <[e-mail]> think!ima![e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:
# Sounds like a clever way to get some revenue from CO equipment that has to be
# present anyway to support the dwindling number of party lines.


I dunno.  All the new equipment is electronic and does not require any
extra hardware to support RingMaster service.  Party line service was
supported on step by step type exchanges, amoung others, and I am sure
that some poor old telco engineer would not want to install that equipment
on their new modern exchanges.  Besides that old equipment is usually more
valuable as scrap.
--

                 Taras Pryjma
                uucp: [e-mail]
                bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
                Bell: [phone]

Fear is never boring.    hmmm.  hmmmm.
                    YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn those trap doors!  Yup.  Fear is never boring.

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

Date: 6 October 1987, 09:48:30 EDT
From: John Pershing <[e-mail]>

"Unlisted Number" means just that: unlisted.  It does *not* mean secret.

Personally, I think that Call Identification is a great idea -- if you
can call me (and annoy me) from your unlisted phone, then I can now turn
the tables around.  Fantastic!

      John A. Pershing Jr.
      T.J. Watson Research Center
      Yorktown Heights

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: Re: Sprint mistakes
Date: 7 Oct 87 02:21:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sam Ho) writes:

> We also got a letter stating that 950-0777 service would be shut off
> immediately, since Dial 1 service was now available, and to just dial
> 1+ phone number to automatically route calls to Sprint.  Unfortunately
> for Sprint, our primary LD carrier is MCI, and 1+ calls do indeed go to
> MCI.  It looks like Sprint sent out those letters to a lot of people
> who shouldn't have got them.

Yes, but if you have an account set up, (and even if you don't) calls
prefixed with 10777 1+AC+# will go on Sprint in all areas with Dial 1
service, and therefore 950-0777 is unnecessary except for calling card
like service.
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604, CN 5063        that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903   {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
[e-mail]  {backbone}!rutgers!unirot!msmith

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

From: rti.uucp![e-mail] (Thomas Truscott)
Subject: Re: Charges for "unlisting"
Date: 7 Oct 87 04:02:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William G. Martin) writes:
> Does anyone know how the telcos now justify their charges for "unlisting"
> now that they also charge for Directory Assistance? ...

I can not answer this question, although "special processing"
and "loss of information => reduced value of phonebook" comes to mind.

The indirect question I *can* answer is "how can one avoid this extra charge?"
The answer is: list the number in someone else's name,
just have it billed to you.
Parents do this for their kids, you can do it for your pet cat.
At home we have a second phone line for a modem.
Our friends would call it by mistake until we changed its listing to:
    Unix, Guru  3916 Brixton Ln ........ 489-6289
The modem does not answer, so we don't worry about prank calls.
The telephone service person laughed and laughed, but sent it through.
    Tom Truscott
P.S. Out of paranoia, I never say "modem" when talking to the telco.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Gunshannon)
Date: 5 Oct 87 13:00:49 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: trotter!bill
From: [e-mail] (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "no main list"
Summary: just my concept
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Oct 87 13:00:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: US Military Academy, West Point, NY
Lines: 16

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (*Hobbit*) writes:
> If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
> that and having it "unlisted"?
>

If I remember correctly unlisted also means you can't get it from directory
assistance.

bill gunshannon


UUCP: {philabs}\             US SNAIL: Martin Marietta Data Systems
      {phri   } >!trotter.usma.edu!bill           USMA, Bldg 600, Room 26
      {sunybcs}/                      West Point, NY  10996
RADIO:         KB3YV                PHONE: WORK    [phone]
AX.25:         KB3YV @ K3RLI            PHONE: HOME    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 13:35:57 EDT
From: genat![e-mail] (0000-uucp(0000))

like this is needed to handle matters when things get nasty.  Does
a good job on Q's security guard in the court scene.

The Empath:  Lousy name, but I think a potentially good character.  We will
see how she is developed in the series.

Wes: Just what the Enterprise needs, a snotty precocious kid.  I hope
they tahey don't to any 'Wes plays with the double-talk generator and
gets the Enterprise in letal danger" shows.

Gordy
Path: genat!mnetor!utgpu!taras
From: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: RingMaster service
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Oct 87 02:16:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Lines: 21
Checksum: 62402



In article <[e-mail]> think!ima![e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:
# Sounds like a clever way to get some revenue from CO equipment that has to be
# present anyway to support the dwindling number of party lines.


I dunno.  All the new equipment is electronic and does not require any
extra hardware to support RingMaster service.  Party line service was
supported on step by step type exchanges, amoung others, and I am sure
that some poor old telco engineer would not want to install that equipment
on their new modern exchanges.  Besides that old equipment is usually more
valuable as scrap.
--

                 Taras Pryjma
                uucp: [e-mail]
                bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
                Bell: [phone]

Fear is never boring.    hmmm.  hmmmm.
                    YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn those trap doors!  Yup.  Fear is never boring.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 7 Oct 87 16:40:20 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: sgi!mtoy
From: [e-mail] (Michael Toy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Know who called you
Keywords: wrong numbers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Oct 87 16:40:18 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 5

Having just experienced a couple of obscene phone calls, I really like the
idea of knowing who is calling me.  This may be just over-reacting but right
now I'd pay a lot just for the good feeling of knowing that if that guy
ever calls again, I'll "get him."

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

Date: 7 Oct 87 18:50:08 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: all this new stuff has been confusedly presented

Okay, my recent reading of Telecom has raised many questions.  Could some
persons who know provide the following info:

Is this new "ID the caller" beta-test service handled by / the same as /
utterly unrelated to / etc ISDN?

Exactly, and by this I mean electrically down to the bit level, how does
the beta-test service [I forget its name offhand] work?  How is the number
of the caller passed to the recipient's equipment, and what is required on
the called end to display it?  [I'm thinking "build my own" here...]

It seems to me that for this service to work the caller must be in an office
where the service is being tested too.  Present ["normal"] offices wouldn't
have the capability to pass a packet containing the caller's number to the
destination end, right?  Is this packet the same kind of thing an office
passes to a TSPS on 0+ calls?  Grubby internal details, please??

And finally, where is the documentation for ISDN protocols located?

_H*

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Kaufman)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 8 Oct 87 00:53:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marc Kaufman)


In article <[e-mail]> moss!ihuxv![e-mail] (55624-Kekatos,T.G.) writes:

.>begin betatesting around November.  The question of the day: Is it
.>legal?  What if you have an unlisted number and do not want it
.>revealed?  Has Ma Belle Broken a contract she made with you?

(re: ISDN)...
>Yes, all the legal queations have been answered. There
>is a option where the caller can withhold the display of
>their directory number

However.. the current specification for ISDN 911 calls provides that
the call will NOT go through if the caller withholds the number!

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
15-Oct-87 21:35:40-EDT,13121;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at 15-Oct-87 20:44:48
Date: 15 Oct 87 20:34-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #9
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 15, 1987 8:34PM
Volume 8, Issue 9

Today's Topics:

                     touch-tone phones in London?
                    My adventures with U.S. Sprint
                 Re: "Auctioning" a telephone number?
                         TTY/TDDs and Baudot
                          Re: "no main list"
                         Dial In/Out Control
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                          US Sprint FON Card

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

Notes from the editor:

Im going to be vacationing in sunny CA from Friday 10/16 (tomarrow)
to Sunday 10/25. During this time JSOL will be doing my digesting
for me.

Also, a few people have not given me enough time to complete
a request to add/delete a name from the list before they send another
one. One of the main reasons for a delay is that I send the new
digest BEFORE I make changes to the distribution list. (There are
some sane reasons for doing this, although it may look rather
illogical). A few of your requests just plain and simply have not been
possible to be processed (like a name not being on the list to begin
with), and several time when I have mailed back asking for further
clarification on these, the mailer bounces them back. SIgh!!

Im still pretty new to this, and am getting the hang of it. Please
bear with me.

                                    Jim Dixon (Your friendly Moderator)

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

Date: Sun, 11 Oct 87 23:52:04 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Subject: touch-tone phones in London?

I'm spending a few weeks in London and I'm curious to know whether or
not I'll be able to use "touch-tone" type phones there to pick up
messages on my answering machine.

--
# Henry Mensch / <[e-mail]> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
#      {ames,cca,rochester,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 20:58:07 CDT
From: kvue![e-mail]
Subject: My adventures with U.S. Sprint


Recently, my wife and I were contacted by a representative of U.S.  Sprint
who informed us that "Sprint One-Plus service is now available in your
area", and asked us to "confirm our address".  At no time during the
conversation did the representative ask us to change our direct access LD
carrier to Sprint, nor inform us that she would change our LD carrier, and
we did not agree to such a change.

We immediately contacted a Sprint Customer Service representative at the
800 number, related the story, and asked Sprint not to take any further
action.  The rep told us that he would "flag our account" and that Sprint
would _not_ request Southwestern Bell to change our carrier.

We also sent a notarized letter to Southwestern Bell (at Bell's request)
stating that we did not want our direct access LD carrier changed without
our written permission.

However when our next Southwestern Bell invoice came, (about four weeks
later) there was a small note at the bottom of the bill informing us that
our new "Long Distance Carrier of Choice" was now U.S.  Sprint.  We were
charged $5.00 for the carrier change-over.

Southwestern Bell has agreed to change our LD carrier back to our original
carrier, remove the $5.00 charge from our bill, and back-charge U.S.
Sprint $5.00.  When asked why Southwestern Bell ignored my notarized
letter, a SW Bell customer service rep told me that they never received the
letter, and even if they did, it would have been on the wrong form anyway(!)
(They have since sent me the "correct" form to fill out - it had the same
wording as my letter!)

Southwestern Bell referred that situation to their "Specialty Group" for
investigation.  I was told this situation is becoming increasingly common
among the various LD carriers.

The Texas Public Utility Commission, while explaining that they had no
regulatory authority over Sprint, told me they had received numerous
complaints regarding this problem, and asked that I sent a formal complaint
to the Texas Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection.

We have done the following:
    Cancelled my service with U.S. Sprint.
    Sent SW Bell another letter asking that they not change my LD carrier.
    Sent formal complaints, in writing to: The President of U.S. Sprint,
        The Austin Better Business Bureau, The Texas AG Office of
        Consumer Protection, The FCC Consumer Affairs Division, and
        the Texas Public Utilities Commission.

(In the letter to U.S. Sprint, I mentioned that I was posting a
description of their actions to USENET, explaining what it was, and how
many people would probably read this.)

Each of the regulatory agencies will require U.S. Sprint to explain their
actions in this matter, in writing.

I would urge anyone treated like this by their LD carrier to cancel their
service immediately, and complain in writing to the appropriate regulatory
agency.  Slimy marketing techniques, like the ones used by U.S. Sprint, can
be eliminated if people complain loudly!

                        Regards,
                        Ed

                    Edward Sparks, KVUE-TV  Austin, TX   ([e-mail])
      {asci1,ihnp4,seismo,gatech,harvard,ctvax,ucbvax}!ut-sally!kvue!sparks

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

From: gatech!codas!aicchi![e-mail] (Burch)
Subject: Re: "Auctioning" a telephone number?
Date: 12 Oct 87 05:31:56 GMT
Reply-To: gatech!codas!aicchi![e-mail] (Burch)



Well, Will, you do not own your telephone number.  It may be changed at will
by the phone company.  When you give it up, any business in your exchange area
may request it, and the phone company will finally decide who gets it.  The
phone company would probably not allow you to sell the number to anybody else,
and need not honor the say if you did.  Sorry for quashing an otherwise good
idea.

--
-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analysts International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

"Argue for your limitations, and they are yours." - R. Bach

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Cuccia)
Subject: TTY/TDDs and Baudot
Date: 13 Oct 87 05:13:50 GMT
Reply-To: monet.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail] (Nick Cuccia)


Hello,

I have access to a TDD that my SO uses to call her deaf grandmother
in Connecticut.  I'm curious about how it works, but the manual that
came with it tells me nothing.  Therefore, I pose the following questions:

    (1) What form of Baudot does it use, and what five-bit codes
        correspond to what characters/figures?

    (2) What method is used for communication?  Is it a form of
        Frequency-Shift Keying, and if so, what are the frequencies
        used?

    (3) What data transfer rate is used, and what are corresponding
        bit lengths?

I would appreciate any answer, either directly concerning the above questions,
or that point to references that deal with TTY/TDD communication.

Thanks in advance,
--Nick Cuccia
[e-mail]

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

From: umix!ccd700![e-mail] (ron)
Subject: Re: "no main list"
Date: 12 Oct 87 02:37:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>    If the number doesn't appear in the directory, what's the difference between
>>    that and having it "unlisted"?
> Easy, you can get the number from your local Directory Assistance operator.

    some of these "bell" jerks think that the "no main list"
function is what we want when we mean "UNLISTED".  for a fact I
have obtained these numbers by stating the fact of a serious
situation.  This is not to say EMERGENCY!  some of the DAMM FOOL
 operators will put through a call just because some ass..... will
says it's important!.

    my sugestion is that ALL calls should be traced and the origin
be available to the CALLEE at NO CHARGE!   that will stop a lot of
crap going on today with jerks and the dammed computer FONE phreaks.

ronald r. tribble
...mibte!ccd700!ron

I love FIRE... flame me on this opinion all you want !!!!!!!!!!!

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

Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 06:54:32 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dial In/Out Control

We have a broadband LAN that has dial-in and dial out modems on it. We would
like to install some amount of control over these circuits. I have looked at
several vendor offerings but have not found a suitable device. Most of the
items I have reviewed are for dial-in use only and involve dial-back as a form
of control. The problem occurs on our dial-out circuits, its here that we want
to control user access. Currently the most "reasonable" suggestion is to use a
data switch, like the Gandalf PACX 2000. Does anyone on the net have any
suggestions. If so please contact me at:


            [e-mail]
                or
            [e-mail]

            Thomas Hinders
            Naval Surface Warfare Center
            [phone] or 1802
            Autovon 290 4225

                        Thanks,
                         Tom Hinders

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 1 Oct 87 19:50:21 GMT
Reply-To: rocky![e-mail] (Andy Freeman)


There is a simple, but expensive, way to get around most of the
problems with an unlisted number when the caller's number is revealed.
Namely, get two lines and disable the ringer on one and use it
for outgoing calls and unlist the other.  Then all you have to
worry about is an association between the listed phone's number
and you.  The first thing is to de-list its address.  Perhaps
a wrong name as well.  Then all you have to worry about is
phone company security :-), and whether they give out information
they shouldn't :-(.

-andy

ps - It may be cheapter to just use a pay phone for calls to
people who shouldn't have your number.
--
Andy Freeman
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!sushi.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  [e-mail]
[phone]/723-3088 home/cubicle

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

From: decvax!cg-atla![e-mail] (Andrew Duane X5993)
Date: 12 Oct 87 21:08:32 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: cg-atla!duane
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Duane X5993)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Question about new area code
Keywords: How do they do this
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Oct 87 21:08:32 GMT
Organization: Compugraphic Corp., Wilmington, Mass
Lines: 28


I just received my official notice about the new area code
going into effect in parts of Eastern Massachusets next year
(508). I am in the area that gets it, and have some questions
about how the phone company will be handling the switchover.

How will they (telco) be handling the transition. Will there be
a grace period where my old area-coded number will get a
recording about the new area code (and/or transferred to it)?
Is the switch going to be similar to NYCity's new area code?

Will they avoid duplicating exchanges for some amount of time
to avoid accidental wrong numbers?

Will any rates or services change? They talk about new business
cards and letterhead being necessary...they aren't going to
pay for this, so are they going to subsidize rates for a while (8-)

Any other interesting things about this procedure? I am really
interested in what is going on "behind the scenes" here.

Andrew L. Duane (JOT-7)  w:(617)-658-5600 X5993  h:(617)-475-9188
Compugraphic Corp.             decvax!cg-atla!duane
200 Ballardvale St.               ulowell/
Wilmington, Mass. 01887           cbosgd!ima/
Mail Stop 200II-3-5S             ism780c/

Only my cat shares my opinions, and she's out for the day.

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

Date:  Wed, 14 Oct 87 12:04 MST
From:  [e-mail] (Jim)
Subject:  US Sprint FON Card

When I received my new US Sprint FON card, I was asked whether I wanted
one or more additional cards for other family members. I ordered a card
for my wife, and a few weeks later it arrived. The curious thing is that
the second card contains a completely different 14-digit code than the
first. Time will tell whether charges against the two cards arrive on the
same billing statement. Is this done so that if one card is lost, it can
be cancelled without invalidating the other?

                                        Jim Schuttenberg
                                        Honeywell Bull Inc.
                                        Phoenix, AZ

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Oct-87 21:19:46-EDT,10431;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Sun 18 Oct 87 21:19:44-EDT
Date: 18 Oct 87 20:20-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #10
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Sunday, October 18, 1987 8:20PM
Volume 8, Issue 10

Today's Topics:

                              Key Phones
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
             Spurious "}" on 1200 baud modem connections
         Subscriber Line Interfaces (SLIC) characteristics ?
                    TTY/TDD Inference/Malfunction

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

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 87 12:33 EDT
From: Neal Feinberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Key Phones

We have an ancient 5 line key phone system at our house.  It consists of
three rotary phones (each with 5 big push-button line selectors plus
hold) and a box in the basement which makes mechanical-sounding noises.
Currently it costs us a lot of money to rent these phones and the box in
the basement from AT&T.  It would also cost a lot of money to buy the
system from AT&T.  Clearly they don't want to support this klunky
equipment anymore.  Rat Snack claims to sell key phones for $150, but I
don't really trust them to be of suitable quality.  Questions:

1) Who sells reasonable quality key phones at a good price?

2) What does the box in the basement do? Do modern key phones need this
   box? If so, where can we buy one?

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

From: swlabs![e-mail] (Jack Bonn)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 16 Oct 87 17:34:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Inners) writes:
> There is precedent for such a rule in that devices designed to record phone
> conversations are required to emit a 'beep' tone to alert the other party.

I this the case?  I thought it was only necessary when there was a chance
that neither party was knowledgeable about the recording device.  If either
party (me, if I'm operating the machine) knows it is operating, I thought
that no tone was necessary.

I have another question.  I understand that the # is sometimes used as an
EOP (end of pulsing) indication.  I have seen it documented as a mechanism
for telling the office collecting the digits for an international call that
there are no more digits to follow.  This allows the call to complete faster
since the alternative is to use timing as the indication that the caller
has finished dialing.

I have been using this for calls of the form 1-PPP-NNNN where the PPP prefix
may very well also indicate a valid area code somewhere in the US.  Does this
really help?  Or am I wasting my time?
--
Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT  06612
uunet!swlabs!jack

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

From: ucbvax!ucscc.UCSC.EDU![e-mail] (Usenet News Account)
Date: 16 Oct 87 05:32:52 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: saturn!ucscc.UCSC.EDU!haynes
From: [e-mail] (99700000)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: TTY/TDDs and Baudot
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Oct 87 05:32:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Distribution: world
Organization: California State Home for the Weird
Lines: 54

In article <[e-mail]> monet.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail] (Nick Cuccia) writes:
>I have access to a TDD that my SO uses...
>    (1) What form of Baudot does it use, and what five-bit codes
>        correspond to what characters/figures?
THE Baudot, which is actually Murray, but everybody calls it Baudot.
International Telegraph Alphabet #2 It's widely published (Radio
Amateur's Handbook, ITT Handbook, etc.)
>
>    (2) What method is used for communication?  Is it a form of
>        Frequency-Shift Keying, and if so, what are the frequencies
>        used?
Not quite frequency shift.  Actually it's on-off keyed, with the tone
on for the space frequency.  That is the critical frequency, and I
don't remember what it is.  The other frequency (mark) is used only
to have a signal as strong as the space tone so that noise and echoes
don't trigger the space tone detector.  The mark tone goes off after
a short delay so that the station at the other end can send without
any send-receive switching.  So the frequency of the mark tone is not
at all critical.
>
>    (3) What data transfer rate is used, and what are corresponding
>        bit lengths?
Nominally 60 words per minute, 45.45 baud, bit length is 22 milliseconds.
>
The system was invented and patented by the late Bob Weitbrecht, W6NRM,
in the 60s.  The reason for the archaic choice of 60wpm Baudot was that
there were no electronic terminals at consumer prices in those days,
but there were lots of surplus iron Teletype machines at low prices.
The reason for the modulation technique was to avoid complexity - the
Bell System standard at that time was an ancestor of the 103 modem,
operating at 110 baud, frequency-shift keying, with a different band
of frequencies in each direction of transmission for full duplex.
A Bell modem of that vintage occupied more than a cubic foot and was
quite heavy and expensive.

I haven't kept up with this since Bob died a few years ago; perhaps
now they have ASCII and Bell modem compatibility as options.

Bob was a pioneer in Teletype operation on amateur radio for many
years before he invented the TTD modem.  He was entirely deaf, but
could copy Morse code either by feeling the vibrations from earphones
or by hearing the tone at some frequency where he had a little bit
of hearing.  He had a deaf friend whom he tried to get into ham radio;
but the friend was unable to copy Morse at all and so couldn't get
a license.  So they turned to Teletyping over the phone.  Initial
experiments used simple on-off keying, space tone only (to allow
the receiving person to break in).  This worked fine on local calls,
but on long distance there were echoes that confused the receiver.
So he hit on the idea of sending quasi-FSK to suppress the echoes.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]
..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes

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

Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1987  11:03 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spurious "}" on 1200 baud modem connections

The Northern Telecom DMS100 digital switch being installed in some ESS
central offices may be the cause of spurious "}" on 1200 baud modem
connections.

Illinois Bell recently found that one particular type of board in the
DMS100 frames were the source of the problem.  They found that about
1/3rd of the boards of this type were defective!  They have sent out a
nation-wide alert to all Bell operating companies describing the
problem and how to determine which boards in the frame are bad.

--Keith Petersen
Arpa: [e-mail]
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 - 300, 1200, 2400 (V.22bis) or 9600 (USR HST)

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

From: gatech!lamont![e-mail] (dale chayes)
Subject: Subscriber Line Interfaces (SLIC) characteristics ?
Date: 17 Oct 87 21:04:54 GMT


I am (reluctantly) doing an interface between a PBX (probably a Mitel SX-20)
and a Magnavox MX-211 INMARSAT (ship earth station) and am in need of a (the)
reference that defines (electrikly) a Subscriber Line (SLIC?.)

The MX-211 uses a '4 wire' phone line. I already have a '4-wire to 2-wire'
conversion that works, and the interface to get the MX-211 to establish
a connection through a satellite. What I have yet to resolve is the 'off hook'
detector. The interface was built for a Hayes 1200 baud modem and the 'off hook'
is done with the other set of relay contacts that only appear to exist in
the Hayes 1200s.

It seems to me that the 'thing to do' is to supply a current source (as if
there was a 'local office' in my 4 to 2 conversion box, and detect 'off hook'
by from the current flow.

Comments, reccomendations, and a reference are welcome.

    Dale Chayes
snail:    Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Palisades, N.Y. 10964
phone:    [phone] ext 434
net:    ...!philabs!lamont!dale
fax:    [phone]
--
are we having fun yet?....

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

Date:     Sun, 18 Oct 87 01:08 EST
From:     <[e-mail]>
Subject:  TTY/TDD Inference/Malfunction

Hello,

   I am deaf subscriber to this. I have my TDD machine for call my friends
and my parent. When I started to call my parent, someone turned on stereo
and adjusted higher volumne. My TDD display started display garbage characters
and numbers when loud sound occurs. It may be inference by music and loud sound.

What happens??? Someone abused my calls by loud sound that cause TDD
malfunction. I recommand some TDD should be phone jack plug instead two
speaker/microphone to resolve problems. (TDD signal LED still is up when
music occurs) Stereo should be turned off when you want use your TDD machine.
Also you should ask your friends to not yell. Yelling can cause TDD malfunct-
ion. (it keeping display garbage characters).

-- Tim Stark

+==============================================================================+
| Timothy Stark          | BitNet:   [e-mail]                    |
| Gallaudet University   | Internet: [e-mail]    |
| P.O. Box 1453          | UUCP:     ...!psuvax1!gallua.bitnet!11tstark        |
| Washington, DC. 20002  | CSNET:    [e-mail]       |
| USA                    | QLink:    TimS18                                    |
+==============================================================================+
 slkjd fjdjlf ds fldsjlkj  fldjfdjs sd f jfjflkdk fjffioweer  fkfoe  fdjjfd
 dkj  sjnvngdi fddskmbb dkjrticks skfmvmff kfdigoulapsz f dskxi,e szki z???

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Oct-87 00:49:51-EDT,7873;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Tue 20 Oct 87 00:49:48-EDT
Date: 19 Oct 87 23:07-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #11
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Monday, October 19, 1987 11:07PM
Volume 8, Issue 11

Today's Topics:

        Re: Telenet legal Q & A FCC modem access fees proposal
                Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
                  recording telephone conversations
                        Key Telephone Systems

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

Date:     Mon, 19 Oct 87 01:58 EST
From:     <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Telenet legal Q & A FCC modem access fees proposal

Hello Modem Users:

      I still am not happy with Docket FCC 87-215! I believe that most
online service may be out of business quickly if FCC want access charges
on interstate service. I am QuantumLink subscriber too and live in East
McKeesport, Pa. QuantumLink service live in Vienna, Virginia. It may be
assessed for interstate. I *HATE* FCC 87-215! It will eat my income much.
If FCC already passed, I will lose my income much. :-(((((( I am Student
at Gallaudet University, Washington, DC. and our computer center doesn't
have Telenet connection. Please send business-like complaint to your
FCC chairman and other four men. Please be sure exaclt number of copies
will be accept.

   When FCC law appear, that may be affect Fido BBS for access charge. Sysops
will send complaints to FCC Chairman. I want stop Docket FCC 87-215.

-- Tim Stark

+==============================================================================+
| Timothy Stark          | BitNet:   [e-mail]                    |
| Gallaudet University   | Internet: [e-mail]    |
| P.O. Box 1453          | UUCP:     ...!psuvax1!gallua.bitnet!11tstark        |
| Washington, DC. 20002  | CSNET:    [e-mail]       |
| USA                    | QLink:    TimS18                                    |
+==============================================================================+
 slkjd fjdjlf ds fldsjlkj  fldjfdjs sd f jfjflkdk fjffioweer  fkfoe  fdjjfd
 dkj  sjnvngdi fddskmbb dkjrticks skfmvmff kfdigoulapsz f dskxi,e szki z???

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Inners)
Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
Date: 19 Oct 87 11:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Inners)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Bonn) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Inners) writes:
>> There is precedent for such a rule in that devices designed to record phone
>> conversations are required to emit a 'beep' tone to alert the other party.
>
>I this the case?  I thought it was only necessary when there was a chance
>that neither party was knowledgeable about the recording device.  If either
>party (me, if I'm operating the machine) knows it is operating, I thought
>that no tone was necessary.

According to the Wisconsin Bell (Ameritech) people:

"If your conversation is being recorded for business or other reasons,
one of the following MUST apply:

All parties to the conversation must give their prior consent to the
recording of the conversation and the prior consent must be obtained in
writing or be part of and obtained at the start of the recording. Or,

A distinctive recorder 'beep' tone, repeated every 15 seconds, is required
to alert all parties when the recording equipment is in use."

It then gives a few exceptions for law enforcement, 911 numbers, and
broadcasters recording for rebroadcast.

I also believe that the FCC requires that this beep tone be generated
by all FCC-certified equipment intended for direct connection to the
telephone network.
                -- Michael Inners

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 21:31:24 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Subject: recording telephone conversations

Jack Bonn is indeed correct. If one party knows that the conversation
is being recorded, you don't need a beep tone.

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

Date: Mon 19 Oct 87 11:34:44-PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Key Telephone Systems

NOTE:  Possible dupe, SIMTEL20 address bombed.
    This is a  purely unscientific, anectodal  answer to the  recent
query about the the  current state-of-the-art/market in small  telephone
Key Systems.

    Key systems continue  to get  smarter and  cheaper.  Today  they
provide  most   of   the   functionalities  of   the   late,   lamented,
electromechanical  1A2  systems  with  their  user-friendly,   intuitive
buttons and lights  as well  as many  PBX features.   (There was,  until
recently, a distinction between Key Systems and so-called Hybrids  which
is rapidly vanishing).

    At the low  end, as in  the "home" application  there are  three
basic choices:
        (1)  Multi-line sets which act as a "KSU-less" System.
        (2)  True KSUs which require special sets
                (3)  True KSUs which accept ANY standard set.

    Basically, a Key system takes  X outside phone lines (CO  lines,
Main Lines, 1MBs) and distributes  then among Y inside lines  (Stations,
Extensions).  The  old  1A2s distributed  5  "outside" lines  amongst  5
"inside" lines, this limitation soon  dissappeared and today as many  as
40 or more "outside" and 100+ "inside" are common.  (The "hybrid"  issue
was largely  a  fiction caused  by  the  higher rates  charged  by  some
Telephone Companies for PBX trunks vs  Key System lines).  Key sets  are
usually modular and the model  number descriptive of their capacity  (XY
for inside/outside).

    So-called "KSU-less"  which  require  no  central  control  (the
functions are  contained  in  the  sets)  and  "Plain-set"  systems  are
beginning to appear.  The  more traditional Key  Systems require both  a
KSU and propriatary sets.  Prices range from the high-end, full service
outfits like AT&T (Merlin) at about $5K for an 8X16 in NYC to less than
$1K for do-it-yourselfs or used gear.

    I recently  installed a  "Do-it-yourself" for  a friend.   Here,
without endorsement,is what I found:

    The system was a Panasonic  KX-T616 (there is a newer  KX-T61610
which is similar).   Physically it looks  like a home  alarm sysstem,  a
flat, wall mounted box roughly 5"X14"X17".  It uses standard sets,  tone
or pulse.  Inside the cover are RJ-11 connections for the CO  lines
(up to 6) and the extensions (up  to 16).  If you open the Box,  mount
it, plug the phones in and the line cord to AC, you are in  Business.
Using an  ordinary  set  from  one  station  lets  you  program  it  but
everything  has  a  logical   default  setting  if   you  are  lazy   or
techno-phobic.

    As is, you get: Auto-line  Hunt, Hold, Call Back, Call  Waiting,
Call Splitting,  Music-on-Hold,  Intercom, Re-dial,  Speed  Call,  Power
Failure Transfer  etc  etc.   Options include  External  Music,  Battery
backup, Busy Lamp Fields, SMDR, Paging etc etc.

    Cost: Less than  $600 from  a parts house  in LA.   Installation
time: 1 hour quick-and-dirty (line cords), 4 hours Bell standards (Punch
downs, station wire etc.

    Catches: Only specialized  stores carry Key  Systems and  seldom
sell to the Public, the best and most reliable, Toshiba's Strata  Series
are sold  through distributors  who want  to sell  you installation  and
maintenance as a package.

+HECTOR+

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Oct-87 02:13:18-EDT,15117;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Tue 20 Oct 87 02:13:14-EDT
Date: 19 Oct 87 23:08-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #12
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Monday, October 19, 1987 11:08PM
Volume 8, Issue 12

Today's Topics:

        Telenet legal Q & A on FCC modem access fees proposal

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

Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1987  19:48 MDT
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telenet legal Q & A on FCC modem access fees proposal

Here is more information on the modem fees issue, from a file called
LEGALQ&A.TXT which was uploaded to my BBS.  It was written by someone
at Telenet and is presented here "as-is" for informational purposes.

--Keith Petersen
Arpa: [e-mail]
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 - 300, 1200, 2400 (V.22bis) or 9600 (USR HST)

--cut-here--
                      QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                            regarding

                THE FCC'S ACCESS CHARGE PROPOSAL
                          DOCKET 87-215

                         September 1987


Personal computer hobbyists and users of on-line information
services and BBS have posted questions on various bulletin
boards regarding the FCC's current access charge proceeding.
What follows are some answers developed by Telenet's Regulatory
Department.

Question:  Why don't access charges apply to "private" systems?

Answer:    The FCC's NPRM identifies "enhanced service
           providers" as targets for the imposition of access
           charges.  Private systems do not appear to fall
           under the Commission's definition of enhanced
           service providers.


Question:  How will the access charge proposal hurt local BBS?

Answer:    Since the FCC only has jurisdiction over interstate
           communications, calls to a BBS located in the same
           state as the calling party would be unaffected by
           the FCC's proposal.  Callers who reach a BBS located
           in a distant state via a Value-added network, however, would
           pay access charges.  Thus, BBS systems which serve a "community
           of interest" which extends beyond the BBS' home
           state would be particularly impacted.


Question:  What is the $4.47 supposed to pay for that is not
           covered currently?

Answer:    The $4.47 per hour cost of access results from a
           POLITICAL determination regarding the price of local
           versus long distance telephone services.  It has no
           real ECONOMIC justification.  Under the formula
           developed for interexchange voice services, more
           than half of the $4.47 per hour access charge
           represents a subsidy payment from long distance
           telephone users to help defray certain costs
           incurred in providing local exchange telephone
           service, and part of the remainder of the charge
           covers costs incurred in providing specialized
           interconnections which are used only by long
           distance carriers.  The FCC's NPRM simply proposes
           to take the formula structured for interexchange
           carriers and apply it to enhanced service providers.


Question:  How many jobs will be lost if access charges go into
           effect?

Answer:    There is no way of knowing this.  Individuals who
           use data communications to support a "cottage"
           industry, e.g., free lance programmers, could find
           that the costs of access render them unable to
           continue their businesses.  Although it could be
           argued that access charges would create jobs (if for
           example libraries return to card catalogs for
           bibliographic research rather than electronic
           database retrieval), such inefficiencies should
           perhaps not be promoted as a matter of public
           policy.


Question:  What will access fees cost taxpayers if access
           charges go into effect?  Don't school districts,
           public libraries, and government agencies all use
           dial-up data services?

Answer:    Again, there is no way to predict what the
           imposition of access charges will cost taxpayers in
           terms of on-line services that are currently used by
           schools, libraries, and other public agencies.
           Hourly costs of such services would certainly
           increase substantially, forcing either higher total
           payments by public agencies which use them, or a
           commensurate reduction in usage (and thus poorer
           service to the taxpayer).


Question:  Isn't "value-added network" a vague term?  How can
           access charges be applied fairly when we don't even
           know what a value-added network is?

Answer:    What constitutes a value-added network is indeed
           vague, yet the FCC proposal would apply not only to
           such networks but to all "enhanced service
           providers" -- a broader but equally vague term.  The
           point, at any rate, is a good one.  Not only would
           it be virtually impossible for a local exchange
           carrier to identify an enhanced service provider in
           order to assess access charges on his traffic, it
           would also be quite difficult to determine what
           portion of any customer's traffic is "enhanced," and
           what portion of that is interstate.


Question:  What exactly is "stored and forwarded" data?  If a
           BBS operator physically transports a CD ROM full of
           recent messages and data from San Fancisco to her
           Chicago BBS, is that any less "long distance" than
           if the data is downloaded from San Francisco to
           Chicago?

Answer:    Clearly, the end result is the same.  The BBS
           operator, however, would pay access charges in the
           latter case under the FCC's current proposal, if
           local exchange dial access is used.


Question:  Could not certain users such as colleges and
           universities, including dormitories, avoid all
           access charges when communicating via Telenet to The
           Source if there were private leased lines from the
           colleges to Telenet and dedicated lines between
           Telenet and The Source?

Answer:    If there were no use of the local exchange, as
           indicated by this example, access charges could be
           avoided.  However, relatively few terminal users
           have sufficient traffic volume to justify the cost
           of a leased-line connection to Telenet.


Question:  I reside in the same state as the telecommunications
           services I use.  How will my rates be affected?

Answer:    Rates for INTRASTATE data communications are not
           affected by the FCC's NPRM in Docket 87-215.  FCC
           action on this issue, however, sets a precedent for
           possible state action pertaining to intrastate
           access charges.


Question:  What's the status on the access charge proposal?  I
           heard that Telenet was exempt.  Any truth to this?
           If not, who do I write to and when -- or have I
           missed the deadline?

Answer:    Telenet is not exempt from the FCC's access charge
           proposal, but rather is a prime target since there
           is no doubt that, as the largest value-added network
           in the U.S., Telenet is a highly-visible enhanced
           service provider.

           There is still plenty of time to register your
           concerns with the Federal Communications
           Commission;  letters on the subject will be timely
           if received by October 26th.

           Send copies of your letter to each of the four FCC
           commissioners (Chairman Dennis Patrick, Commissioner
           James Quello, Commissioner Mimi Dawson, and
           Commissioner Patricia Dennis); William Tricarico,
           FCC Secretary; Gerald Brock, Chief, FCC Common
           Carrier Bureau; and your Congressional
           representatives.  Letters to the FCC can be sent to
           1919 M Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20554; letters to
           Congress simply require the zip code 20515 for the
           House and 20510 for the Senate.


Question:  Hey, I heard that the FCC doesn't read your letters
           unless they arrive on the right form with the right
           number of copies!  What do I need to know to comply?

Answer:    Formal legal briefs need to follow a set format, but
           informal letters simply need to include the header
           "Regarding: FCC Docket 87-215" in order to be filed
           with the appropriate proceeding.


Question:  If enhanced service providers pay access charges,
           long distance rates will come down so use of the voice
           network will go up and rates will come down
           further.  Why don't we support lifting this
           exemption?

Answer:    Long distance rates MIGHT be reduced by less than
           one-half of one percent, or by 1 cent for every $2.00
           spent on long distance services.  This will have
           virtually no impact on the use of the network for
           voice services.  At the same time, the imposition of
           access charges on enhanced service providers (at the
           rate of approximately $4.50 per hour) would result
           in diminished use of the network for data
           communications and the loss of some services.
           Residential, small business, library, and
           educational users of enhanced services would suffer
           the greatest hit.


Question:  The Telenet analysis paper states that "originating
           rates are only available for traffic that also
           terminates using dial access which ordinary long
           distance (MTS) calls do, but most ESP traffic does
           not."  Please explain.  Why does ESP traffic not so
           terminate?  Also, is it true that MTS companies
           already pay full freight?

Answer:    ESP traffic originates but typically does not
           terminate through the local dial network.  Instead,
           calls typically terminate at a host computer that is
           linked to Telenet's network by a dedicated line.
           That is, almost all of Telenet's dial traffic is
           "originating" in nature; however, the FCC determined
           in an earlier proceeding that where a call
           originates but does not also terminate through the
           dial network it will be charged the higher
           "terminating" rate at the originating end.

           MTS (that is, ordinary long distance voice service)
           does indeed pay full freight -- and then some.
           MTS/WATS traffic subsidizes local exchange service.
           It is payment of this subsidy that the FCC now
           proposes to extend to enhanced service providers.


Question:  If the proposal is discriminatory because it
           earmarks only one class of local exchange users --
           ESPs and their users -- who are the local exchange
           users that still have an exemption?

Answer:    Under the FCC's NPRM, private corporate networks
           with interstate leased lines and local dial access
           links -- functionally identical to the networks
           operated by Telenet and other ESPs -- would be
           exempt from paying access charges.


Question:  According to FCC Attorney Ruth Milkman, the charges
           currently paid by ESPs do not contribute
           sufficiently to the cost of the enhanced access
           facilities they use in offering services to the
           public?  Does anyone have any figures to rebutt this
           statement?

Answer:    The nationwide average cost of a dial access line
           has been quoted by Bell officials as $28.00 per
           month.  Telenet pays an average price of $33.00 per
           month for its dial lines (leased under the local
           telephone companies' business line tariffs).  In
           addition, business users often are charged local
           message unit rates when they place calls to
           Telenet's dial access lines.  Thus, we feel we --
           and other ESPs -- are currently paying the full cost
           of the dial service we use.


Question:  Would access charges apply on a local call from
           McLean, Virginia to The Source on its local phone
           number (not using Telenet)?  Would it depend if the
           caller accessed out-of-state computers like the
           Official Airline Guide?

Answer:    The FCC's access charge proposal does not apply to
           INTRASTATE traffic, regardless of whether the caller
           uses Telenet.  That is, a call which originates in
           Virginia and terminates on a computer located in
           Virginia, such as The Source, would not be subject
           to the FCC charge.  If the call terminates on a
           computer located out-of-state, access charges would
           apply.


Question:  Would access charges apply on a call to The Source
           originating from Thief River Falls, MN?  The call
           would use AT&T to Fargo, ND (125 miles away, but the
           closest Telenet node).  Since AT&T already charges
           an access fee on this call, would Telenet charge it
           again?  If Telenet would levy an additional access
           fee, would the lower "originating" rate apply (after
           all, it's not a one-ended call)?

Answer:    Such a call, using AT&T's long distance (MTS)
           service to reach Telenet's North Dakota node from
           the user's location in Minnesota, would pay access
           charges three times.  First, it would pay access
           charges on both ends of the AT&T connection
           ("originating" rate in MN and "terminating" rate in
           ND).  Then when it arrived on Telenet's dial access
           line in North Dakota, it would be assessed an access
           charge again (at the "terminating" rate, since
           Telenet's connection to The Source in Virginia does
           not use the dial network).  Total access payments on
           such a call would be approximately $11.50 per hour!
--cut-here--END--cut-here--

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Oct-87 20:34:31-EDT,6039;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Tue 20 Oct 87 20:34:29-EDT
Date: 20 Oct 87 18:43-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #13
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Tuesday, October 20, 1987 6:43PM
Volume 8, Issue 13

Today's Topics:

                Re: recording telephone conversations
                       Recording conversations
                       NJ Bell calling line ID
                Re: New Service...(actually recording)
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Friedberg)
Subject: Re: recording telephone conversations
Date: 20 Oct 87 07:42:31 GMT


No, *ALL* parties must be notified that recording is in progress,
NOT just ONE party.  The caller (or callee) can NOT record without
either (a) former written consent of all parties, (b) verbal consent
obtained at the beginning of the call, or (c) an audible tone (beep)
every 15 seconds.

Stu Friedberg

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

Date: Tue 20 Oct 87 08:59:02-PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recording conversations

[e-mail] (Michael Inners) writes (quoting Ameritech):

>"If your conversation is being recorded for business or other reasons,
>one of the following MUST apply:
>
>All parties to the conversation must give their prior consent to the
>recording of the conversation and the prior consent must be obtained in
>writing or be part of and obtained at the start of the recording..."

Patently BS.  Neither Voice Store and Forward Systems or, for that
matter, home answering machines obtain consent in writing or make the
consent "part of " the recording.  I guess you give implied consent by
not hanging up :-).

+HECTOR+

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

Date: 19 Oct 1987 16:36-EST
From: ihnp4![e-mail] (Mark C Baker @ AT&T Network Systems)
Subject: NJ Bell calling line ID

The service being provided by NJ Bell this year which
displays the phone number of the person calling you is
not ISDN.  It is part of a number of CLASS (Customized
Local Area Signaling Services) features being offered
from 1A ESS switch central offices.  This is a analog
switch by the way.  The calling DN is sent to the
customers premise equipment between the power ringing
cycles.  Calling Party DN is conveyed from one central
office to another via CCIS, CCS7 in the future.

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

From: [e-mail] (Arnold Koster)
Subject: Re: New Service...(actually recording)
Date: 20 Oct 87 20:17:03 GMT
Reply-To: tikal![e-mail] (Arnold Koster)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Bonn) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Inners) writes:
>> There is precedent for such a rule in that devices designed to record phone
>> conversations are required to emit a 'beep' tone to alert the other party.
>
>I this the case?  I thought it was only necessary when there was a chance
>that neither party was knowledgeable about the recording device.  If either
>party (me, if I'm operating the machine) knows it is operating, I thought
>that no tone was necessary.
>

From the Seattle Telephone Directory :
Status: O

    RECORDED CALLS REQUIRE A BEEP TONE

    When you hear a beep tone at about 15-second intervals during
    a phone conversation, it indicates that the conversation is
    being recorded.
    In the State of Washington it is unlawful for any person to
    record any telephone conversation without first obtaining the
    consent of ALL the persons engaged in the conversation.


In a somewhat related area:

    UNLAWFUL WIRETAPPING IS SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION

    It is a crime under Federal law for any person, including a
    telephone subscriber, to wiretap or otherwise intercept a
    telephone call, unless that person has first obtained the
    consent of one of the parties actually participating in the
    call. Under Washington State law, however, the consent of ALL
    the parties participating in the call must first be obtained
    before a telephone conversation can be overheard by a person
    who is not a party to the call.

It then continues with the exceptions for law enforcment agencies, and
discusses the imprisonment time and fines that can be used for
penalties.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS:

    Check with your own local phone company about the requirements
    in your area, it varies from place to place.

Arnie Koster
[e-mail]

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

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Oct 87 16:11:27 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: vice!georgep
From: [e-mail] (George Pell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: TTY/TDD Inference/Malfunction
Summary: inconsiderate S.O.B's
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Oct 87 16:11:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 16

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Hello,
>
>    I am deaf subscriber to this. I have my TDD machine for call my friends
> and my parent. When I started to call my parent, someone turned on stereo
> and adjusted higher volumne. My TDD display started display garbage ......

Tim,
I suggest you invest in a good pair of diagonal wire cutters. Apply them
to the speaker leads of the stereo next time this occures.  I'll bet the
same guy turns up his stereo when anyone gets on the phone.

I guess you could beat on the door and say "could you turn down your
stereo, I'm on the phone"!

geo

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
22-Oct-87 19:58:05-EDT,15603;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Thu 22 Oct 87 19:57:57-EDT
Date: 22 Oct 87 14:34-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #14
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, October 22, 1987 2:34PM
Volume 8, Issue 14

Today's Topics:

                              V8 Issue 8
             Social Security numbers & telephone company
                     Baudot, TDDs etc.  More yet
                        acoustic interference
                       Request for Information
                      Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #13
                           Recording calls
         Re: all this new stuff has been confusedly presented
          Re: Predictable network access prices (was: RCTE)
                 Re: Automatic caller identification
         Re: England to United States collect: on payphones!
                  Re: My adventures with U.S. Sprint
                   Re: Beep Tone Requirement Varies

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

Date: Tue 20 Oct 87 18:44:55-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: V8 Issue 8

Apparently that digest never made it to the mailer. I don't know what
happened (I wasn't the one doing the digest at that time), and I'm sure
by the time Jim gets back from his vacation, he will have forgotten.

Please, no flames.

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

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 14:59:10 EDT
From: Mark Dionne <io!marvin![e-mail]>
Subject: Social Security numbers & telephone company

    Recently while I was ordering new telephone service from New
England Telephone, I was asked to provide my Social Security number.
I refused, and there was no problem. When asked, the service
representative explained that the numbers are used for internal
credit checking purposes, and that they were not required.
    I wonder how useful they could be for credit checking if they
are not mandatory? If I gave them my number today and ran up unpaid
bills, I certainly wouldn't give it to them the next time. (Unlike
some states, there is no deposit in Massachusetts.)
    I think that it is legal for anyone to ask me for my SS number
and to use it for things like credit checks. Do others also have
the right to *publish* it?  Can we expect N.E. Telephone to be
selling a list of names, addresses, phone numbers and SS numbers
some day? If so, should a monopoly public utility be allowed to do it?

    ...!harvard!umb!ileaf!md    Mark Dionne, Interleaf
      ...!sun!sunne!ileaf!md    Ten Canal Park, Cambridge, MA 02141
                    [phone] x5551

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

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 21:59:45 EDT
From: Richard Barth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baudot, TDDs etc.  More yet


Re: From: [e-mail] (99700000)
    Subject: Re: TTY/TDDs and Baudot


    >    (2) What method is used for communication?  Is it a form of
    >        Frequency-Shift Keying, and if so, what are the frequencies
    >        used?
    Not quite frequency shift.  Actually it's on-off keyed, with the tone
    on for the space frequency.  That is the critical frequency, and I
    don't remember what it is.  The other frequency (mark) is used only
    to have a signal as strong as the space tone so that noise and echoes
    don't trigger the space tone detector.  The mark tone goes off after
    a short delay so that the station at the other end can send without
    any send-receive switching.  So the frequency of the mark tone is not
    at all critical.

Uh, well, sort of. The original patent by Bob Weitbrecht used on-off
keying, as stated. One tone was used only to actuate the echo
suppressors on the phone line; the other tone (and the absence
thereof) was the only one recognized by the receiving modem. Until his
death a few years ago, Weitbrecht and his company continued to build
his equipment that way. He was about the only one that did, however.

More modern design, as used by everybody else in the business and as
described in the draft EIA standard for TDDs, calls for FSK.

The Space tone is 1400 Hz; standard Mark tone is 1800, although
equipment built according to the Weitbrecht design don't consider the
1800 number as critical. As long as it's far enough away from 1400 not
to interfere with the detector there.

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

Date: 21 Oct 87 06:38:19 EDT
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: acoustic interference

   I suggest you invest in a good pair of diagonal wire cutters. Apply them
   to the speaker leads of the stereo next time this occures.

A much more elegant and nondestructive fix would be to nuke your old acoustic
modem, step into the 80s, and buy one that has a direct connection which
is immune to ambient sound.  Or hack a matching transformer into your
old modem, if a replacement is hard to come by.  Acoustic couplers simply
*lose*.  Whoever turned up the stereo probably didn't have the foggiest
idea this could happen...

_H*

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

Date:         Wed, 21 Oct 87 07:54:10 EDT
From:         Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Request for Information

I work for the RIT Campus Safety Department and we are interested in
placing emergency telephones around the campus and in parking lots.
Our problem is that digging a trench to run a pair of wires to a phone
in the middle of a parking lot is prohibitively expensive. I'd like
to find a source of telephones that you sometimes see along the sides of
the road on interstates. I've called several suppliers and everyone has
heard of such a system but no one knows where to get one. I'd like a
phone system that uses a radio frequency. I've seen a cellular
emergency phone system but we would like to explore other possibilities.
Thanks for any help you can supply.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 87 11:43:37 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #13

The reason why answering machines (and voice mail which is just
a glorified answering machine) doesn't count is that you'll note
that the regulation in question pertains to CONVERSATIONS.  Talking
to machines are not conversations.

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

From: csi!csib![e-mail] (Lynn Gold)
Subject: Recording calls
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 87 12:27:12 -0700

As long as ONE of the parties involved in the telephone conversation
knows that the call is being recorded, it's perfectly legal to record
the conversation.  In other words, if I feel like taping you, it's okay
because *I* know I'm taping you.

Re: playing someone's voice over the air -- THEN you MUST have either
verbal or written consent (the former is often done by taping someone
saying it's okay to use their voice over the air) in order to do so.

--Lynn Gold
Public Affairs Director
KFJC-FM

P.S.--We're in the middle of a fundraiser (yes, I KNOW this is going to
a nation-wide dist list).  If y'all feel inclined, call [phone]
and pledge (they'd get a BIG kick out of someone from Massachusetts
calling in!).  :-)

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

From: [e-mail] (Niall  O Broin)
Subject: Re: all this new stuff has been confusedly presented
Date: 21 Oct 87 15:12:16 GMT
Reply-To: hslrswi![e-mail] (Niall  O Broin)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Robinson) writes:
>
>In article  <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (
>>
>>Is this new "ID the caller" beta-test service handled by / the same as /
>>utterly unrelated to / etc ISDN?

unrelated to. The signalling of the caller's number goes over your standard
non ISDN line. ISDN can of course provide this capability.

>>It seems to me that for this service to work the caller must be in an office
>>where the service is being tested too.  Present ["normal"] offices wouldn't
>>have the capability to pass a packet containing the caller's number to the
>>destination end, right?

Wrong. All non primitive signalling systems have the ability to request and
receive the caller's number. So the "ID the caller" service just requires
software in the CALLED PARTY's exchange to request the caller's number (if it
has not yet been received - it often already has) and software/hardware (and a
signalling protocol) to transmit the number to the called party's telephone.
This is fairly simple, though I don't know exactly how it will be done in this
case.

>This is something that comes under the ISDN service umbrella probably.

Yes and no, but a lot more no than yes.

>The information on calling number is probably passed
>in signalling system #7 (SS#7) out-of-band data packets

Just a tad unlikely ! Overkill by about n orders of magnitude - the cost
of having a processor to handle C7 signalling attached to your phone would
be horrible just to get "ID the caller" service.

>this system (C7 signalling) is an outgrowth of internal Bell protocols

Not unless you regard the whole principle of common channel signalling
as an internal Bell protocol, it isn't.

>and now will be public worldwide in ISDN systems.

Yes, but C7 signalling and the ISDN are completely seperate entities.
Signalling for 99.9' % of ISDN lines will be C7, but C7 is a telephony
signalling system, and is currently in use worldwide on many different types
of non ISDN trunk circuits

Briefly, a C7 signalling system has two parts, a message transfer part
and a user part. There are and will be many different user parts, a
telephone user part (the area in which I have worked), an ISDN user part
and more.


Regards,

       #\\\\\-----\\\\\       Niall  O Broin
      ###\\\\\-----\\\\\      AXE Software Development
     #####---------------     Hasler AG      +-----------------------------+
    #######---------------    Berne          +This space available for rent|
   #########\\\\\-----\\\\\   Switzerland    +-----------------------------+
  ###########\\\\\-----\\\\\
 #######     /////     /////  BITNET       [e-mail]
#######     /////     /////   UUCP .. {uunet,mcvax ..}!cernvax!hslrswi!obroin
 #####               /////
  ###               /////     Any resemblance between this message and the
   #     /////     /////      opinions of anyone else, living or dead, is
        /////     /////       purely coincidental.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Predictable network access prices (was: RCTE)
Date: 15 Oct 87 10:51:29 GMT

> ... one has to be able to
> show that the economy of scale is working in general and, as I
> believe, that the per-quantum costs would end up costing the smaller
> user more ...

Not to mention that the machinery for counting, and accounting for,
packets can itself cost serious money.  Nicholas Johnson observed some
years ago that half the cost of a long-distance telephone call was in
billing you for that call.  (Nicholas Johnson was an FCC Commissioner
and so presumably in a position to know.)

    Dan

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

Date: 22 Oct 87 10:09:37 +1000 (Thu)
From: munnari!astra.necisa.oz.au![e-mail] (Dave Horsfall)
Subject: Re: Automatic caller identification

Although we in Australia do not have this facility (but they're working
on it!), it strikes me that a warped person could obtain an unlisted no.
and use it to harass other people.  I for one would like to know where
such calls were coming from...   Not that I get such calls at the moment.

Alternatively, you could have two lines, you receive calls on the silent
number and make calls on the (fake) public number.
--
Dave Horsfall  (VK2KFU)        ACS:  [e-mail]
NEC Information Systems Aust.  ARPA: [e-mail]
3rd Floor, 99 Nicholson St     UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}!\
St. Leonards NSW 2064 AUSTRALIA       munnari!astra.necisa.OZ.AU!dave
---
Dave Horsfall  (VK2KFU)        ACS:  [e-mail]
NEC Information Systems Aust.  ARPA: [e-mail]
3rd Floor, 99 Nicholson St     UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}!\
St. Leonards NSW 2064 AUSTRALIA       munnari!astra.necisa.OZ.AU!dave

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

From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: England to United States collect: on payphones!
Date: 21 Oct 87 03:30:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David J. Carpenter) writes:

> A friend of mine told me an interesting story.  Several students...
> ..Who is really going to pay for that call?


You are, I am, and the rest of the public who pays for their
telephone service is, unless the toll carrier who was defrauded can
determine who done it!
--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        A node for news.
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | clyde | mtune | ihnp4}!westmark!dave

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

From: uiucdcs!pur-ee!bucc2![e-mail]
Subject: Re: My adventures with U.S. Sprint
Date: 20 Oct 87 22:05:00 GMT



> [story of Sprint causing unauthorized LD carrier change]
>
> Southwestern Bell has agreed to change our LD carrier back to our original
> carrier, remove the $5.00 charge from our bill, and back-charge U.S.
> Sprint $5.00.

That was nice of SW Bell.  My LD carrier had been Teleconnect for quite a
while when suddenly one day (with absolutely no prior communication) I
received a bill from AT&T, and a $5 charge for LD carrier change from
Illinois Bell.  When I questioned the friendly people at Illinois Bell,
they told me that AT&T had requested the change.  Despite as much fuss as
I was up to generating at the time, they refused to refund the $5, and
then had the gall to charge me ANOTHER $5 to change it back to the way
I wanted it in the first place.

I eventually got my $10 back from AT&T, but that took many, many complaints,
and about 8 months.

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

From: "Kurt F. Sauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Beep Tone Requirement Varies
Date: 22 Oct 87 08:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: "Kurt F. Sauer" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> Michael Inners writes:

>According to the Wisconsin Bell (Ameritech) people:
>
>"If your conversation is being recorded for business or other reasons,
>one of the following MUST apply:
>
>All parties to the conversation must give their prior consent to the
>recording of the conversation and the prior consent must be obtained in
>writing or be part of and obtained at the start of the recording. Or,
>
>A distinctive recorder 'beep' tone, repeated every 15 seconds, is required
>to alert all parties when the recording equipment is in use."

In Oklahoma, for example, calls need no beep tone under any circumstances
so long as as least one party to the conversation is aware of its being
taped or monitored.  Also, these rules are merely state laws, tariffs, or
regulations; they vary from state to state.  In addition, if your call is
interstate, many of the state laws may not apply; contact your organization's
legal counsel for details.

Kurt F. Sauer
Tulsa, OK

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
23-Oct-87 19:39:53-EDT,14374;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Oct-87 19:08:34
Date: 23 Oct 87 19:08-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #15
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Friday, October 23, 1987 7:08PM
Volume 8, Issue 15

Today's Topics:

                            Re: Key Phones
                           Recording calls
                  New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
                       Charges for "unlisting"
                AT&T / Bell System Calling Card Costs
                     Re: Charges for "unlisting"
         Re: England to United States collect: on payphones!
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

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

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail] (Kent W. England))
Subject: Re: Key Phones
Date: 22 Oct 87 21:26:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kent England)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Neal Feinberg) writes:
>We have an ancient 5 line key phone system at our house.  It consists of
>three rotary phones (each with 5 big push-button line selectors plus
>hold) and a box in the basement which makes mechanical-sounding noises.

This system is called a 1A2 key system.  It is entirely mechanical and
expensive to maintain.  These mechanical key sets are replaced with
electronic key systems with PBX-like features and simpler wiring.  The
1A2 key sets use 25 pair wire and elec key use 4 to 8 pair wire.  Of
course, your old wire can be reused with adaptors.  Elec key systems
need AC power and don't work when the power goes out.
>
>1) Who sells reasonable quality key phones at a good price?
>

You can buy an elec key system from your phone company.  They probably
sell Merlin from AT&T.  New England Tel also sells TIE DataStar, but
this is for larger installations.  Buy from Radio Shack if you can get
a good warranty and service contract.

>2) What does the box in the basement do? Do modern key phones need this
>   box? If so, where can we buy one?

Elec key systems use a box in the basement but it is new, smaller, and
lighter than the 1A2.  The old 1A2 box makes a good boat anchor.

Talk to your phone company first, then Radio Shack.  Then look at all
the ads in the Wall Street Journal.  Seems that WSJ is the place to
sell company execs on the phone system for business.  I don't know
what professional mag to read to pick up info, but I think there are a
lot of elec key systems in the 10-20 line range.  Don't buy from any
store that also sells housewares.  :-)

Kent England, Boston University
--
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
     Kent W. England                      |       Boston University
     Network & Systems Engineering Group  |       Information Technology
     [e-mail]        internet     |       111 Cummington Street
     itkwe@bostonu           BITnet       |       Boston, MA      02215
     harvard!bu-cs!kwe       UUCP         |       [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 21:29:08 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Recording calls

The law in California is that one party must agree to have the conversation
taped; in other states it is that ALL parties of a conversation must agree.

It varies.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1987  01:51 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell

>I would not see a problem here. Your number is unlisted, but you can
>give it to people if you choose. I don't see that giving the number by
>calling someone is in need of protection. If you don't want them to have
>your number, don't call. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to make
>untraceable calls, and it defeats the reason for having the "know your
>caller" service.

Scenario 1:
Ms. Smith calls Johnny's parents to talk about his D in history.  Johnny, who
answered the phone, takes down Ms. Smith's number and makes harassing calls
from a payphone to her for the next 6 weeks.

Scenario 2:
An unscrupulous worker for a confidential crisis hotline saves the phone
numbers of unsuspecting callers and uses them for purposes of extortion.

...These are only two examples; I can think of many more.  The point is, I
don't think you can fairly say that just because I am calling you, I must
forfeit my right to privacy.

Robert Lenoil

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1987  02:09 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Charges for "unlisting"

>Now, though, the situation is changed. The telcos make money from calls
>to Information/Diretory Assistance! They charge for most (or all) of such
>calls, so they should be happy to have vast numbers of "unlisted"
>subscribers generating extra revenue via fruitless Information calls.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you are not charged for directory
assistance if the number you seek is unlisted.  Therefore, the old telco
justification for charging subscribers for being unlisted still stands.

However, if you want a good example of a service that we shouldn't be charged
extra for, try touch tone on for size.  Touch tone calls are dialed faster,
and therefore take up less of the central office's processing time.  Perhaps
back in the Stroger or crossbar days it made sense to charge extra to cover
the cost of installing touch tone dialing equipment, but for ESS offices,
people should really pay extra for *pulse*.  This would have the additional
benefit of hastening the demise of antiquated pulse equipment.

Robert Lenoil

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

Date: Fri 23 Oct 87 05:51:15-EDT
From: Doug Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T / Bell System Calling Card Costs



        In a recent issue of Telecom, I noticed that it was mentioned that
ALL calling cards cost something to use. In MOST cases this is true, yet
I CAN use my AT&T Calling Card and NOT invoke ANY surcharge if I call
at specific times.

        If a customer is part of the AT&T "Reach Out America" Program, where
one pays $7.55 an hour for OUT-OF-STATE long distance calls after 10PM, he
can also subscribe to an additional Calling Card Plan. Customers who are
on the "Reach Out America" do NOT pay the 'initial surcharge' when they make
calls under the plan. IE, if I call from Connecticut to San Francisco on
a phone #number WITHOUT the plan, I would pay something like $.25 for the
first minute and $.14 each additional minute. Under the plan, if I make the
same call (after 10 PM weekdays or all day Saturday and all day Sunday except
between 5 and 10 PM) , it would cost 1/60 of $7.55 (the amount you pay
per hour) for the first minute, or about $.12. Each additional minute would
also cost $.12. (60 minutes * $.12 per minute approximately equals $7.55 ).
This saves me a lot in the initial rate, meaning that not only can I talk
longer, but I can make a lot of calls and pay the same rate, without the
initial surcharge.

        The Calling Card plan is similar. If you are OUT-OF-STATE, and
you place a Bell System Calling Card call to your home phone (after
10 PM, in the originating time zone), you DO NOT pay the initial surcharge,
usually between $.20 and $.50. So I can call home, as many times as I want,
and NEVER worry about the initial surcharge. (This is really good for people
who live in the West and travel East. They can call, at the low 10PM rates
from the East, and not pay the surcharge for calling back home.) In
any case, the extra Calling Card Plan costs about $2 per month (in addition
to the $7.55 per month for the main plan). This being the case, if one
were in San Francisco, and called to his out-of-state home 6 times, he
would save money. (In CA, there is a $.40 surcharge on Calling Card calls,
so 6 *.40 is $2.40, which under the plan would be a savings of at LEAST
$.40 per month. This of course depends on usage and the rates of calling
card calls where the caller is calling from.)

        Also, I think the US Sprint rates for Calling Card calls are higher
than an Bell/AT&T rates. In CT, the Calling Card surcharge is $.25; in
CA, its $.40, in NY its $.47, in Mass its $.40 (I think). I have never
seen a Bell surcharge greater than $.50, so on ANY call, the surcharge
is at least $.05 lower than Sprint, probably more. Moreover, AT&T charges
NOTHING extra for rotary service, while Sprint has the nerve to charge
$1.05 for using a rotary phone when its not YOUR fault that there are no
Touch Tone phones around!.

        Finally, it was mentioned that GTE Sprint got rid of the 9-digit
service because kids were "hacking" them too often. Perhaps, but I think
it has VERY LITTLE to do with that and more to do with the fact that they
didn't want a "two-tier" system where older GTE Sprint Customers get
free Fiber Network calls, and US Telecom and newer US Sprint customers
have to pay for it. Since the company is under one name, and they want
to unify billing and customer service (ha!) , it would be difficult to
have BOTH systems. (IE, US Sprint would have to ask "Are you an old GTE
customer, a new US Sprint Customer, or a US Telecom customer?"...pretty
confusing, especially when their records are so out of date that they
don't know whether a customer is from Telecom or GTE Sprint).

        If hackers were the problem, why would they assign me a *7*
digit code instead of my *9* digit old travel code? 7 digits are
easier to hack than 9, and although it is not a NATIONAL code
like the 9 digit one used to be, the 7 digit one covers a lot of
ground! Moreover, hackers don't really *cost* Sprint all that much...
They are so far behind in my calls (about a year!) that a few hackers
wont do much more harm. I think they just want to unify the system and
in the process make more money (via travelcard surcharges).

        Instead of wasting money, time, and effort on 12 year olds
who really pose no harm to Sprint, why not upgrade their customer
service people so that it is not BUSY *EVERY* time I call, or so
I don't have to be put on hold for 45 minutes! (I'm serious..I timed it!)
Or why can't they take calls off my bill that didn't go through within
a reasonable period of time, lets say 4 months? AT&T can...Southern New
England Tel can, New York Tel, with more customers in NYC than Sprint has
around the country can, why not Sprint? If they want to waste money catching
kids talking on computers, fine. I don't have to pay for that, and that's
why I am totally fed up with them an no longer use them, despite their
fiber optics. If they DO go ahead with their ANI stuff like they are doing
in LA now, where 950-0777 and 950-1033 calls show the originating number,
its not going to catch any more hackers, since you have to find out WHO
is making the call, not just what number it is coming from. This will cost
them even more money, and dig their grave a little deeper. RIP.


        Sorry to be so opinionated, but I am just fed up with them!


        -Doug

        [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 08:55:22 MDT
From: William G. Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Charges for "unlisting"

This probably varies from BOC to BOC, but it is my current understanding
that there is no difference in directory assistance/information charges
regardless of the status of the inquired-about number. I, too, when they
first started charging for this, expected that "frivolous" or unjustified
DA calls would be charged for, but those inquiring about new (not yet in
the printed listing) or unlisted numbers woud not be charged for. This
would be logical and sensible, and could have been easily implemented by
giving the DA operators a key to hit that would indicate to the billing
equipment whether the call in progress should be free or charged-for. (I
would expect the former, as "free" would be the exceptional case, while
most calls would cost.) Of course, this wasn't done.

I agree with you that Touch-Tone extra charges are unjustified. I don't
agree that pulse should be charged for, since it was the telco's
decision to use that equipment originally, and their decision to
implement tone dialling. All this was done for their own benefit by
themselves, so the customers shouldn't pay more for any of it.

Regards, Will Martin

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: England to United States collect: on payphones!
Date: 23 Oct 87 15:17:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)


    When I was in high school, a friend of mine and I tried placing
collect calls to each other from (adjoining) phone booths just to see what
would happen.  What happened was I dialed 0-xxx-xxxx, the operator came on,
I said "I'm calling collect", and then the line went dead.

    I assume that operators are on standing orders to just ignore such
obvious prank calls and cut off the caller without bothering to argue.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

From: harvard!spdcc!m2c!applix![e-mail] (Jim Morton)
Date: 22 Oct 87 21:54:17 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: applix!jim
From: [e-mail] (Jim Morton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: New Service...(actually recording)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Oct 87 21:54:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: APPLiX Inc., Westboro MA
Lines: 6
Summary: phone tap devices


That brings up an interesting question...Do those "Phone Tap Detectors"
that you see a lot in the Sharper Image and the like catalogs really
do anything? They appear to be just a voltage drop detector that screws
on the handset in place of the normal cover. Anyone try one of these
things?

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
23-Oct-87 19:40:55-EDT,9394;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 23-Oct-87 19:09:27
Date: 23 Oct 87 19:09-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #16
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Friday, October 23, 1987 7:09PM
Volume 8, Issue 16

Today's Topics:

                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

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

From: cmcl2!phri!dasys1![e-mail] (Eric Corley)
Date: 23 Oct 87 07:15:08 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: dasys1!ecorley
From: [e-mail] (Eric Corley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Touch Tone Fee
Keywords: touch tones, fees, telco
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Oct 87 07:15:06 GMT
Organization: The Big Electric Cat
Lines: 108


Some folks were discussing what is actually done to your service when you
choose not to pay for touch tones on your telephone line. I thought it might be
interesting to put up a copy of the press release that was recently sent out
by our magazine, 2600. It's generated quite a bit of interest because we are,
in fact, revealing what many of us have known for years--the touch tone fee is
a total rip-off. Already this has been featured on several radio programs and
is currently being investigated by the New York Public Service Commission.
Look for an article in the November issue of Popular Communications.
And now here's the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For quite a few years, New York Telephone has been charging customers for touch
tone service. We find this to be a very misleading practice, one that not only
is unfair to customers, but which threatens to hold back technological
advances by actually discouraging the use of touch tones.

We represent a very large community of telephone users. Our magazine, 2600,
details the many uses and abuses of the common telephone. We have been
instrumental in pointing out "bugs" and discrepancies in nearly all of the
major long distance companies. Many experts and employees of telephone
companies give us insight into current practices and technological advances.
It is based upon these consultations that we reach the conclusion that the
general public is being misled into paying for a feature that doesn't actually
exist.

The use of touch tones benefits the customer, but not nearly as much as it
benefits the phone company. A standard long distance number that takes 18
seconds to dial on a rotary phone only takes 3 seconds on a typical touch tone
phone. This eliminates 15 seconds of non-chargeable dialing time for the phone
company. Calls are processed quicker and hence, more calls can be processed in
a given time period. This, in turn, means more revenue for the company.

(Both rotary pulses and touch tones must be converted to multi-frequency (MF)
tones before the call can be processed. In some older locations, touch tones
must be converted to pulse before they can be converted into MF tones. This
slows down the process somewhat, but the end result is still more advantageous
for the phone company--calls are processed quicker. In newer locations, that
is, facilities that have been in place since the 1960's, no conversion to
pulse is needed.)

There are two types of telephone switching systems that are currently in use in
most parts of the country. They are crossbar and electronic switching systems
(ESS). The crossbar system uses a series of electromechanical switches to
provide dial tones and route calls. It lacks the sophistication to distinguish
who has paid for touch tone service and who hasn't. The result is that
everybody is able to use touch tones and the phone company can do very little
about it. In electronic switching systems, a new feature was introduced. The
phone company was given the ability to 1) distinguish who had not paid the fee
for touch tones and 2) have the central computer ignore any touch tones coming
from these customers. So, in effect, the customer is not so much paying for a
service as he is paying to avoid being inconvenienced.

It is not uncommon for an area to upgrade to an electronic system and find that
half their touch tone phones no longer work because of the above practice.
This tactic has been very successful in getting customers to pay the extra
fee.

It should be noted that no extra equipment is needed for the phone company to
accept touch tones from a customer. The only additional component is the touch
tone phone itself, which the customer is now expected to provide. Every
central office is equipped with touch tone readers to begin with; it's a very
basic component. The only special treatment goes to those who haven't paid:
their touch tones must be treated differently, i.e. ignored. That "service"
does not justify a $2.21 monthly charge. And we certainly find the $10.55
"installation" fee to be equally absurd. As we've already pointed out, in
crossbar systems, no installation is needed because individual installation
isn't possible. And on electronic systems, the only "installation" that is
performed is the changing of an "N" to a "Y" on the billing computer to
signify yes instead of no. (In fact, most systems don't even require a "Y"--a
yes response is assumed.) As we mentioned, all that this really accomplishes
is to prevent the customer's touch tones from being shut off. No labor at all
is used to keep a customer's touch tones operating.

We find it abhorrent that so basic a service should be denied to those who are
unwilling or unable to pay a fee for a feature that doesn't really exist. An
elderly or handicapped person would find it so much easier to dial a number in
an emergency using the touch tone pad rather than the rotary dial, which
requires a good deal more coordination--not to mention the fact that the call
would be placed up to five times faster. Yet so many are forced to deny
themselves this necessity.

Many customers are refusing to pay and are sticking to rotary dial phones. Who
does this benefit? Not the customer and certainly not the phone company. The
only result is slower service and less utilization of our technology.

We call on customers of New York Telephone to speak out against this injustice
by simply not opting for touch tone service. We ask those who already are
paying to cancel their touch tones and, if necessary, use a rotary dial phone
instead. We believe that public pressure will play a major role in the
reversal of this unfair policy. The people simply will not tolerate having the
wool pulled over their eyes any longer.

-30-

CONTACT:
Eric Corley
2600 Magazine
PO Box 99
Middle Island, NY 11953
[phone]


[e-mail]
--
Eric Corley                      {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix           {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!ecorley
New York, NY, USA                               {sun}!hoptoad/

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

Date: 23 Oct 87 14:45:24 EDT (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Admin)

To: mtune!rutgers!comp-dcom-telecom
Path: hotps!homxb!homxc!sgard
From: [e-mail] (S.GARDNER)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Recording calls
Summary: If you are recording a call you'd better BEEP
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Oct 87 13:28:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 39


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lynn Gold) writes:
> As long as ONE of the parties involved in the telephone conversation
> knows that the call is being recorded, it's perfectly legal to record
> the conversation.  In other words, if I feel like taping you, it's okay
> because *I* know I'm taping you.
>
  WRONG....
  Quoted directly from the New Jersey Bell Tel Book (under Consumer
  Responsibilities)
  Recorded calls require a beep tone.
  If you hear a short "beep" tone on your telephone about every
  15 seconds, it means that the that the person with whom you
  are talking is recording your conversation. Use of a recorder
   for recording 2 way conversations is permitted only when the
  recorder is connected physically to the telephone line through
  recorder-connector equipment which contains the "beep" tone.
  End quote

  The rest of the statement basically says that you can request the
  person not to record the call, which will be confirmed by the removal
  of the beep tone on the line. Also, certain emergency reporting systems
  that record the calls (police and fire depts) do not have to have
  the beep tone.

> Re: playing someone's voice over the air -- THEN you MUST have either
> verbal or written consent (the former is often done by taping someone
> saying it's okay to use their voice over the air) in order to do so.
>
  And you don't have to have the beep tone on that call. The FCC allows
  calls to be played live and/or recorded for playback without the beep
  tone. (The tone generator in the recorder-connector is disconnected).

> --Lynn Gold
> Public Affairs Director
> KFJC-FM

  Sanford Gardner
  AT&T Bell Labs
  ihnp4!homxc!sgard

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
24-Oct-87 17:22:43-EDT,10866;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Sat 24 Oct 87 17:22:40-EDT
Date: 24 Oct 87 16:02-EDT
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #17
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Saturday, October 24, 1987 4:02PM
Volume 8, Issue 17

Today's Topics:

                          noisy phone lines
                             True Stories
         Re: England to United States collect: on payphones!
                         Re: Recording calls
Ignorant Telephone Company personnel [was Re: Spurious "}" on 1200..]

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

Date: Fri 23 Oct 87 23:44:23-EDT
From: Ben Bishop <[e-mail]>
Subject: noisy phone lines



A few  months ago  (the end  of July)  after a  severe rain  storm  my
telephone line became impossible to use  with my modem (a racal  vadic
3451 [1200 baud]).  I thought the  problem would clear up in a  couple
of days (I thought that some  wires got wet somewhere and a  dry-spell
would solve  it), but  it has  not at  all improved  over the  last  3
months.

I have called NE Telephone (I live in Nahant, a town north of Boston),
and they listen to the line and  it is fine (and it is... for  voice).
They came out, tested the line;  jiggled some wires; asked me to  test
it and shook their heads.  If I did not have my father-in-law's  phone
available to prove that it wasn't MY equipment that was at fault, they
would have just blamed it on me and left it at that.

That was a  month ago.  I  have been very  busy commuting between  New
Haven CT and Nahant  since then and  have not really  been able to  do
anything about this.  Since one of my principle jobs is in New  Haven,
it is *very* important for me to be able to use my phone/modem.  About
the only idea  that I have  had is to  possibly lug my  computer/modem
down to the 'network interface' box just to make absolutely sure  that
it is not related to the inside wiring for my phone...

But what do I do then?  What type of telecom-speak should I use on the
Phone Co. to get  them to find  out why my line  is garbage (for  data
only) and what recourse do I have if they cannot fix it?


Ben Bishop
t.sailor @ deep-thought.mit.edu
bishop @ athena.mit.edu

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

From: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Subject: True Stories
Date: 24 Oct 87 04:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)


The following is copied with permission from Computer Update Magazine, a
monthly publication of the Boston Computer Society, issue of November/December
1987.  It is extracted from the "Off the Grapevine" column of rumors,
editorials, and "true facts".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               "A New Twist"

    During the past few months, the BCS's Telecommunications Group has been
trying to develop a viable alternative to the FCC's proposal to impose a tariff
on computer data networks.  The group's work has received so much national
attention that the congressional committee that oversees the FCC has asked the
BCS to testify before Congress.
    The BCS is concerned, however, because our nonprofit, tax-exempt status
limits our ability to engage in activities that might be considered political
lobbying.  If the IRS feels that we have stepped outside our educational
mission, it could threaten to revoke the Society's charitable status.
    Thus, when the director of the BCS's Telecommunications Group was told
a few days ago that an agent from the IRS had phoned and was waiting on hold to
speak with him, he felt a sinking feeling in his stomach.
    "I'd like to speak with you about your work on the FCC proposal," the
agent told our director.
    An ominous silence followed.
    "Yes," our director replied.
    "The IRS is the largest user of one of the leading data networks.  If
this proposal goes through, we're going to get hurt badly.  We could really use
the BCS's help."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just thought you all might get a kick out of this.

--Lang
 Lang Zerner   [e-mail]   ...ihnp4!mit-eddie!mit-athena!langz
 "No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the only misfortune is to do it
  solemnly"   --Michel de Montaigne

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

Date:       22 Oct 1987 14:08:46-GMT
From: bct <mcvax!its63b.ed.ac.uk![e-mail]>

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: touch-tone phones in London?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Reply-To: [e-mail] (B Tompsett)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, U.K.
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes:
>I'm spending a few weeks in London and I'm curious to know whether or
>not I'll be able to use "touch-tone" type phones there to pick up
>messages on my answering machine.
>
  No. UK uses pulse dialing. You'll need a dual system type phone.
   Brian


--
> Brian Tompsett. Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh,
> JCMB, The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, EDINBURGH, EH9 3JZ, Scotland, U.K.
> Telephone:         [phone] x2711.
> JANET:  [e-mail]  ARPA: [e-mail]
> USENET: [e-mail]  UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!ecsvax.ed.ac.uk!bct
> BITNET: psuvax1!ecsvax.ed.ac.uk!bct or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: England to United States collect: on payphones!
Date: 24 Oct 87 06:08:23 GMT
Reply-To: ernie.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail] (Joe Konstan)


I remember another trick from my high school days, in NYC, which was since
fixed.  Back then, the pay phones (which were still a dime) were adapted to
signal that money was dropped in using tones (2 for a dime, 5 for a quarter).

As some people discovered, the system allowed two very easy ways to make "free"
calls:

1)  Dial long distance (if you want a local call, dial 1-212-telno)_ and wait
    for the message asking for money.

2a) Pick up the next phone, put it's receiver to the voice piece of the first,
    and deposit the money; then hang up the second phone and retrieve your cash.

2b) Record $XXX worth of "quarter droppings" on tape (this was when micro-
    cassettes just became popular and cheap) and use that to "pay"

New York Tel wised up after about six months of this being popular and fixed the
phones (and probably fixed the basic flaw for future ones).

--
Joe Konstan
[e-mail]

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

From: umix!itivax!chinet![e-mail] (Clif Flynt)
Subject: Re: Recording calls
Date: 23 Oct 87 13:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: umix!itivax!chinet![e-mail] (Clif Flynt)



  As an aside of sorts.  If you are recording the conversation because you
think you are being given the run-around by some shady outfit, that 15
second beep is very effective in putting the Fear-Of-Whatever into them.
  You may not get evidence of the malfeasance that you were suspecting
them of, but it's more likely that they will do what they tell you they'll
do this time.  The shady types seem less inclined to doubletalk when they
know it's being recorded.  (They probably think the recorder is an agent
of the Better Business Bureau, or the local Bunko Squad.)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Opinions are my own. I can't imagine why anyone else would want them.
Clif Flynt    ihnp4!chinet!clif

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

Date: Thursday, 22 October 1987  17:54-MDT
From: ihnp4!ihlpl![e-mail] (Haller)
Subject:   Ignorant Telephone Company personnel [was Re: Spurious "}" on 1200..]

The last time someone fought the battle of the "}", it was discovered
that there was a synchronization problem in digital facilities
somewhere between the two end points.  The 212 modem is particularly
sensitive to phase shifts, causing bit errors.  Normal voice
communications are not sensitive to these shifts, nor are the typical
tests run by telephone personnel.  From the description of the DMS-100
problem, I would guess that the line interface circuit was missing or
inserting extra samples.  It is likely that synchronization problems
will get worse rather than better, based on divestiture.  Most of the
following information is based on the publication Notes on the
Network, 1980, AT&T, select code 500-029, Section 12.

As digital trunks started to be deployed in the network, the need for
a master clock to sychronize these systems was evident.  AT&T built,
and maintains a reference frequency which includes three cesium-beam
frequency standards, accurate to within one part in 10^11.  This clock
is distributed in a strict hierarchy.  This reference frequency is the
strata 1 clock.  It distributes this clock to strata 2 offices (for
example, 4ESS (TM)).  A 4ESS has a clock with a drift (in the absence
of the strata 1 clock) of less than 1 part in 10^10 per day.  During
normal operations, the slip rate is zero (temperature fluctuations may
cause occasional slips).  During problems with connections to the
strata 1 clock, the slip rate should be less than 1 in 10 hours.
During a failure at the extreme design limit of sync problems, the
number of slips should not exceed 255 per day, or about one "}" per 6
minutes.  Note that this is considered a failure condition, not
typical operating conditions.

Now for the fun part.  Where do telephone companies, such as MCI and
Illinois Bell get their reference frequencies?  Naturally, MCI does
not wish to get their timing from AT&T.  Illinois Bell typically would
get its timing from its digital trunks to AT&T.  The problem comes in
when trying to enforce a timing hierarchy, even between local
switches.  It takes a considerable amount of engineering work to
ensure this.  The other problem is convincing someone that there is a
problem in their network.  One phrase that may help the telephone
company isolating the problem is asking them to investigate the slip
rate that the transmission equipment is reporting.  It is unlikely
that you can give this information to the person answering the repair
phone, as in my experience, all they know about is that you will get
charged if they find that the problem is in your wiring.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
26-Oct-87 19:45:17-EST,13365;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Mon 26 Oct 87 19:45:08-EST
Date: 26 Oct 87 14:21-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #18
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Monday, October 26, 1987 2:21PM
Volume 8, Issue 18

Today's Topics:

                Re: recording telephone conversations
                    Extra charges for tone service
Re: Ignorant Telephone Company personnel [was Re: Spurious "}" on 1200..]
                              Re: (none)
                           In search of ...
                         Re: Recording calls
                         TelCo Time Standards
                      Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #15

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

Reply-To: sdsu!crash.CTS.COM![e-mail]
From: sdsu!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Scott O'Connell)
Subject: Re: recording telephone conversations
Date: 24 Oct 87 18:56:08 GMT


'C-mon people -- get some facts before you jump to conclusions!

Each of you claim the other is wrong in every message I read.  Just because
*you* think you're right doesn't mean the other person in wrong.

Lynn Gold accurately described the laws of California regarding recording a
telephone conversation.  I'll take a guess that Sanford Gardner looked at his
local phone book and said "wrong, wrong, wrong!!" and decided to tell us all
that LYNN WAS WRONG, and I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

jsol ACCURATELY stated that the laws vary from state to state.  Why shouldn't
we have guessed this in the beginning?  What other laws are *exactly* the same
in all 50 states?

I come here for information, normally this information is well researched,
quality material that I can make decisions from.  Not lately.


Scott O'Connell - Datagram Corp.   UUCP: {cbosgd hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc}...
3297 Sweetwater Springs Blvd #8          ...!crash!pnet01!scotto
San Diego, CA 92078-1477           ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
800/235-5030                       INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Oct 87 20:27:44 EDT
From: "Michael A.  Patton" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Extra charges for tone service

From your TELECOM message dated 23 Oct 1987:
Status: O

    However, if you want a good example of a service that we shouldn't
    be charged extra for, try touch tone on for size.  Touch tone
    calls are dialed faster, and therefore take up less of the central
    office's processing time.  Perhaps back in the Stroger or crossbar
    days it made sense to charge extra to cover the cost of installing
    touch tone dialing equipment, but for ESS offices, people should
    really pay extra for *pulse*.  This would have the additional
    benefit of hastening the demise of antiquated pulse equipment.

    Robert Lenoil

In fact tone dialing was developed by Bell because it would save money
and make it beneficial to replace older equipment.  They (the
technical types who developed it) proposed that, one CO at a time, the
entire Bell System should convert from pulse-only to tone-only service
(at NO COST to the subscriber!).  This would lower costs, decrease
equipment requirements, and other assorted benefits.  They even did an
economic analysis with the cost of buying everyone a new phone to
replace their existing one (in those days they were all leased from
Bell anyway), upgrading CO equipment, etc.  They determined that the
savings would pay for this.  Unfortunately, the marketing people then
got into the act and said to themselves, "Here is something that the
subscriber will see as having a personal benefit, therefore we can get
them to pay extra for it."  The regulatory agencies, of course, would
not let them FORCE people to get a more expensive service.  Thus we
have the current state of affairs.

Mike Patton

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Ignorant Telephone Company personnel [was Re: Spurious "}" on 1200..]
Date: 25 Oct 87 03:18:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marc Kaufman)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Haller) writes:
>          ...give this information to the person answering the repair
>phone, as in my experience, all they know about is that you will get
>charged if they find that the problem is in your wiring.

"It will be fixed tomorrow before 5 o'clock"

My local office just cut over to ESS (from #5 crossbar).  Evidently I can
now buy a "data guaranteed" line for $$ extra per month.  I have not been
able to get a guarantee that if "I" have a data guaranteed line, and the
other end (computer) has a data guaranteed line, ... that the central
office trunks will preserve the data.

I have just gone through a very long hassle with the local Telco over 48
InWATS lines that are used for data.  The upshot is that "there is no
data tariff for WATS", so they refuse to test for impulse noise and
other forms of data degradation as long as the circuit can be used for voice.

Thanks to deregulation, I discovered that if you get T1 service from the
local toll office, you cannot get straight digital passthrough from the
toll trunks.  The lines are individually broken down to 2-wire analog
circuits, sent through the nearest CO, and re-digitized for transmission
to the customer!  Fun, huh?

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: hpscda!hpscdl!hplabs!well![e-mail] (Kenton A. Hoover)
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 25 Oct 87 09:26:57 GMT
Reply-To: hplabs!well![e-mail] (Kenton A. Hoover)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Admin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lynn Gold) writes:
>> As long as ONE of the parties involved in the telephone conversation
>> knows that the call is being recorded, it's perfectly legal to record
>> the conversation.  In other words, if I feel like taping you, it's okay
>> because *I* know I'm taping you.
>>
>  WRONG!

OK, boys and girls, lets get this straight.

To cite the contents of phone books is silly.  Each state has rules for teh
operation of the phone system in their state ("tariff") and these matters,
whether it be wiretap, phone recording, rates, etc. will VARY WIDELY.  Being
in the same RBOC makes no difference (California and Nevada have a different
set of regs).

So, what is true in California may not be true in NY.  Unless you are citing
CFRs, it dont apply to me.


--
!   Kenton A. Hoover             {hoptoad,hplabs,lll-lcc,ptsfa}!well!shibumi !
!                                 SNAIL: 1748 Clement Street                 !
!   Prescriptive Technology              San Francisco, CA 94121             !
! "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb!"                 !

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

Date: Sun, 25 Oct 87 10:17:52 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: In search of ...
Reply-to: [e-mail]

In doing some work with habitual and new users of audio-video links
(especially Widcom + half duplex audio)*, I have come to wonder how
people reacted when they first experienced telephones.  Can you refer me
to diaries, stories, descriptions, studies, news paper accounts, etc. of
people's experience of the phone when it was first introduced (or as it
has become available in third world countries)?

Many thanks --
    Susan Irwin


*I am currently studying one particular link (at Xerox PARC) focusing on
how people manage amazingly smooth and coordianted
conversations/meetings given the somewhat limited audio and video
capacity.  People new to the link report more trouble (both technically
and conversationally) using it then people who use it frequently.  I am
wondering if people new to the telephone had the same sort of
experience.

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

From: ihnp4!homxc![e-mail] (S.GARDNER)
Subject: Re: Recording calls
Date: 23 Oct 87 13:28:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lynn Gold) writes:
> As long as ONE of the parties involved in the telephone conversation
> knows that the call is being recorded, it's perfectly legal to record
> the conversation.  In other words, if I feel like taping you, it's okay
> because *I* know I'm taping you.
>
  WRONG....
  Quoted directly from the New Jersey Bell Tel Book (under Consumer
  Responsibilities)
  Recorded calls require a beep tone.
  If you hear a short "beep" tone on your telephone about every
  15 seconds, it means that the that the person with whom you
  are talking is recording your conversation. Use of a recorder
   for recording 2 way conversations is permitted only when the
  recorder is connected physically to the telephone line through
  recorder-connector equipment which contains the "beep" tone.
  End quote

  The rest of the statement basically says that you can request the
  person not to record the call, which will be confirmed by the removal
  of the beep tone on the line. Also, certain emergency reporting systems
  that record the calls (police and fire depts) do not have to have
  the beep tone.

> Re: playing someone's voice over the air -- THEN you MUST have either
> verbal or written consent (the former is often done by taping someone
> saying it's okay to use their voice over the air) in order to do so.
>
  And you don't have to have the beep tone on that call. The FCC allows
  calls to be played live and/or recorded for playback without the beep
  tone. (The tone generator in the recorder-connector is disconnected).

> --Lynn Gold
> Public Affairs Director
> KFJC-FM

  Sanford Gardner
  AT&T Bell Labs
  ihnp4!homxc!sgard

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

From: "Kurt F. Sauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TelCo Time Standards
Date: 26 Oct 87 05:13:04 GMT
Reply-To: "Kurt F. Sauer" <[e-mail]>


Readers of Telecom:

Cesium-based and other atomic timekeeping standards aren't prohibitively
expensive today--although synchronization and phase-shift remain serious
problems.  Where, physically, are the time standards for the networks
kept?

For example, (though I have forgotten the name of the town for the moment)
AT&T Communications, Inc. maintains a time standard in central Missouri.
I have pictures of it--it's unimpressive...just a fancy clock with no
direct indication of the time of day (sigh).

If the other carriers have their own clocks, where are they?  And does
AT&T maintain other (backup or auxiliary) network clocks elsewhere?  Net-
works aren't like power grids in their ability to sink or swim instantly
based on synchronization; it's a finer art.

Kurt F. Sauer
Tulsa, OK

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

Date: Sat, 24 Oct 87 23:31:37 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Kucharczyk)
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #15

Phone tap detectors:

Most of the phone tap detectors that are commercially sold are
just voltage drop detectors and completly worthless since they
won't even pick up a lineman's "butt-set".  The only way
to be reasonably sure a line isn't tapped is to disconnect
both ends and put an signal generator on one end and an oscilliscope
on the other end and check the signal loss at several frequencies and
then store these values for the next time a sweep is done.
One could also use a sweep generator and a spectrum analyzer
for a more complete and accurate record, but none of these
methods are fool proof because humidity, temperature and other
outside conditions can cause impedance changes that would cause
one to suspect that an 'addition' has been made to the line.
 The best way would be to terminate one end with a purely resistive
600 ohm impedance (ie a 600 ohm carbon resistor) and use a time-
domain reflectometer.  This device sends out short pulses of
RF and then listens for reflections and shows them on a screen
(ie reflected power vs. time).  The 600 ohm termination on the
end of the line shows up as the largest peak and any impedance
changes along the line (ie terminal connections,cable splices
taps) show up as smaller peaks between the start of the trace
and the termination peak. This also gives one a relative
distance to the suspected tap.
  The phone company has automated testing apparatus that will
give a nice printout of line impedance, capacitance etc.
(that's how they know how many phones you have on your line,
since every ringer adds impedance to the line) but I wouldn't
bother to try to pry such info from them.
  Even with all this if a tap is well designed it is almost impossible
to find. A very high resistance input with low capacitance/inductance
would go unnoticed by any of these methods. (ie a FET input transistor
amp has about 10 Meg input resistance with 2-10 pf input capacitance
and would be totaly hidden to all but the most sensitive instruments.)


ssr



ssr

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
28-Oct-87 22:31:25-EST,7233;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Wed 28 Oct 87 22:31:22-EST
Date: 28 Oct 87 21:02-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #19
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Wednesday, October 28, 1987 9:02PM
Volume 8, Issue 19

Today's Topics:

       Re: Subscriber Line Interfaces (SLIC) characteristics ?
                          dialling patterns
                          Ringing Generators
                     Re: Request for Information
       Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"

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

From: decuac!aplcen!casemo![e-mail] (Brian Cuthie )
Subject: Re: Subscriber Line Interfaces (SLIC) characteristics ?
Date: 26 Oct 87 22:56:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dale chayes) writes:
>
> I am (reluctantly) doing an interface between a PBX (probably a Mitel SX-20)
> and a Magnavox MX-211 INMARSAT (ship earth station) and am in need of a (the)
> reference that defines (electrikly) a Subscriber Line (SLIC?.)
>
> It seems to me that the 'thing to do' is to supply a current source (as if
> there was a 'local office' in my 4 to 2 conversion box, and detect 'off hook'
> by from the current flow.
>
> Comments, reccomendations, and a reference are welcome.


Dale, you forgot to mention which side of the PBX you would like to interface
to.   If you want to interface on the instrument side (ie. where a phone would
normally go) then you must make something that looks like a phone to the
PBX.  This really isn't too hard.  You just need to have a two wire interface
that has an impedance of about 600 ohms and a DC resistance of about
200 ohms or less.  This is usually done best through a transformer.  To
my knowledge, Mitel uses their MH88500 SLIC as the interface on that end.
(You can get the specs on that part from Mitel. They sell it in the open
market and it's in their data book.  I've used them in my own PBX and they're
quite nice.)

If, rather, you would like to connect to the trunk end of the PBX (the
interface that usually connects to the phone company), then you need
to build something that looks like a phone line.  It should be a 2 or 4
wire interface (depending on the Mitel trunk interface) and it should
be capable of supplying about 24 volts and 30 ma into a 200 ohm DC load.
It should also have an impedance of 600 ohms.  Depending on the
requirements of the Mitel PBX you could actually use their MH88500 SLIC.

Really, it would be best to get the Mitel data book and look at their SLIC.
It will provide some useful information regardless of which interface you
actually have to build.

Hope this helps...

Cheers,
Brian

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Cuthie
CASE Communications
Columbia, Md 21046
(301) 290 - 7443

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

From: rochester!moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)
Subject: dialling patterns
Date: 28 Oct 87 17:17:05 GMT




Over on rec.arts.tv there has been on ongoing discussion of a telephone
number that Denise Huxtable called on "A Different World".  Strangely,
to call Brooklyn she dialled, so some one claims, 01-212-nxx-xxxx.

It has been noted that Brooklyn in is 718, and that 01 is the prefix to
call internationally using the operator.  However, the following message
arrived recently:

--  In Georgia, the state Denise's collage is located, you must dial
-- 1-area code-telephone number, to call a long distance number,  If
-- you need operator assistance you must dial 01-area code-number.
-- For internationl operator assistance you dial 00.

Does anyone know if this is true?  I had thought that the prefixes 1, 0, 011,
01, and 10, were universal in their usage, and now that DC has changed to
require 1+ dialling, universal in their need.

Furthermore, has anybody heard of dialling 0 for the intralata operator and
00 for the interlata operator?

Thanks.


--
               rochester \
David Esan                | moscom ! de
                    ritcv/

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

From: decuac!aplcen!casemo![e-mail] (Brian Cuthie )
Subject: Ringing Generators
Date: 27 Oct 87 15:12:01 GMT



I am looking for a source of about 6 old 1A2 key system power supplies.  In
particular, I am looking for ringing generators.  These are usually in the
20 to 30 hz, 90 VAC, 50 ma. or more variety.   They are almost always
frequency dividers or filters.  (sample weco #s 20B2, 118A, 118B etc.)

HELP!  I'm desperate !  These are for a home project and have nothing to
do with my employer.

If you have any source or leads, please give me a call or send email.

Thanks !

Brian

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Cuthie
CASE Communications
Columiba, Md 21046
(301) 290 - 7443

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

From: decuac!aplcen!casemo![e-mail] (Brian Cuthie )
Subject: Re: Request for Information
Date: 27 Oct 87 14:57:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Koziol) writes:
> I work for the RIT Campus Safety Department and we are interested in
> placing emergency telephones around the campus and in parking lots.
> Our problem is that digging a trench to run a pair of wires to a phone
> in the middle of a parking lot is prohibitively expensive. I'd like
> to find a source of telephones that you sometimes see along the sides of
> the road on interstates. I've called several suppliers and everyone has
> heard of such a system but no one knows where to get one. I'd like a


The easiest way to find out may just be to drive out and find one.  Get out
of your car and look to see who makes it.  If it doesn't say, then call
the State Highway Administration.  They'll be able to tell you for sure (if
you can talk to anyone but the front end loader driver :-)

Cheers,
Brian

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Cuthie
CASE Communications
Columbia, Md 21046
(301) 290 - 7443

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

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 16:13:12 EST
From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"

I got a letter recently from American Express offering a service
called "Expressphone."  It costs nothing to sign up, you fill
out the slip (complete with AmEx account number), return it, and
they send you a MCI charge card (whatevertheycallit) and a "five-digit
code number" which you dial (when using your home phone) before
your long distance number.

This sounds suspiciously like a 10??? number.  Anyone know if my
suspicions are correct here?


# Henry Mensch / <[e-mail]> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
#      {ames,cca,rochester,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
31-Oct-87 22:20:59-EST,11970;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Sat 31 Oct 87 22:20:55-EST
Date: 31 Oct 87 19:50-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #20
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Saturday, October 31, 1987 7:50PM
Volume 8, Issue 20

Today's Topics:

     Re: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                         wireless call boxes
           phone co. does zipcode/phone-prefix correlation?
                        Re: dialling patterns

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

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 87 00:44:16 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jon Solomon)
Subject: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"

No, the numbers are different. You dial MCI's direct number (some 267-xxxx
in Boston), and key in the 5 digits. If you get 10222 you've got a freak
code and EVERYBODY WILL BE TRYING TO CRACK IT, so get in touch with MCI
or AMEX Or whatever and get that code changed!

--jsol

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

Date:     Thu, 29 Oct 87 04:06:04 EST
From: [e-mail]

Bell Canada Calling Card Service
-
-
     Just an minor question (I think):
On numerous trips to Toronto and Vancouver a few years ago, (1985/6), Ih
noticed that all Calling Card Service is handled by the operator.
IE, there is no automated Calling Card system to handle 0+ calls. Even
in the most remote areas of the US there seems to be automated 0+
service , and even in some exchanges not equiped for Touch Tone service
(like many areas in eastern Springfield, Mass) there is automated Calling
Card service. (Pretty silly since an operator has to come on anyhow. I
guess they did this for the Charge-A-Calls, which in these non-tone
exchanged seem to have their Touch Tones converted to pulse in order
to initially get to the automated Calling Card Service. Its really
weird using a Charge-A-Call from a Crossbar, no 950 service, you have to
dial 0-800 to make an 800 call, etc...!)
     In any event, it would seem if Bell (NE Tel) could do this for
certain Springfield exchanges, then Bell Canada could certainly
implemeny automated Calling Card service up in Toronto, where I suspect
there is a greater demand for Calling Card and 0+ services than therer
is in Chicopee, Mass (near Springfield). Doesn't the automated service
save Bell some money? Seems as if it would free a lot of operator-assist
time.....
    Secondly, speaking of Canada, I was looking through a Toronto book
recently, and saw no reference made to Custom Calling Services, such
as Call-Waiting, Call-Forwarding, Speed-Dial and Three-Way-Calling.
(These are the 'standard' ones. Pac*Bell offers "Call-Hold" and
"Call-Waiting-Block" , which is not that standard, yet....) Are
these services available there? Or has Bell Canada been somewhat
slow in implementing Custom Calling as well?
     Guess thats it...Any responses would be appreciated!
     Thanks,
     -Doug
                 [e-mail]
      (please don't repsond to address in header...thanks!)

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

Subject: Re: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 87 09:50:21 -0500
From: Daniel Long <[e-mail]>

I subscribe to Expressphone so I can tell you a bit about it.  In my exchange,
which doesn't yet have equal-access, you get a local phone number to call and
an account number to dial at the "second" dial tone before dialing your long
distance number.  The calls, which I gather go through MCI, show up on your
monthly Amex card bill as yet another purchase (with full AT&T style billing
detail).  You also get a 950 and 1-800 number from which you can do AT&T
calling-card type calls (the calling-card number is your home phone number plus
a 4-digit extension that is different from the AT&T card's).

It would seem a logical extension to Expressphone as I know it to convert those
services to 10xxx calling (where available) but I don't have first-hand
experience with that.

Dan Long
BBN Laboratories
[e-mail]

(My only connection with Expressphone or Amex is that I send them money every
month.  They certainly don't send me money.)

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

From: im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!uniq![e-mail]
Date: 29 Oct 87 21:50:51 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: uniq!rjnoe
From: [e-mail] (Roger J. Noe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"
Keywords: Expressphone (MCI)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Oct 87 21:50:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Uniq Digital Technologies, Batavia, IL
Lines: 28

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes:
> I got a letter recently from American Express offering a service
> called "Expressphone."  It costs nothing to sign up, you fill
> out the slip (complete with AmEx account number), return it, and
> they send you a MCI charge card (whatevertheycallit) and a "five-digit
> code number" which you dial (when using your home phone) before
> your long distance number.
>
> This sounds suspiciously like a 10??? number.  Anyone know if my
> suspicions are correct here?

I don't think so.  I have Expressphone and the only thing like that I've
seen is the authorization code you can use when traveling.  The card (I
think they called it Travelnet) is just something you can write your code
on for a reminder.  My MCI service is "1+" from my home, making it as
convenient as any common carrier can be.  The line quality is top-notch,
often better than what I hear using that other phone company.  The charges
are itemized with my American Express bill.  It's the smallest charge on
there.  I have no financial interest in MCI, American Express, or any
of their parent or subsidiary corporations; I'm just a very satisfied MCI
Expressphone customer.

The views expressed in this article are entirely my own and should not
be construed otherwise.
--
    Roger Noe            {ihnp4|clyde}!uniq!rjnoe
    Uniq Digital Technologies    [phone]
    Batavia, Illinois  60510    41:50:56 N.  88:18:35 W.

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

From: [e-mail] (Allyn Fratkin)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 87 18:46:43 PST
Subject: wireless call boxes

I was just reading in the UCSD student newspaper that the UCSD Police
Department has just installed some new wireless call boxes on campus.
they are made by Motorola, and cost $3300 each.

Apparently these things are very revolutionary, because the article says
that UCSD is the first university in California to install these boxes.

I don't know anything else about them, but they are supposed to be very
easy to install and use.

For more information, you can call Al Jenkins at the UCSD Police Department,
[phone].  The article mentions that many universities are
interested in the boxes and that Jenkins gets a lot of calls about them.
It also says that a few of the other UC campuses are going to install them.

Allyn Fratkin                    [e-mail]
EMU Project                      or
U.C. San Diego                   {ucbvax, decvax, ihnp4}!sdcsvax!allyn

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

From: ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Date: 29 Oct 87 18:10:51 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: ssc-vax!clark
From: [e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: RE: Extra charges for tone service
Keywords: dollars, rip-off
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Oct 87 18:10:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 34

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

I just read Mike Patton's note regarding the changes for tone
service by the telcos. It got me to thinking about the dollars
involved from the local phone company's point of view.
Here is a short example:

> approx. population of the State of Washington  20 million
> the general residential tariff for tone service = $ .65 per month
(businesses pay much more, and some locations/operating co are
allowed to charge more, etc.)
> assume that one third of the population has a tone line

then ->  one third of 20 million = 6.67 million tone lines

    6.67M X $.65 = $4.33M per month

    $4.33M X 12 months = $52M per year

That's $52M dollars per year to the various operating companies
in Washington State with no extra expenses incurred....
    I thinks we are getting ripped off !!

> You should work out the numbers for your own state....

I would like to write the State Utilities Commission
with the goal to get this silly tariff removed from the books
once and for all !

If Mike could post the source reference of the Bell System study,
on converting to tone sevice, he talked about in his article, it
would be a good piece of ammunition to shoot down this tariff.

Roger Swann    uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark

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

Date:     Fri, 30 Oct 87 9:50:40 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  phone co. does zipcode/phone-prefix correlation?

Some phone books covering rural areas have a separate section for each phone
prefix, with an occasional case of 2 prefixes in the same territory.  Because
the phone prefix won't necessarily match the mailing address, it is necessary
to preface the white pages with a community list which says "for (community)
see (exchange place name)".  Some phone prefixes have place names which are
nonpostal names, and when you get out along the rural delivery routes you
may find your mail coming from one town and your phone line going to a town
in the opposite direction.

How much work goes into this?

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

Date: 30 Oct 87 04:03:23 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)

Path: flmis06!mikel
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ignorant Telephone Company personnel
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Oct 87 04:03:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T, Altamote Springs, FL
Lines: 15

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Haller) writes:
>          ...give this information to the person answering the repair
> phone, as in my experience, all they know about is that you will get
> charged if they find that the problem is in your wiring.

The "}" noise that you are receiving on a local call is caused by
unsynchronized clocks on two ends on a digital trunk between two COs.

Have fun getting them to fix it, especially if the two COs are not part
of the same Operating Company. (ie: Bell South, and United "mickey mouse" Tel.)

M
--
                    Mikel Manitius @ AT&T
                    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: dialling patterns
Date: 30 Oct 87 08:17:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Shrader)


It is common to see both 00 and 01 used in different areas to
access a long distance carrier for either operator or direct
calls.

The 1+ dialling requirement you find in DC and a couple of years
ago required in other states is so that you can start having
local exchanges that look like area codes: 416, for example.
The switching office can no longer look at the second digit dialled
to see if it is 0/1 and determine long distance.  Hence, the 1+.

Dave Shrader
[e-mail]
..!ucla-cs!dave

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 2-Nov-87 22:21:24-EST,1468;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Mon 2 Nov 87 22:21:22-EST
Date: 2 Nov 87 21:11-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #21
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Monday, November 2, 1987 9:11PM
Volume 8, Issue 21

Today's Topics:

                        AT&T Phone Model 7405

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

Date:         Sat, 31 Oct 87 23:36:01 EDT
From:         Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject:      AT&T Phone Model 7405

This past year we had an AT&T system 85 switch installed on campus and
an AT&T model 7405 (with display panel) telephone was installed in my
office. I was told at the outside that the phone was capable of many
options, and to never unplug it as it may not work when I plugged it in
again. Since I'm basically a curious sort a friend and my self recently
disassembled it and found two rather large circuit boards populated
nicely with lots of chips and a couple of EPROMS. I have a few questions:
what "processing" does this phone do, what is stored in memory, how
volatile is the memory, what is the phone capable of, and finally why
shouldn't I unplug it? Any ideas?

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 8-Nov-87 13:37:38-EST,8884;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Sun 8 Nov 87 13:37:35-EST
Date: 8 Nov 87 12:09-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #22
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Sunday, November 8, 1987 12:09PM
Volume 8, Issue 22

Today's Topics:

                       telephone tap detection
               re: AT&T 7405 (and other digital) phones
                       ULTRIX-X.25 Connectivity
     Re: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"
                      gte t212a 1200 baud modem
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                             Robert Lucky
                      PEN (U.S. Postal Service)

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 87 22:38:45 est
From: [e-mail] (Mark Horton)
Subject: telephone tap detection

I would appreciate a brief rundown on phone taps and how easy they
are to detect.  Specifically, Radio Shack sells two boxes, one of
which plugs into the line in series and automatically records off
the line when some phone downstream goes off hook; the other plugs
in like an extension and detects anything on the line going off hook.
Do these recorders have any electronic effect on the line?  Could a
garden variety "Telephone Tap Detector" ($49 list, with a red and
green light) detect these, or do they only detect off-hook extensions?
Would the equipment a good private detective has be able to detect them?

Please respond by mail to [e-mail], or if your mailer can't
handle MX, to stargate.com![e-mail].  Thanks,

    Mark

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 3 Nov 87 09:07
Subject: re: AT&T 7405 (and other digital) phones

re: V8I21 question about the 7405,

No, you shouldn't unplug it.  The 7405, like its forebears the Rolm ETS,
the SL-1set, the AT&T ECTS and other electronic sets, is electrically not
much at all like a Plain Black Phone.  There are two major differences.
One, the 7405 (like other AT&T 74- and 75-series sets, but not the
71-, 72- and 73-series) uses digital transmission.  There's a codec in
the set which converts the analog microphone signal into a 64kbps stream,
and vice versa to the earpiece.

More important is the way all of these electronic sets do their signaling.
They don't use conventional analog techniques (relays, HV ringers, etc.);
instead, there's bandwidth muxed into the digital link which carries signaling
messages.  The 74-series uses AT&T's proprietary link format, the newer
75-series is an ISDN-based format (more standarized).  In the 7405, when
you pick up (or hang up) or press a button or whatever, a message is sent
down the signaling channel.  When the switch wants  to signal you, it sends
a message up the signaling channel which the set translates to mean
things like "ring" and "display FWD 6399".

Now even when the set is idle, there's a constant stream of bits on the
wire.  If you unplug the set, the PBX line card won't see the bits coming
from your set, and will assume that something's wrong, sound an alarm
(probablay write it to a maintenance log in memory) and possibly shut down
your line card (I don't know if it actually does that but it might).
And if it does shut down your line card, your set won't work when you

plug it back in.  Either way, the maintenance folks will be peeved.

So the circuit cards in the set do voice digitization, message-oriented
signaling (rather primitive actually), multiplexing and line driving of
the digital link back to the switch.  No wonder these cost more than
2500 sets.
    fred

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

From: geac![e-mail] (J. Michael Bennett)
Subject: ULTRIX-X.25 Connectivity
Date: 3 Nov 87 16:29:31 GMT




We are running ULTRIX 2.0 and are interested in getting
reliable X.25 access out to a PSDN (such as Datapac, the  Canadian X.25 public carrier),
from C application programs.
We would appreciate hearing from anyone out there
who has had good and/or bad experiences. The products we
are considering include;
1) async PADs such as MICOM Box 2, Dynateck MonoPAD, Motorola 625.
2) board level solutions such as SSI/DEC and Software Kinetics
3) Ethernet gateways (TCP based) such as Scanet, CMC DRN3200 and DG

Pleae let us know what you have experienced and if there
are others out there that we have missed. We will post
a summary to the net if the responses warrant it.
Thanx a bunch in advance.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Marketing a little-known (to the average joe) "feature"
Date: 4 Nov 87 02:23:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Lesher,Contributor)


Amex/Expressphone/MCI offers several different services in one,
if you request them properly.

A) 10222 service from YOUR phone upon request. They of course
only seem to mention the 1+ service.

B) 950-1022 + 0 + AC + 7d + 14 digit code from other phones.
A variation on this is the 800 access if your CO is 'dumb',
but the charges are a lot higher.
The desirable aspect of this is that within many metro areas
inc DC/VA/MD, calls from any phone in YOUR area carry *no*
surcharge. In other words, 950 calls cost the same as calls via
10222. Thus if you LOVE dialing, you can just get the latter
service.

What interests me is that when you go to sign up, the
Expressphone operator has on-line access to your BOC
records, including non-pubs. She knows your name and address
from your #.

BTW ever make a collect call via 10222? Seems as if there is no
ANI, or readout for the ALD operator. Thus you dial, give her
BOTH #s and wait. Mine got the two confused, and insisted my
party was busy......

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

From: [e-mail] (Kurt Jensen BEND Operator Account)
Subject: gte t212a 1200 baud modem
Date: 4 Nov 87 09:10:29 GMT
Reply-To: bend![e-mail] (Kurt Jensen)


I have a GTE T212A 1200 baud modem.

Please!  I have no clue what to send to this modem to get it to
send, dial, or fart sideways.  All I can do is get it to loopback.

Can anyone send me a summary of the protocol to use it?

Any information would be appreciated, even if you just tell me how
rotten it is.

Thanks.
-Kurt    ([e-mail] or [e-mail]) (whatever works)

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

From: Guy Middleton <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Nov 87 20:26:44 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: watmath!gamiddleton
From: [e-mail] (Guy Middleton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: custom calling in Canada
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Nov 87 20:26:43 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: MFCF
Lines: 10

Doug Reuben (I think) noticed that Custon Calling is not mentioned in the
Toronto phone book, and wondered if we have it here.  I checked in my book
(for Waterloo-Guelph, just west of Toronto); it's not there either.  I do
have my most recent phone bill on my desk here.  Included with it is an
advertising insert, telling me how wonderful Custom Calling is and why I
should get it now.  We have call-waiting, call-forwarding, and speed-call,
and have had them for years.

 -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo Institute for Computer Research
  [e-mail], watmath!gamiddleton

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

Subject: Robert Lucky
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 87 14:34:46 -0500
From: M C Srivas <[e-mail]>

Does anyone know where I could access papers published by Rob Lucky?
His papers will most probably deal with limitations, etc. of the various
optical networking technologies. Thanks.

Srivas.
______________________________________________________________________________

      Network:
          ARPA:    [e-mail]
          BITNET:    [e-mail]
          CSNET:    [e-mail]
          UUCP:    ...!ihnp4!berkeley    -\
              ...!allegra!berkeley    -->![e-mail]
              ...!harvard        -/
______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date:     Fri, 6 Nov 87 16:39:54 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  PEN (U.S. Postal Service)

In zipcode directory of Airport Mail Facilities, I see commercial
telephone numbers followed by other numbers using PEN where the
commercial area code would appear (as in the FTS).  What does PEN
stand for?

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
21-Nov-87 13:45:42-EST,8002;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Sat 21 Nov 87 13:45:39-EST
Date: 21 Nov 87 12:57-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #23
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Saturday, November 21, 1987 12:57PM
Volume 8, Issue 23

Today's Topics:

                          signature by wire
                   Touch-tone to rotary conversion
                     DIALING is the exception...
                          no ringing on line
                   Two extensions via three wires?
              Where can U.S. modems be used outside U.S?

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: signature by wire
Date: 8 Nov 87 23:14:48 GMT


    I was in a store the other day and saw an interesting gizmo (not
for sale; but as something they use).  There is piece of paper (actually, a
blank sales slip) in a holder, with a pen above it.  The pen is attached to
the rest of the box via two straight links, roughly at right angles to each
other, attached near the tip, sort of like a pantograph.  The other ends of
the links disapear into the body of the box.  The links are free to move as
you move the pen.  Coming out of the box was a wire, going to a 42A block
and thence to what looks like a run of regular 4-conductor station wire.

    The box had a name on it, something like "Tele-Autograph".
Obviously, the idea is that you sign your name with the pen and the box
reads the movements of the pen and duplicates them, at the other end of the
wire, where you signature can be recorded, or compared to a file copy.

    The first time I remember seeing one of these must have been 15
years ago.  I remember playing with it; seems that when you put the pen
back in the holder, the sales slip is ejected and some light flashes; this
caused various store-manager types to come over and remove me from the
vicinity of the machine.  When I tried playing with the one I saw recently,
nothing exciting happend; possibly it wasn't turned on?

    Does anybody know anything about these?  Is there some standard for
what the phone interface looks like?  What happens at the other end of the
wire?  Does a mechanical pen follow your movements and duplicate your
signature?  Is the tracing stored digitally?  Any and all info would be
appreciated.  Do they actually still use these things?  Seems that with the
advances in digiter-table technology, these mechanical boxes would be
obsolete by now.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

Date:     Mon, 9 Nov 87 14:21:23 EST
From:     Jeffrey C Honig <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Touch-tone to rotary conversion


Yesterday I signed a lease on an apartment in Newfield, NY, a couple of
miles outside of Ithaca.  I called today to arrange for phone service
and was shocked to learn that the Newfield exchange does not support
touch-tone service at all.  None of my 4 or 5 phones supports pulse
dialing, neither does my "Demon Dialer".  New York Telephone claims that
they target the end of 1988 for having all the exchanges in the area up
to date but I don't know if I could stay sane for a year without
touch-tone.

I have been thinking that I could make good use of a device that I could
put in the phone line after the demarcation point that would receive the
touch-tone signals and convert them to pulses.  Has anyone ever heard of
such a device? Any leads on where I could purchase one? Any experience
with such a device.

Thanks much.

Jeff

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

Date: 26 Oct 87 12:08 PST
From: William Daul / McAir / McDonnell-Douglas Corp  <[e-mail]>
Subject: DIALING is the exception...

There are a couple of interesting definitions from the Webster' International
Dictionary following:

   DIAL TELEPHONE: a telephone from which connnections may be automatically
   completed without the aid of an exchange operator by revolving a dial marked
   with nubmers and letters into positions corresponding to the units of the
   desired telephone number.

   DIAL: a disk usually with a knob or slot that may be turned to make
   electrical connections or to regulate the operation of a machine and
   typically with a series of makings around its border to serve as a guide for
   the operation.

It has been bothering me that people still refer to dialing on a push button
phone.  How should we really refer to it?  "I'll trying pushing your number!"?

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 87 15:22:32 PST
Subject: no ringing on line

 MSG:FROM: SPGDCM  --UCBCMSA  TO: NETWORK --NETWORK           11/10/87 15:22:30
 To: NETWORK --NETWORK  Network Address

 From: Doug Mosher
 Subject: no ringing on line
 To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax

 I was calling another business today and got no action; no ringing, no fast or
 slow busy.

 I reported this to pac bell via 611 and got this puzzling comment from them:

 "Yes, we show this as a problem, probably on their switchboard. We will check
 it and if it's a problem in our lines we will fix it."

 Now this surprises me. It seems to mean that under current multi-company
 situations, the intra-lata carrier can encounter some end-user line situations
 which are blocked or dead, and not return any signal (ring, busy, recording,
 intercept) if it's the "fault" of customer equipment. Is this true, or is the
 repair operator jazzing me?

 (          Doug Mosher <[e-mail]>            )
 ( 257 Evans, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, 415/642-5823 )
   j  no ringing on line

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 22:00:55 EST
From: Chet Edelman <ileaf!io!hineni![e-mail]>
Subject: Two extensions via three wires?
Reply-To: Chet Edelman <[e-mail]>

I have a situation where I want to have two extensions carried by three
wires.  I have a four-wire cable going between floors, with two of the
wires shorted together.  It would be much easier to use the existing
cable than to rip it out and string a new one.

Is it possible to make the two lines share a wire, is there a common
ground?  If it is possible, which should I make common.  I know there
is something called tip and ring, but how do I tell one from another?

Please send mail directly to me, I'll summarize.  Thanks.
--
Chet Edelman        "Here am I"            Interleaf Inc.
                            10 Canal Park
[e-mail]    ([e-mail])        Cambridge Ma 02141
{sun!sunne!ileaf!io!hineni,harvard!umb}!coe        [phone]x3425

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

Date: Wed 18 Nov 87 09:27:23-PST
From: Ted Shapin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where can U.S. modems be used outside U.S?

We are interested in dial-up communications with a number of
locations outside the U.S.

Do you know if Hayes compatible modems can legally be used
to dial directly to the U.S. from any of these countries,
or if not, what types of modems can be used
to communicate over dial-up either to the U.S. or
to local international carriers?

Carolina, Puerto Rico
Mexico City, Mexico
High Wycombe, England
Galaway, Ireland
Glenrothes, Scotland
Paris, France
Birkerod, Denmark
Mijdrecht, Holland
Oslo, Norway
Munich, Germany
Stockholm, Sweden
Vienna, Austria
Milan, Italy
Geneva, Switzerland
Madrid, Spain
Johannesburg, S. Africa
Singapore
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Tokyo, Japan
Sydney, Australia

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 3-Dec-87 21:52:16-EST,8601;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at  3-Dec-87 21:33:16
Date: 3 Dec 87 21:33-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #24
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Thursday, December 3, 1987 9:33PM
Volume 8, Issue 24

Today's Topics:

                      Re: TELECOM Digest V8 #23
                                 ISDN
                      Temporarily out of service
                        Re: no ringing on line

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

Date: 22 Nov 87 13:45:34 PST (Sunday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V8 #23

Roy-

Tel-Autograph has been around forever.  I remember first seeing them
around 20 years ago and they were old then.  My understanding is that
they were all analog and that the pantograph arms controlled
potentiometers in the transmitter.  I don't know whether they just
transmitted a variable DC voltage or if they varied a frequency.  It was
basically a remote handwriting scheme.  When you finished you pushed the
stylus/pen in the holder and it did a paper feed at each end.

They were used fairly heavily in factory floor applications especially
in nosiy enviroments like steel mills.

I don't know whether they are sill around or whether they ever updated
teh product to digital signalling.  I seriously doubt if there was ever
a "standard" for signalling since it was a propriatary product.

    Geoff

Geoffrey O. Thompson
Xerox Corporation
475 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
        U.S.A

Telephone: [phone]
ARPA Mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Monday, 23 November 1987  06:57-MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject:   ISDN

I WOULD LIKE TO START SOME DIALOG ON ISDN. MY FIRST PARTICULAR HANG
UP IS WITH THE WIRING SCHEME. 6 OF THE 8 CONDUCTORS TO AN RJ45 TYPE
JACK ARE ASSIGNED (B+D). I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE UNASSIGNED ASSIGNED
AS POWER -12V TO +12V TO POWER EQUIPMENT. TO MANY OF THE NEW NETWORKING
SCHEMES REQUIRE POWER OUTLETS TO MATCH COMM EQUIPMENT HANGING ON THE
END OF THE WIRE.

ANOTHER THING I THINK SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IN MORE DETAIL IS POWER AND
ESPECIALLY GROUNDING. FIPS 94 IS POSSIBLY THE BEST DOCUMENT WRITTEN TO
DATE ON THIS SUBJECT AND A LOT OF THINGS I SEE BEING TALKED ABOUT SEEM
TO BE RELATED TO NOISE DUE TO IMPROPER GROUNDING TECHNIQUES, ESPECIALLY
IN DIGITAL SWITCHING, BUT I HESITATE TO START THROWING STONES ABOUT THIS
SINCE I WOULD NOT HAVE THE VAGUEST IDEA OF HOW SOMEONES PLANT WAS WIRED.

REGARDS,
STEVE

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

Date:         Tue, 24 Nov 87 09:02:34 EST
From:         Phil Bowman <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Temporarily out of service


Does anyone out there know how to put a switch on a residential telco line
(the red and green wire) to simulate a busy condition to incoming callers
and to suppress the ring of the phone itself?  Is there a way to add a
neon light to show the line is off-hook (I think there are 90 volts on the
line)?

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

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 87 21:39:50 PST
From: <ptsfa![e-mail]>

To: ames!comp-dcom-telecom
Path: ptsfa!perl
From: [e-mail] (R. Perlman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Touch-tone to rotary conversion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 87 05:36:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard Perlman)
Organization: Pacific Bell Marketing
Lines: 23


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey C Honig) writes:
>I have been thinking that I could make good use of a device that I could
>put in the phone line after the demarcation point that would receive the
>touch-tone signals and convert them to pulses.  Has anyone ever heard of
>such a device? Any leads on where I could purchase one? Any experience
>with such a device.
>
I have on my desk at this moment such a device.  Made by American
Telecommunications Corp, El Monte CA, Part Number 200779 --
TonePulse Converter 204-02.  It was designed for CO application
on tone lines in a non-tone CO.

Caveat:  This is at least 10 years old and I don't think the company
is still in business.

Hope this is useful, perhaps someone on the net has one they can
part with... NYtel probably is sending them out in the trash in
NY City.
--
"there's no success like failure and failure's no success at all" Bob Dylan

Richard Perlman  1E300 2600 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583  [phone]
uucp {ames,pyramid,ihnp4,lll-crg,dual}!ptsfa!perl   ||   ceo rdperlman:8

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

From: qubix!wjvax!fai![e-mail] (Steve Minneman)
Subject: Re: no ringing on line
Date: 23 Nov 87 21:15:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Minneman)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> I was calling another business today and got no action; no ringing, no fast
> or slow busy.
>
> I reported this to pac bell via 611 and got this puzzling comment from them:
>
> "Yes, we show this as a problem, probably on their switchboard. We will check
> it and if it's a problem in our lines we will fix it."
>
> Now this surprises me. It seems to mean that under current multi-company
> situations, the intra-lata carrier can encounter some end-user line
> situations which are blocked or dead, and not return any signal (ring, busy,
> recording, intercept) if it's the "fault" of customer equipment. Is this
> true, or is the repair operator jazzing me?

Yes, it's probably true.  When Direct In Dial (D.I.D.) trunks are used, the
last two, three, or four digits are passed to the PBX at the customer site to
indicate which extension in the PBX should be rung.  The PBX is then
responsible for playing ringback tone or busy tone as appropriate, since the
serving central office does not know the status of the desired extension.
Apparently, the PBX is accepting the call, but then not routing it and is just
playing silence.  Most modern electronic central offices will take the D.I.D.
trunk out of service once this happens several times in a row.  After this
happens, you will receive some kind of indication (I'm not sure what).

--

        Steven A. Minneman (Fujitsu America Inc, San Jose, Ca)
        !seismo!amdahl!fai!stevem

The best government is no government at all.

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

Date:  2 Dec 87 08:50:43 PDT
From: Ian Merritt <nrcvax!minnie![e-mail]>

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: no ringing on line
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ian Merritt)
Organization: The Frobboz Magic Dungeon Co., Inc.

> From: Doug Mosher
> Subject: no ringing on line
> To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax
> I was calling another business today and got no action; no ringing, no fast or
> slow busy.
>
> I reported this to pac bell via 611 and got this puzzling comment from them:
>
> "Yes, we show this as a problem, probably on their switchboard. We will check
> it and if it's a problem in our lines we will fix it."
>
> Now this surprises me. It seems to mean that under current multi-company
> situations, the intra-lata carrier can encounter some end-user line situations
> which are blocked or dead, and not return any signal (ring, busy, recording,
> intercept) if it's the "fault" of customer equipment. Is this true, or is the
> repair operator jazzing me?

Okaaaay.  First of all, sorry if this doesn't arrive in reasonable
time-- UUCP propagation, you know.

It sounds as if you are describing what's called a DID (Direct Inward
Dialing) installation.  This is an arrangement whereby the Central
Office equipment acts in effect as a tandem, directly signaling the
subscriber's PBX to connect the call to one of its extensions.  The
PBX is responsible for returning call progress tones (i.e. busy, ring,
etc.)  If the Sub's machine is broken or not connected properly to the
incoming line, it could result in the situation you describe.

                --i

------

US Snail:    2380 Rose Avenue; Oxnard, CA  93030  U.S.A. tel. [phone]
USENET:        ihnp4!nrcvax!ihm
               {hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!ihm
ARPANET:    ihnp4!nrcvax![e-mail]
                nrcvax![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
14-Dec-87 18:21:07-EST,12205;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at 14-Dec-87 16:32:19
Date: 14 Dec 87 16:26-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #25
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Monday, December 14, 1987 4:26PM
Volume 8, Issue 25

Today's Topics:

                      Temporarily out of service
                      Picking locks on pay phones
                       Re: DID (was no ringing)
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
        Area code 617 now dialable in part of future area 508
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                  Risks of equal access 800 numbers
                       Privacy in Long-Distance
                               Re: ISDN
           Re: TELECOM Digest V8 #23 handwriting recognizer

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 87 23:11 EST
From: Jeffrey Del Papa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Temporarily out of service
Reply-To: Jeffrey Del Papa <[e-mail]>

    Date:         Tue, 24 Nov 87 09:02:34 EST
    From:         Phil Bowman <[e-mail]>


    Does anyone out there know how to put a switch on a residential telco line
    (the red and green wire) to simulate a busy condition to incoming callers
    and to suppress the ring of the phone itself?  Is there a way to add a
    neon light to show the line is off-hook (I think there are 90 volts on the
    line)?


ring prevention is fairly easy - a pair of diacs in series across the pair will
block ringing (a diac is a bistable 4 layer diode, below the threshold (40 volts
typically) it is an open circut, above it, a short.)
 All subscriber loops have protective devices on them that shut down a voltage
source if a short is detected. thus ring (90v) is put on the loop, the diacs
conduct on the first half cycle, and the ring is removed from the loop. this
doesn't count as call completion, so the other party will often hear ringing
continue. diacs used to be available at rat shack, they may still be.

<dp>

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Temporarily out of service
Date: 4 Dec 87 15:57:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)


    Connecting a garden variety resistor in the 600-1000 ohm range
between tip and ring (i.e. red and green, unless your line is wired funny)
will give an off-hook condition.  You probably want a fairly hefty (2 Watt)
one just to be safe.  Connecting a normal household 25 Watt light bulb
across the line will get you light when the phone rings (although the phone
company may not appreciate this; I have no idea what the ringer equivelance
number of a light bulb is :-)).
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 87 14:53:53 EST
From: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Subject:  Picking locks on pay phones


Then again, there's always finesse. The method used by crooks in the
NYC subways was to simply stuff a wad of paper up the coin return and
just make rounds emptying the change that would get stuck. Perhaps not
as profitable per phone, but you can cover a lot of phones quickly this
way and NYC will even provide the transportation for a mere $1.

    -B

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

From: harvard!!netsys![e-mail] (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: DID (was no ringing)
Date: 5 Dec 87 00:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: harvard!netsys![e-mail] (David Lesher,Contributor)


>It sounds as if you are describing what's called a DID (Direct Inward
>Dialing) installation.  This is an arrangement whereby the Central
>Office equipment acts in effect as a tandem, directly signaling the
>subscriber's PBX to connect the call to one of its extensions.

BTW is it still true that the BOC will only xmit that data to you via
PULSE? (10pps) That was, I believe, the reason why it takes so long for
DID calls to complete. Now, of course, if you are the BOC
offering CENTREX, it might mean that you have an advantage.....


--

Have you ever WATCHED cable TV, Judge Kennedy?
decuac!netsys!wb8foz

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

From: The News service <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Dec 87 05:48:24 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: charon!hydra!cs3631ae
>From: [e-mail] (B. Limary)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Practical 2400 Modem
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Dec 87 05:48:24 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (B. Limary)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 14


     I came across a 2400-baud modem (Hayes compatible) from
     Practical Peripheral at the small local computer shop.  It
     is brand new and priced at $199.00 which is pretty close to
     the mail-order price.
    I am planning to use this modem on the APPLE IIe at home
     and connect it to the university mainframe.
        I wonder if anyone in this newsgroup has used this product
     or has any informations about this modem.


    :)  any info will be greatly appreciated.  THANKS in advance.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave C., 226-7726, LKG1-3/A06)
Date: 8 Dec 87 12:49
Subject: Area code 617 now dialable in part of future area 508

From my phone in North Reading, Mass. (617-664), I can now dial the area code
Status: O

617 to reach exchanges which will remain in the 617 area, but not those which
will become part of the new area 508 on 16-Jul-1988.   617-664 will become
508-664.   The area code 508 is not yet accepted.

David A. Cantor

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

From: moss!ablnc![e-mail]
Date: 8 Dec 87 16:33:49 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: ablnc!jrs2
From: [e-mail] (J.R. Smithson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom,misc.wanted
Subject: Phone Booths For Sale
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Dec 87 16:33:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Maitland, Florida
Lines: 14
Keywords: Phone Booths For Sale


I know someone with 50 used phonebooths for sale. These are the the
standup stall type (not the old enclosed booths). They are heavy,
maybe 80 pounds each. The phones are not included.
Can anyone tell me what they are worth on the resale market?
They are currently wharehoused in Orlando Florida.
If you are interested or know someone interested in these booths
please contact me.

    James R. Smithson {ihnp4}!ablnc!jrs2
            [phone] home
            [phone] work

#Disclaimer: This offer is in no way associated with AT&T

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 22:06:25 EST
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: Risks of equal access 800 numbers

One of the effects of the Bell System breakup is that 800 service is
supposed to be equally available from all long distance carriers, as are
other kinds of long distance service.  At the time of the breakup, the
sophisticated equipment that handles 800 calls went to AT&T rather than to
the operating companies, so for quite a while you could get 800 service
only from AT&T, because the operating companies didn't have the equipment
to route individual 800 numbers to different carriers.  The other
carriers, particularly MCI, complained loudly enough that the government
mandated an interim unequal access 800 service until the operating
companies install updated switching equipment.  The unequal access works
by the simple hack of routing specific 800 prefixes to fixed carriers.
MCI gets 800-444, 800-666, 800-950, and several others.  Sprint gets
800-877 and a few others.  AT&T still gets all of the rest.

So far so good.  Last month I was in a small town in West Virginia which
was serviced by the local Bell company, C&P Telephone, and I dialed
Sprint's access number for travel card calls, 800-877-8000.  To my
surprise, I got a recording from MCI telling me that they couldn't
complete my call.  Evidently when the local operating company reprogrammed
their tandem exchanges they either made a mistake keying in the codes, or
else were under the common misconception that MCI is a generic term for
all non-AT&T carriers.  Either way, MCI is getting calls intended for
Sprint.

In this case the misrouting is is relatively innocuous, but I wonder
what other misroutings, strange loops, and other surprises lay in
wait.  The topology of the phone network has become considerably more
complicated since the breakup, and although it is all coordinated by
Bellcore, it's no longer under a single organization's control.  It's
not even clear to whom I complain to have this fixed.  Will phone
routing ever work correctly again?

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87  12:38:36 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy in Long-Distance

     Today I called ATT to clear up a problem with a third-number
long-distance call that didn't belong to me.  I live in Dallas;  the
call was from another Dallas number to Houston.  (Most of my
long-distance is to Chicago, and never third-number billed.)
     In the course of our conversation, the ATT person told me the name
of the owner of the Dallas number, and that the Houston number was the
one she most frequently called.  While I was pleased that she could
quickly clear up my problem, it bothers me that she would so casually
reveal information about another person.  Does it make anyone else
uncomfortable, or is it just me?

                              pf

Paul Fuqua
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas
CSNet:  [e-mail] or pf@ti-csl
UUCP:   {smu, texsun, im4u, rice}!ti-csl!pf

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 87 05:48:28 PST
From: hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail] (John Gilmore)
Subject: Re: ISDN

I recently got some information on ISDN from a friend.  This is from
handwritten notes, so it may be somewhat garbled, and it's all
preliminary and subject to change, but at least it's a starting point.

Pacific Bell will eventually offer tariffed ISDN service, probably about
1990.  They are proceeding with ISDN and also continuing their Project
Victoria experiment, which they claim is more useful (e.g. it only gives
32Kb/sec to voice, since that's all that's needed with modern codecs).
The ISDN service is expected to offer traditional 2B+D service
(2x64Kb/sec and 1x16Kb/sec over a single pair of wires), at a rate
about 25-30% above the basic monthly rate for voice phone service.
It is not clear whether unmeasured service will be offered, or in what
exchanges it will first be implemented.

There are three classes of service contemplated:

    * digital voice (which can be routed through analog switches,
      e.g. to call normal telephones)
    * packet data, at about $.35/Kseg, where a segment is <= 128 bytes
      and might be able to move over either a B or D channel.
    * circuit switched data, at about $.05-.15/minute.

From a very brief cost analysis I conclude that, at these rates, I
Status: O

probably won't want ISDN service.  Telebit modems on regular voice
lines will only run 18Kb/sec but compare favorably on cost/byte
and talk to anybody anywhere who has one (as well as to 300/1200/2400
modems).  And residence users can run them on unmeasured service for
local calls.

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

Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V8 #23 handwriting recognizer
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: 05 Dec 87 17:38:34 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail]

IBM developed a device that recognizes a handwritten signature by
looking at the velocity of the pen as well as the position of the
writing. I don't know whether this is a commercial product.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
24-Dec-87 18:24:29-EST,11907;000000000000
Mail-From: DIXON created at 24-Dec-87 15:52:47
Date: 24 Dec 87 15:52-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #27
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Thursday, December 24, 1987 3:52PM
Volume 8, Issue 27

Today's Topics:

        Area code 617 now dialable in part of future area 508
              Re: converting touch-tone to pulse dialing
             ISDN in *your* life ..er.. *my* life anyway
                  1+areacode in own area (703, Va.)
            Temporary capabilities when new line installed
                     Cross-system collect calls?
                       Re: DID (was no ringing)
                              Re: (none)
      Syncronization of micro/mainframe clocks on X.25 networks

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1987  18:51 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area code 617 now dialable in part of future area 508


I believe the due date for 508 will include a grace period, but they won't
switch 508 into service until the EXACT date (Jul 8?).

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

Subject: Re: converting touch-tone to pulse dialing
Date: Tue Dec 15 00:52:39 1987
From: gatech!vector![e-mail] (Chip Rosenthal)

There was a question recently about converting touch tone to pulse dialing.
Unfortunately, it expired before I could grab it.  If I remember correctly,
a module was suggested which would do this, but there was some question
as whether the thing was available.

An alternative might be a two part circuit:  first convert the DTMF to
binary, and then the binary to pulse coding.  Pulse dialers are very easy
to come by.  Everybody has one.

The tougher part is the DTMF decoder.  I've only seen two:  a hybrid
module from Mitel and a monolithic IC from Silicon Systems.  The SSI part
(SSI957) might be a cheaper approach.  The thing is that you will need a
3.58MHz crystal (the decoder is a switched-C filter), and an op-amp (a
741 is shown in their datasheet) on the front end.  I've never worked
with this part first-hand, but it looks like a pretty good solution.

This isn't quite a one-module solution to the conversion problem, but
it might be better than stringing together seven notch filters and
decoders.

SSI is at [phone].  I am not associated with any of these companies.
In fact, I'm a competitor.  But we don't make dialers or DTMF decoders,
so you can buy theirs. :-)

---
Chip Rosenthal         [e-mail]        | But if you want to sing the
Dallas Semiconductor     [phone]        |  blues, then boy you better
{texsun,codas,ihnp4}!killer!vector!chip        |  learn how to lose.

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

From: David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN in *your* life ..er.. *my* life anyway
Date: 15 Dec 87 19:21:57 GMT


There's a rumor my roomate heard (er.. he heard this directly
from one of the comm managers of the local telco while he was
talking to the communications manager guy for the University)
that this city would be able to upgrade to ISDN service
within the next few months or a year.  Apparently the local
equipment had been scheduled for major replacement/repair
a year or two ago, and the telco (GTE) thought ahead enough
to install equipment capable of doing ISDN.

I don't know any details about the local equipment ... other
than that the wire leading to the appartment is normal looking
twisted pair copper ... out on the phone pole is a little
box (maybe 1.5 ft long) which is copper colored which the
wire runs in to -- and is shared amongst our neighbors.

I'm curious about what sort of equipment I/we'll need to
take advantage of this ISDN.  Obviously I can't just hook
the phone cable up to a serial port on my computer.  But
also just as obviously, since the signals shouldn't ever
be analog then we can't call the box which hooks my computer
to the "phone line" a "modem".

What is involved with this box-that-is-not-a-modem but which
does-similar-things-to-what-modems-do?  Who makes 'em?  etc.

I had a taste of what can be a couple of weeks ago when I
was evaluating the Telebit modem ... I can't wait!
--
<---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy            <[e-mail]>
<---- or:                {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, [e-mail]
<----
<---- Winter health warning:  Remember, don't eat the yellow snow!

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

Date:     Wed, 16 Dec 87 9:29:01 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  1+areacode in own area (703, Va.)

I have just returned from travel across part of Virginia.  I am seeing
(in 703 area beyond DC area--refers to Winchester, Front Royal, etc.)
instructions on pay phones for use of areacode on all 1+ and 0+ calls
within 703; on C&P phones, I am even seeing the same cards that were
posted recently in Maryland!
I don't know what the dialing instructions are in Va.'s other area, 804.
(I had heard that, prompted by 201 area's needing NXX prefixes, new dialing
requirements there were also implemented in 609 for statewide uniformity in
New Jersey.)

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

From: rabbit1![e-mail] (Robert Oliver)
Subject: Temporary capabilities when new line installed
Date: 15 Dec 87 19:29:39 GMT


I recently moved to a new home, and experienced something odd, that I
recall happening the last time I moved.  Certain services seem to have been
enabled for the first few days at the new address, then they magically
disappeared.  Specifically:

1) RING-BACK doesn't normally work in my area, but when I moved, it started
   working.  I could make my phones ring to verify that they worked.  Just
   in case the info might give you a clue as to the CO equipment, in my area,
   ring-back is done thusly:
    o dial 579-[last four digits of phone #]
    o wait for dial-tone
    o press switch-hook
    o wait for buzz-tone
    o hang up

2) TOUCH TONE(tm)!!  Though I do own a Touch Tone(tm) phone or two (for use with
   computerized services) I refuse to pay for Touch Tone(tm).  And I usually
   can't dial using tones.  However, when I first moved in, I COULD dial
   using tones.

Is this normal practice?  Are there any other things enabled during this time?
If I HADN'T tried to dial with tones during this period, is there a chance that
they might have left Touch Tone(tm) capability enabled by accident (for free!)?
Is there any way I can get ring-back now, since I have a phone with a broken
bell that I'm trying to repair?

Answers greatly appreciated.
--

Robert Oliver
Rabbit Software Corp.        [phone]
7 Great Valley Parkway East     ...!ihnp4!{cbmvax,cuuxb}!hutch!robert
Malvern, PA  19355        ...!psuvax!burdvax!hutch!robert

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

Date:     Thu, 17 Dec 87 10:17:27 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cross-system collect calls?

Just thought of this question yesterday when making a collect call on AT&T
long distance, and don't recall it having been discussed on the list:

How is the billing for collect calls handled when one party is serviced
by a different LD carrier than the other party?

In my case, I have AT&T LD service, so I got an AT&T operator when I
dialed 0-AC-number, and told her it was a collect call. I don't know
what LD service the called party has. Suppose they have MCI. Does this
call to them somehow show up on their bill from MCI, and the two companies
handle a funds transfer between them? Or do they get a separate bill
from AT&T for this call (and any other collect calls they got that month)?

Regards,
Will Martin
[e-mail]   (on USENET try ...!seismo![e-mail] )
                    [I've been told that "...!uunet!almsa-1.arpa!wmartin"
                        may be better now but I can't test it...]

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

From: "T. Pryjma" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DID (was no ringing)
Date: 18 Dec 87 17:24:20 GMT
Reply-To: "T. Pryjma" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> harvard!netsys![e-mail] (David Lesher,Contributor) writes:
#
# >It sounds as if you are describing what's called a DID (Direct Inward
# >Dialing) installation.  This is an arrangement whereby the Central
# >Office equipment acts in effect as a tandem, directly signaling the
# >subscriber's PBX to connect the call to one of its extensions.
#
# BTW is it still true that the BOC will only xmit that data to you via
# PULSE? (10pps) That was, I believe, the reason why it takes so long for
# DID calls to complete. Now, of course, if you are the BOC
# offering CENTREX, it might mean that you have an advantage.....
#
Well, Bell Canada does presently have customers who are connected to
the outside with T1 lines from their PBX  to the CO.  Some PBX's are
signalled by tone, there is no real reason that the CO should insist
upon digipulse signalling, except age of equipment.

BTW, CENTREX is not a PBX service.  It is a PBX lookalike service that is
run on the CO exchange and run very tightly by the local telephone
company.  Infact, in previous postings people have posted articles on
residential CENTREX groups of two phones or more that are available in
some areas.  Why you would want to put 2 phones on CENTREX is beyond me
however:-).

--

                 Taras Pryjma
                uucp: [e-mail]
                bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
                Bell: [phone]

Fear is never boring.    hmmm.  hmmmm.
                    YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn those trap doors!  Yup.  Fear is never boring.

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

From: kddlab!ndsuvax!CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU![e-mail] (Bill Gruber)
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 13 Dec 87 05:12:42 GMT


Looks like D.I.D. lines cause other problems as well - our ROLM system is
set up like that (last 3 digits passed to the PBX, PBX handles ringing and
busy tones) and several times, when calling in from a pay phone, I was
charged even for a busy line or a no-answer.  Looks like after around 20
seconds the CO equipment says you're paying since apparently our system at
least has no way of supervising.

-------

Bill Gruber
City University of New York Computer Center

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

From: iuvax!ndmath![e-mail] (Greg Corson)
Subject: Syncronization of micro/mainframe clocks on X.25 networks
Date: 20 Dec 87 22:44:38 GMT


Ok, here's the problem...Say you have a program running on a mainframe
"host" on an X.25 network like telenet.  Attached to this program are
the communications circuits going out to several microcomputers belonging
do people who have dialed up the mainframe host.

Given that the microcomputers have clocks accurate to 1/60 of a second
and the mainframe has a clock accurate to 1 second...can you think of
a reasonable way to get the micros and the mainframe's clocks in sync?

The problem here is, because there is a lot of communications hardware
in the way, you don't know how long a delay there is from the time you
send some information till the time the micro receives it.  You also don't
know if the delay will remain constant as system load goes up and down.

I suppose you could have the micro echo time packets back and forth to
the mainframe till you had a good estimate of the average delay time.
But there must be a better way than that.  Any ideas?


Greg Corson
19141 Summers Drive
South Bend, IN 46637
[phone] (weekdays till 6 PM eastern)
{pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milo

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
24-Dec-87 19:06:43-EST,10452;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Thu 24 Dec 87 19:06:39-EST
Date: 24 Dec 87 15:50-EST
From: The Moderator (Jim Dixon) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #26
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Thursday, December 24, 1987 3:50PM
Volume 8, Issue 26

Today's Topics:

                     People Link Customer Service
                       own areacode + 555-1212
                    Re: Temporarily out of service
                         Calling card charges
                  Cynex call diverter (help request)
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                             FCC Proposal
                     11-digit dialing in DC/Md/Va
                     add this to previous message

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Dervan)
Subject: People Link Customer Service
Date: 21 Dec 87 06:39:17 GMT


Could someone please mail me the Customer Service number for People/Link?
For those of you who do not know, it is a service similar to Compu$erve,
but costs much less and is more of a social interaction service, although
they do offer much useful stuff.
-Richard

--
Richard B Dervan - Office of Computing Services          | Go you fuzzy |
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332   |     Bees     |
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprrd
ARPA: [e-mail]       rbd@{vslab,briggs,chase}.gatech.edu

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

Date:     Mon, 21 Dec 87 14:12:40 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  own areacode + 555-1212

I was calling from a York (Pa.) area pay phone (717-741) trying to get
directory assistance for a number in Scranton, also in 717 area.
The instruction card said only:
1 555 1212 local
1 areacode 555 1212 outside this area code

I dialed 1-555-1212 and was told to dial 1-717-555-1212 to get help
for Scranton!  (I did.)

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

From: umix!umich!eecs.umich.edu!mibte![e-mail] (James Harvey)
Subject: Re: Temporarily out of service
Date: 21 Dec 87 18:18:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Del Papa) writes:
>
>     Date:         Tue, 24 Nov 87 09:02:34 EST
>     From:         Phil Bowman <[e-mail]>
>
>
>     Does anyone out there know how to put a switch on a residential telco line
>     (the red and green wire) to simulate a busy condition to incoming callers
>     and to suppress the ring of the phone itself?  Is there a way to add a
>     neon light to show the line is off-hook (I think there are 90 volts on the
>     line)?
>
>
> ring prevention is fairly easy - a pair of diacs in series across the pair will
> block ringing (a diac is a bistable 4 layer diode, below the threshold (40 volts
> typically) it is an open circut, above it, a short.)
>  All subscriber loops have protective devices on them that shut down a voltage
> source if a short is detected. thus ring (90v) is put on the loop, the diacs
> conduct on the first half cycle, and the ring is removed from the loop. this
> doesn't count as call completion, so the other party will often hear ringing
> continue. diacs used to be available at rat shack, they may still be.
>
> <dp>

Radio Schlock used to sell (think they still do) a device to
suppress the ring.  I think it's under ten bucks.
It is popular with owners of the Commodore
1670 Modem which defaults to auto-answer every time you reset
the computer.

A resistor will busy out the phone but after a while the
switching machine thinks there is trouble on the line and will
disconnect it.  It may be a while before you can get dial tone
again after you remove the resistor.

You might try simply ringing up some local recording and laying the
receiver down on the table.

--

Jim Harvey                        |      "Ask not for whom the bell
Michigan Bell Telephone           |      tolls and you will only pay
29777 Telegraph                   |      Station-to-Station rates."
Southfield, Mich. 48034           |

   ihnp4!mibte!jbh   or try   ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Clitherow)
Subject: Calling card charges
Date: 22 Dec 87 23:31:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter Clitherow)


Recently i travelled to California, where i made a couple of phone calls
(using my AT&T calling card) from area code 415 to area code 408 - both
in california.  My most recent phone bill itemises these calls and records
them under the heading NJ Bell itemised calls.  Because these were intrastate
calls (presumably carried by PacBell) is there some reciprocal arrangement
amongst the RBOCs to forward such funds, or is the whole thing treated rather
like international mail, where the originating country collects funds, and
everyone hopes things balence out?  I must admit i can't see an easy
alternative, given that ATT doesn't get to carry "domestic" calls in Ca...
pc

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

From: well![e-mail] (Richard S. Shuford)
Subject: Cynex call diverter (help request)
Date: 22 Dec 87 14:56:24 GMT



Greetings, netlanders.

A local nonprofit organization recently solicited my help in getting a
certain telephone accessory to function properly.  The device is a
"Remote Control Call Diverter", model CD-202, labeled as being made by

   Cynex Manufacturing Corporation
   28 Sager Pl.
   Hillside, NJ  07205

It was purchased by mail order through H&E Computronics.

This little gray box with a DTMF pad on top has inputs for two telephone
lines.  It is supposed to act as follows: When an incoming ring signal
is detected on line B, it dials a preprogrammed forwarding number
through line A.  Then the box connects line B to line A and someone who
answers the number dialed on A can talk to the original calling party.
(It is not clear to me whether the diverter can be counted on to detect
answer supervision on line A.)  Conversely, calls coming in on line A
are forwarded out through line B.

It has a remote-programming mode.  To use this, you place a call from a
remote location (with a DTMF-equipped phone) to line A.  You let it ring
once, then hang up.  Then, within 30 seconds, you place a second call to
line A.  The diverter answers line A, beeps and waits for a prearranged
DTMF security code.  Upon receiving the proper code, it goes into
remote-programming mode.  In this mode you can place the unit on
standby, change it from standby to active mode, or change the number to
which calls are forwarded.

Well, that's all very nice, once you have figured it out from the rather
poor documentation.  And the procedure for remotely programming the thing
is rather tedious, but you can get used to it.

But the staff of the organization complains that the diverter unpredictably
goes into catatonia, placing BOTH lines off hook and not forwarding.  Or
it simply fails to forward, even when seemingly properly set up.

Does anyone have experience or advice concerning this or similar devices?

.....Richard S. Shuford
     Siecor Corp. RD&E, Hickory, NC  28603-0489
     {ptsfa, hplabs}!well!rshuford
     BIX: richard

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

Date: 22 Dec 87 05:59:18 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)

Path: codas!mikel
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Florida's Area Code 305 Is Splitting
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 87 05:59:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Altamonte Springs, FL
Lines: 25


            FLORIDA'S AREA CODE 305 IS SPLITTING
            ------------------------------------


    Please note that Florida's area code 305 will be split as of
    April 16, 1988. Area code 407 has been created, and will service
    the area presently served by 305 from the West Palm Beach county
    north. Areas in Broward county and south will remain in area code
    305.

    If you communicate with numbers in the affected 305 zone,
    please change them now to use 407. The new area code is already
    operational.

        Affected areas North of the Broward/West Palm Beach county line
    include Orlando, Winter Park, Melbourne, Kennedy Space Center, and
    West Palm Beach.

                            Mikel Manitius
                            [e-mail]
                            [phone]
--
                    Mikel Manitius @ AT&T
                    [e-mail]

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

From: rochester!kodak!ektools![e-mail] (Bruce D. Nelson )
Subject: FCC Proposal
Date: 24 Dec 87 14:55:02 GMT


Did the FCC actually pass that $5.00/hour fee we heard so much about? After
all those postings asking us to write everybody in Washington, I haven't
heard diddly about the results of our letters. Did they, or didn't they pass
it?

Bruce D. Nelson            | UUCP: ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!ektools!bruce
Eastman Kodak Company      | Voice: 716-726-7890
901 Elmgrove Road          | Company Mail: Dept 420 Technical Support Services
Rochester, NY 14650        |

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

Date:     Thu, 24 Dec 87 13:24:25 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  11-digit dialing in DC/Md/Va

Washington (DC) Post, 6 Aug. 1987, page E1, announced 11 digit long
distance dialing effective Nov. 1 throughout Md., DC, Va. (I found no
specific reference to 804, although an earlier message by me to Telecom
noted 11-digit dialing in 703 area beyond Washington suburbs).
The article only noted adding 1+ in DC and suburbs (previously dialed
areacode + tel.no.), and the change in Baltimore from 1+ (within Md.)
to 1+301+.

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

Date:     Thu, 24 Dec 87 13:26:32 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  add this to previous message

Oops!  A quote from that 6 Aug 1987 Washington Post article says that the
11-digit requirement is "designed to accomodate fast growth around
the nation's capital".

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

APPARENTLY THERE WERE NO ISSUES OF THE DIGEST BETWEEN 12/24/87 AND
2/18/88.   JIM DIXON FUNCTIONED AS TEMPORARY MODERATOR FOR THE LAST
PART OF 1987.  J SOL RETURNED AS OF MID-FEBRUARY, 1988.     P.TOWNSON


18-Feb-88 21:57:31-EST,15184;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Feb-88 21:38:27
Date: 18 Feb 88 21:33-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #30
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Thursday, February 18, 1988 9:33PM
Volume 8, Issue 30

Today's Topics:

                *** Correct area code split dates ***
                     DID, ISDN and all that jazz
               answer to question on comp.dcom.telecom
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                          Enterprise Numbers
                          Enterprise Numbers
                          Enterprise Numbers

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 29 Dec 87 09:57
Subject: *** Correct area code split dates ***

Area Code     Date of Split      End of permissive dialing

 303/719       5 March 88        4 April 88
 305/407      16 April 88           18 June  88
 617/508      16 July  88           15 Oct   88
 312/708      11 Nov   89        9 Feb   90

In Telecom Digest V8 #26, [e-mail] writes "If you communicate with
numbers in the affected 305 zone, please change them now to use 407. The new
area code is already operational."

This is not true.  It certainly does not work in most AT&T machines yet.  Do
not expect the new area codes to work on any sort of consistent basis until
the actual split dates.  The old area codes will operate until the end of the
permissive dialling period.  The correct dates for the splits are above.

/john

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 87 07:19:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Fred's usually home at DELNI::)
Subject: DID, ISDN and all that jazz

Re V8I27's continuing dialogue about DID service and why it's pulse in
some areas, AT&T upgraded the software on the #1AESS a few years ago
to support tone outpulsing, but it's extra hardware (DTMF generators)
so some local telcos haven't done it.  It's also viewed as a security
risk due to the way DID (analog) works.

DID trunks outpulse digits and the PBX sends the tones back to the caller.
The PBX is supposed to run a one-way transmission path (outgoing only)
so the caller hears tone but the PBX can't hear the caller; when the
call picks up, supervision pulse is returned to the CO and billing begins.
At that point it's okay to open a two-way path.  Before "registration"
in the late 1970s, the coupling devices used hybrids to split the path
and physically block the transmission of audio inbound before
supervision was returned.  Thus touch-tone (no longer a trademark)
couldn't be used.  Apparently some PBXs are rumored to "cheat", too.

When a DID trunk doesn't get accepted by the PBX (i.e., the line is
bad or the PBX is down), the CO shuts it off and returns fast busy.
Getting it back on can be a pain of telco isn't on the ball...

Now ISDN changes that all.  It uses a packet signaling channel which
can send the digits in a SETUP message.  So DID no longer requires
any special hackery; the CO just allocates >1 number to a given trunk
group and passes the number along.  And for good measure, ISDN does
provide full answer supervision all the way on all calls, unless of
course you "interwork" with an analog network which doesn't support
it right...

To use ISDN for your PC, btw, you use a "terminal adapter" -- that's
the equivalent of a modem.  Who'll make it?  Well, Hayes was showing
one off at Telecom '87!  Logical, eh?  Modem makers will adapt or die.
The switching vendors also have them.  Until the standards are done
(some are, some aren't) they will be different for each type of CO.
In a couple years, when ISDN is a commercial reality in a few places,
there'll be a competitive market for TA's just like for modems.
Expect the price curve to follow...
     fred

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

Date: Monday, 28 December 1987  18:58-MST
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject:   answer to question on comp.dcom.telecom

Please accept my regrets for posting this here.  As Patrick Townson has
already noted, it is impossible to post on comp.dcom.telecom from Portal.

I attempted to send email to Richard Dervan to answer his question, but
the address on his post on comp.dcom.telecom was accepted at the time
yet the letter was returned as undeliverable on the next business day.
Then I tried to post to comp.dcom.telecom, but I got the message that
it was a moderated newsgroup and the moderator is unknown, leaving me
stymied.

So, Mr. Dervan, I hope you are reading this: People/Link's voice lines
for customer service are 1-800-524-0100 and 1-312-670-2666.

David Tamkin

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

Date: 31 Dec 87 02:39:24 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
From: tmsoft![e-mail]

Path: tmsoft!utgpu!taras
From: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ISDN in *your* life ..er.. *my* life anyway
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 87 01:13:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (T. Pryjma)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Lines: 30
Checksum: 15096

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes:
# I'm curious about what sort of equipment I/we'll need to
# take advantage of this ISDN.  Obviously I can't just hook
# the phone cable up to a serial port on my computer.  But
# also just as obviously, since the signals shouldn't ever
# be analog then we can't call the box which hooks my computer
# to the "phone line" a "modem".
#
Any new CO switch being shipped by any of the mojor manufacturers is
currently capable of ISDN.  Basically any equipment that is not
capable of ISDN is very expensive to run.

# I had a taste of what can be a couple of weeks ago when I
# was evaluating the Telebit modem ... I can't wait!

I think that you are refering to the fact that ISDN is fast, but I wonder
if you will change your tune when you find out how much you have to pay for
ISDN.  Each phone company is different, but if you rates that PacTel was
charging for Project Victoria I am sure that you might still end up thinking
that the Telebit modem was still the better deal.
--

                 Taras Pryjma
                uucp: [e-mail]
                bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
                Bell: [phone]

Fear is never boring.    hmmm.  hmmmm.
                    YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn those trap doors!  Yup.  Fear is never boring.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 16:59:39 PST
From: imagen!atari!daisy![e-mail] (David Schachter)

To: comp-dcom-telecom
Path: daisy!david
From: daisy!david (David Schachter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Syncronization of micro/mainframe clocks on X.25 networks
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 87 22:06:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: daisy!david (David Schachter)
Organization: none
Lines: 14



This note is in reply to Greg Corson's query of December 20, 1987.  He asks
how to synchronize a bunch of micros and a mainframe.  His application is
complicated by the presence of X.25 links.  The answer is:  Yes, you can syn-
chronize nodes in a wide-area network, to within about ten milliseconds.

A company for which I used to work, Precision Standard Time, Inc., of Fremont
California, makes radio-controlled clocks which synchronize to the radio
broadcasts from the U.S. National Bureau of Standards radio time stations WWV
and WWVH.  The interface between the clock and your computer is a simple
RS-232 protocol.  The clocks cost between $600 and $1500, depending on the
model and whether you want software (VAX VMS or MS-DOS) or wish to roll your
own.

The phone number is [phone] and the address is 105 Fourier Ave.,
Fremont, CA, 94539.

Incidentally, Greg's idea of bouncing packets between two machines to measure
the average delay is, as he probably realizes, an unreliable solution in a
packet-switched environment.  The delay can change substantially as the net-
work reconfigures itself around failed nodes and congestion.

I am biased: I have stock in PSTI.

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

Date: Friday, 1 January 1988  09:09-MST
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject:   Enterprise Numbers

The other day, I picked up a airplane ticket. On the back was a list
of all the reservation numbers for this airline, including one that
was an Enterprise number.

I vaguely recall that Enterprise numbers were a predecessor to WATs
numbers, but thought they had been phased out long ago. Can someone
explain exactly what they were (are), and how they work?  What is
their advantage over WATS?

Thanks, Ken

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

Date: Saturday, 2 January 1988  18:20-MST
From: decvax!sunybcs!kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
Subject:   Enterprise Numbers

    Enterprise Number service is almost extinct.  An Enterprise
Number call is an operator-assisted call; the number cannot be dialed
directly by the calling party.
    When an operator receives a request for such a call, (s)he
looks up the number in a small reference directory, and merely dials
the number for the calling party as a collect, operator-assisted call,
but without requesting called-party acceptance.  The business with the
Enterprise Number pays the collect, operator-assisted rate.
    There is no relation to WATS (Wide Area Telephone Service).
There is no economic advantage in a business using Enterprise Numbers
unless their incoming calling volume is SO low that it cannot justify
the basic monthly line charges for incoming WATS service.  Many
customers are loathe to explicitly place a collect call - even if the
business so states in its advertising; Enterprise Numbers overcome
this "problem".

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<>  UUCP:  {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  VOICE: 716/688-1231        {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|utzoo|uunet}!/
<>  FAX:   [phone] {G1,G2,G3 modes}   "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Date: Saturday, 2 January 1988  10:43-MST
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject:   Enterprise Numbers

Enterprise numbers (also known in some telcos years ago as "Zenith")
were mostly phased out years ago in favor of 1-800 lines. All calls to
Enterprise numbers went through the operator, and they were
automatically billed collect to the person with the number.

When you placed a call, you would ask the operator for (let's say)
"Enterprise 1234". The operator would check -- unless the Enterprise
number was commonly known -- with the Rate and Routing operator to
find out what actual number was keyed to Enterprise 1234. She would be
advised it was really the same as (let's say) 311-555-2368. The
operator would then place the call to 311-555-2368 and automatically
reverse the charges <without needing to request permission from the
called party>.

As 800 service began phasing in all over the USA nearly 15 years ago
Enterprise service was phased out for new customers and grandfathered
to existing users. The toll-free 800 numbers today are simply an
automated form of the old Enterprise service, or would you say it the
other way around?

Just as 800 numbers can be restricted to a community, a state, or a
portion of the USA or the entire country as desired by the subscriber,
likewise the Enterprise (Zenith) numbers were restricted. Typically,
the nature of the restriction, if any, was listed in the phone book as
part of the subscriber's entry.

Joe's Carpet Cleaning Service might have listed an Enterprise number,
to encourage callers just as the 1-800 service is used now. But the
directory would note, "Calls from the Chicago exchange only".
Elsewhere in the country, a caller asking for the Enterprise number
would get an operator who attempted to locate the key, only to be told
by Routing that it was inapplicable from the calling exchange. On the
other hand, for many years the Federal Bureau of Investigation had an
Enterprise number national in scope which citizens could use to report
criminals on a wanted list. (This was back in the 1930's).

The difference between Enterprise and Zenith was only in name.
Canadian phone companies tended to use Zenith, while here it was
Enterprise. In some communities already automated for dialing at the
time Enterprise service was started (late twenties, early thirties?)
there might have already been a "valid" exchange serving the downtown
area called ENTerprise, and to avoid confusion and/or renumbering
problems the telcos in those communities also opted for Zenith, many
times for the sole reason there is no letter /Z/ on the phone dial and
a subscriber could not attempt to dial it in error.

Zenith also tended to be used in lieu of Enterprise when the recipient
of the collect call was a government agency, such as a sheriff serving
a remote area where calls for emergency help (like our present 911)
would be a toll charge to the caller otherwise.

In the early seventies, 800 service made it all a moot point.

OTHER MORE OR LESS STANDARDIZED PHONE NUMBERS IN THE 1930'S - 1950'S:
The telephone company business office was always "9411". In manual
exchanges you asked either for "the business office" or 9411, as you
pleased.

After automation, some prefix went in front, but their number was
still xxx-9411, virtually everywhere. In Chicago the metamorphosis
went from 9411 to Official-9411 to OFFicial-9411 (when dialed) to now,
727-9411.

Western Union message takers were always "4321" in every community,
adding a prefix to it when automation started.

Police were always 2121 and Fire was always 2131 in most communities;
in some others they were 1313 and 1414.

The phone company always reserved the numbers 9900-9999 for its own
internal use; they still do in many places. 9900 got you the Chief
Operator; 9902 got you the Information Supervisor; 9904 got you the
Wire Chief (repair supervisor) in the community.

Coin phones always began with a 9, as in 9xxx. This was universally
recognized in order that an operator in a distant community would not
process a collect call to a distant payphone in error without
collecting money from someone along the way. If you did ask to call
collect to a payphone in the other city, the operator had to call
"inward" in that community and ask for assistance in collecting the
coins, as her equipment could not handle it.  The idea behind
payphones beginning with a 9 in the last four digits was so the
operators everywhere would be tipped off to it and not be decieved by
a customer answering on the other end and "accepting the charges".

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Feb-88 22:59:46-EST,8477;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Feb-88 22:46:30
Date: 18 Feb 88 22:46-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #34
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Thursday, February 18, 1988 10:46PM
Volume 8, Issue 34

Today's Topics:

                    Forwarded (FINALLY!!) Mail ...
                    Status of Telecom & Info-Terms
             European (primarily Germany) modem standards
        [[e-mail]: US Sprint Rebuttal (from Usenet)]
                          Pittsburgh oddity
                     Pittsburgh oddity, continued

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 88 16:58:51 GMT
From: Gregory Hicks COMFLEACTS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forwarded (FINALLY!!) Mail ...

*****       2559 3
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 88  4:10:46 GMT
From: Root at Walker-EMH <[e-mail]>
Subject: Undeliverable mail
To: [e-mail]

Mail addressed to host bu-it.bu.edu could not be sent for the following reason:

    550 <[e-mail]>... User unknown
------- Unsent message is below -------

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 88  4:14:38 GMT
From: Gregory Hicks COMFLEACTS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forwarded messages
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]


----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 18:58:49 GMT
From: Root at Walker-EMH <[e-mail]>
Subject: Undeliverable mail
To: [e-mail]

Mail addressed to host bu-it.bu.edu could not be sent for the following reason:

    550 <[e-mail]>... User unknown
------- Unsent message is below -------

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 18:53:43 GMT
From: Gregory Hicks COMFLEACTS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Calls ...
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]


----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by WALKER-EMH.ARPA ; 22 Jan 88 18:37:48 GMT
Received: by rutgers.edu (5.54/1.15)
    id AA00514; Fri, 22 Jan 88 13:40:31 EST
Received: by topaz.rutgers.edu (5.54/1.15)
    id AA22253; Fri, 22 Jan 88 10:47:09 EST
To: [e-mail]
Path: topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
From: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest
Subject: Unlimited Long Distance in a non-PC Pursuitable area
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 88 15:47:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: M. R. Smith Consulting, New Brunswick, NJ
Lines: 13


I need to work over a phone line from a New brunswick NJ (201) 249-
number on a computer in Englewood Cliffs, NJ (201) 567-.  I will be on
at least 40 hours per month, but this can be at night (5pm-1am).  PC
Pursuit doesn't cover the Englewood, NJ area (only local to Newark).
Can anyone think of a way to do this without an unbelievable phone
bill?
Mark

--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604, CN 5063        that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903   {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
[e-mail]  {backbone}!rutgers!unirot!msmith

----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Forwarded to you because I don't believe it's appropriate to include in
the Info-IBMPC Digest.  Publish as you see fit.


----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----

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

Date: Tuesday, 26 January 1988  10:53-MST
From: ukma!uflorida!codas!killer![e-mail] (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject:   Status of Telecom & Info-Terms

In the referenced article [e-mail] (William G. Martin) writes:
>There hasn't been any traffic on either the Telecom or the Info-Terms
>mailing lists for some time now...
>Is anyone on Info-Modems aware of anything about either of these lists...

All I know is that I've twice submitted messages to comp.dcom.telecom,
and both times they ended up in a black hole.  Is there a news feed
problem here, or has the telecom group really disappeared?  (I'd really
like to see this group going.)
--
Chip Rosenthal         [e-mail]        | But if you want to sing the
Dallas Semiconductor     [phone]        |  blues, then boy you better
{texsun,codas,ihnp4}!killer!vector!chip        |  learn how to lose.

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

Date:    Fri, 29 Jan 88 22:35:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (R.B.August: HAVE GUN, WILL TRAVEL)
Subject: European (primarily Germany) modem standards

From:    JPLLSI::AUGUST       "R.B.August: HAVE GUN, WILL TRAVEL" 28-JAN-1988 08:47
To:    ST%"[e-mail]",AUGUST
Subj:    European (primarily Germany) modem standards

Would someone be kind enough to point me to the past digests, and any other
information available on the "standards" used in Europe for analog modem
data communication.  I am aware that there is some difference between the
European requirements for signaling and those used here (CONUS). If anyone
has information that has not been sent to the net and is archived on some
FTP accessable machine on the net, please send it to me.

Thanks.

Richard B. August
[e-mail]
or the return address on this message

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 88 20:00:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Subject: [[e-mail]: US Sprint Rebuttal (from Usenet)]

Path: mit-amt!bloom-beacon!husc6!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth
From: [e-mail] (Patt Haring)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: US Sprint rebuttal
Summary: one New York bank will NOT deal with US SPRINT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Feb 88 14:54:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Big Electric Cat
Lines: 48

I received this *NOTICE* from Manufacturers Hanover's Excel
Customer Service Manager:

February 5, 1988

From:  EXCEL Customer Service

Dear EXCEL Customer:

Our records indicate that US SPRINT is included as a payee on
your EXCEL account.

We have been experiencing major bill payment problems with
this company over the past year.  Despite repeated efforts on
our part, US SPRINT has been unable to process payments in a
timely fashion.  In addition, they have been unable to
investigate and adjust unposted payments in an acceptable
time frame.  The problems within US SPRINT are widely known
throughout the business community and have been reported in
several major national publications.

As US SPRINT has failed to successfully address its internal
operating problems over an extended period, we have no choice
but to delete them as an EXCEL merchant effective March 1st.
Any payments to US SPRINT scheduled after February 29, 1988,
will not be processed.  Please review your Pending Payments
records and make note of this cut-off date.

Please be assured that our policy will continue to be to
provide bill payment ability to the widest market possible.
Should conditions at US SPRINT improve, we will consider
reinstating them as an EXCEL merchant at a future date.

Very truly yours,


[Bad eough *I* don't want to deal with US SPRINT - now my
 bank doesn't want to deal with them either!]





--
Patt Haring                 {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth
Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix [phone] - System Operator

Three aspects of wisdom:  intelligence, justice & kindness.

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

Date:     Thu, 18 Feb 88 13:58:13 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Pittsburgh oddity

I had already identified (most of?) down Pittsburgh (Pa.) phone prefixes
and a downtown zipcode: 15219.  Recently, I noticed that such prefixes and
zipcode pick up a little area SOUTH of the Monongahela River, in the Station
Square area (the old P&LE railroad station).  Just south of Station Square
area is Mount Washington, and to the east along Carson Street is zipcode 15203
(South Side area).

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

Date:     Thu, 18 Feb 88 13:58:45 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Pittsburgh oddity, continued

First occurrence of "down" should have been "downtown".

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Feb-88 23:56:24-EST,12044;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 18 Feb 88 23:56:21-EST
Date: 18 Feb 88 22:45-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #33
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                     Thursday, February 18, 1988 10:45PM
Volume 8, Issue 33

Today's Topics:

                   Need help in filling in the gaps
                          Books on Telephony
                    sync of micro/mainframe clocks
                               VME Muxs
                        What network am I on?
                     Voice-mail boards for PC's.
                      Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #23
                Sophisticated modems and Call Waiting

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

Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 88 10:55:39 P
From:         Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Need help in filling in the gaps
Reply-To:     Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>

I am trying to compile comparative rate tables for

- the cost of 64kb digital service in various countries
- the cost of a 56/64kb link to the USA or a T1 line to the USA

If you can help me fill in the gaps or have information about a country I
have not included, please send it to me.  Once I have finished the work,
I will repost the final result.

Please reply directly to me and not to the list.

Thanks,
Hank


                   Cost comparison of 64kb digital service
                          in various countries
                   =======================================


Country            5km       10km      200km     500km
----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Austria         |  683.8  | 1025.6  | 4346.2  |  6141   |
Belgium         |  372.5  |  683    | 1652    |  3304   |
Denmark         |  174.6  |  293.9  | 1770.5  |  2139.8 |
France          |  614    |  828.8  | 5241.8  |  6838.6 |
Germany         |  795.2  | 1337.3  | 8385.5  | 11638.6 |
Norway          |  242.2  |  242.2  |  602.5  |   869.6 |
Spain           | 1507.9  | 2356.5  | 4996.9  |  6713.1 |
Sweden          |  332.2  |  387.6  | 2214.8  |  2380.9 |
Switzerland     |  758.8  | 1523.5  | 6604.4  |  8810.3 |
United Kingdom  |  412.6  |  515.3  |  824.3  |  1128.5 |
----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Average         |  589.4  |  919.4  | 3663.9  |  4996.4 |
----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Israel            1823      2136     14011      32761     (<50 lines)
Israel            1077      1077      1077       1077     (>50 lines)

Notes:

1) Rates are in dollars per month.
2) Sources: a) Report #219, "Tariff Analysis - National Digital Services
               at 64kb and 2Mb, Claude Laurens, La Gaude, France,
               December 14th, 1987
            b) Israeli prices based on Sifranet and leased line price
               sheets, Bezek, August 15th, 1987


             International rates for high speed links to the USA
             ===================================================

Country           56/64kb   1.544M
----------------+---------+---------+
UK - MCI        | 4654    |  40540  |
UK - BTI        | 5943    |  45045  |
France          | 6017    |  49557  |
Netherlands     |         |         |
Germany         | 9939    |  86746  |
Belgium         |11500    | 115008  |
Norway          |         |         |
Sweden          |         |         |
Denmark         |         |         |
Japan           |         |         |
Spain           |         |         |
Switerland      | 8823    |         |
Ireland         |         |         |
Israel          |13548    |         |



Notes: 1) All rates are rates for connecting to the east coast in the
          USA.
       2) The rates only reflect half of the cost.  The other half is
          the rate for the link from the United States to the stated
          country
       3) All rates are cost per month in US dollars

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

From: rochester!moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)
Subject: Books on Telephony
Date: 28 Jan 88 18:25:54 GMT



I was recently sitting through a sales meeting listening to people discuss
T1 or E5 ESS (or some such).  I also head that there are Universities that
offer courses in telecommunications.

My question is twofold:

1. Which universities?
2. Does anyone have books that they can recommend on the subject?  I have
   been working on Telephone Cost Management Systems for 4 1/2 years, but
   find the lack of knowledge about the telephone system capabilities
   frightening.

Thanks.


--
               rochester \
David Esan                | moscom ! de
                    ritcv/

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

Subject: sync of micro/mainframe clocks
From: [e-mail]
Date: 27 Jan 88 21:52:16 EST

) on the
"mainframe"; with a 60hz (presumably line) clock on the micro.

If you are connected over TELENET, the delay will typically by
much less than 1 second. At the moment, I am logged in to a PRIME
system from a TELENET PAD, and I have apparently-real-time command
execution. I.e. less than 200 milliseconds.

I suggest that the micro request time from the host mainframe, and
then subtract (about) 0.4 seconds. This will certainly give results
at least as accurate as the (postulated) 1 second mainframe clock.

Robert Ullmann
[e-mail]  ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Cantrell)
Subject: VME Muxs
Date: 29 Jan 88 16:18:58 GMT



I'm trying to compile a list of available VME RS232 multiplexors and would
appreciate hearing of peoples experiences including whether the mux performed
as the manufacturer stated, what kind of I/O throughput you have measured,
and whether you think the mux supported most of the desirable features.
I'd also like to hear from people who had a significant amount of trouble
porting a particular mux...

                    PC

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 88 10:58:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Subject: What network am I on?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg)

What is the 800 number one calls to find out what long distance
network is being used?

(E.g., I dial 1-800-xxx-xxxx and get a recording like: "Welcome to AT&T.")

Thanks for any pointers,

--
## Daniel M. Rosenberg '91    CSLI/Stanford University      1-415-323-0389
## [e-mail]  or  ihnp4!decwrl!labrea!russell!dmr

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

Date:         Thu, 04 Feb 88 11:35:59 GMT
From: Brian J Haughey
Subject:      Voice-mail boards for PC's.

Hi all :

I'm trying to get some information together on manufactuers of VOICE-MAIL
boards for PC's. (Essentially these are boards which, when you plug your PC
into a PBX, will allow you to leave a voice mesage for someone, storing it in
APCM format on a disk for later retrieval).

If you know of any companies working in this (or related) areas, please
send any details to me at the address below. Thanks !

Arpanet : [e-mail]

Bitnet/Earn : HAUGHD88 at IRLEARN

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 21:22:04 EST
From: [e-mail]

One of my colleagues asks if there's either a commercial device or an easily
buildable circuit which acts as an amplifier for the phones in a house on
one line.  The problem is that when Grandma calls, everyone wants to be
on the line.  But the CO isn't able to power 3 phones off-hook simultaneously.

Seems like it would be a common need, but I've never heard of anything like
that.  And, of course, there's no real spec that's honored by the local
operating company about how many phones can be driven simultaneously.

Peter Capek
IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY

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

Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 20:46:12 EST
From: [e-mail] (Robert M. Enger)
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #23

Doug Mosher recently wrote concerning "no ringing on the line".
I do not know the specifics of the case in question, so many explanations
are possible!!  Given the information provided, it sounds like the number
being dialed was part of a Direct Inwards Dialing (DID) number group, and that
there was some difficulty with the DID trunks, amps, or pbx DID trunk cards.

Briefly DID service provides a PBX with direct to the station dialing by
repeating the last X digits dialed by the caller into the pbx, over
one of the pbx's DID trunks, usually using ROTARY PULSE signaling
(which is why DID usually has a longer delay before ringing is heard).
(Touchtone signaling from the CO to the PBX is available in some areas,
and speeds things up dramatically!  Check with your local telco).
After the addressing has been passed to the pbx, the co cuts the voice path
through to the DID trunk, and the audible tones heard by the caller
are actually generated by the PBX.

I have seen cases where a PBX talk path has failed, but the control signals
and the functioning of the supervisory signaling of the pbx's DID trunk
circuit still work.  The result is that the co thinks the trunk is ok,
the pbx and co handshake the new call coming in, but the caller does not
get to hear any audible indications.  I have also seen cases where the
trunk amplifier/equilizer units in the CO (MFTs, I think they're called??)
have gone bad:  they still pass line status handshaking info, but not
voice frequency, the result again, no talk path (as long as the addressing
is passed to the pbx with rotary pulse.  I assume things would fail
if TT signaling were used through a bad MFT).

Should the trunk status handshaking fail (pbx powered down, trunks disconnected, etc), the CO will declare the trunks in trouble, and they will be taken out of service at the CO.  Under this circumstance, a caller will hear some form of
audible indication from the CO itself, probably one of the busy tones.

In this day of high technology, wouldn't it be nice if the CO gave out more
definitive information when  it could not complete a DID call into a customer
PBX?  How about a nice simple voice recording for starters.  Then we could get
fancy and actually identify the trunk group by number!  (A DID trunk group
number is unrelated to the telephone numbers it services for the PBX.)

Some suggestions:

    All direct dial Circuits into the customer PBX are in use.
            Please try again later.  Trunk group <xxx>.

    The direct dial circuits into the customer PBX are not working.
            Please try again later.  Trunk group <xxx>.

Bob Enger
CONTEL Federal Systems
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sunday, 27 December 1987  21:48-MST
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject:   Sophisticated modems and Call Waiting

Jay Maynard notes residential hunting may soon be no longer offered. I hope
not, but take comfort in knowing Illinois Bell's policy is generally to
grandfather anyone with a service feature at the time it is otherwise
discontinued to NEW subscribers.

He also says, "maybe this should be moved to Telecom..."  and I again
heartily agree....but a problem exists...where I call from (Portal System)
the Telecom category will not take postings. It says "group is moderated"
and that the moderator is unknown....alota good that does me!

I'd LOVE to get an active telecom discussion started, if any of you know the
moderator and can get a regular feed to us here (and posting rights).
Thanks, and happy new year to all!

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
19-Feb-88 23:09:11-EST,2404;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 19 Feb 88 23:09:10-EST
Date: 19 Feb 88 21:01-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #35
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Friday, February 19, 1988 9:01PM
Volume 8, Issue 35

Today's Topics:

                  a useful service ESS could provide
           good phone system book / finding your LD carrier
                      USENET readers please read

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 10:00:23 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dick King)
Subject: a useful service ESS could provide


It could allow the user to prefix any dialing with DD*, where DD is
two digits, and the number would appear on the phone bill.

Useful for remembering what calls were business calls or for
separating calls made by roommates.  Not secure, of course, but there
are many applications for which this is okay.

Information would not need to be communited to most LD carriers, since
they tend to contract their billing to the local carrier anyway.

Comments?

-dk

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

Subject: good phone system book / finding your LD carrier
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 13:15:20 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


a good phone system book:

Engineering and Operations in the Bell System
library of congress card #  83-72956
ATT select code 500-478

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

to determine your long distance carrier, dial 1 700 555 2121

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

Date: Fri 19 Feb 88 18:04:30-EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: USENET readers please read

The TELECOM USENET gateway at ucbvax is rejecting articles that I am posting
to TELECOM. If anyone knows how to fix that problem, let me know.
I was told that the articles were rejected because either they were
too old or I didn't have permission to post (seems silly).

If you want reliable access to TELECOM digest, then send me a reliable
mail path and I will forward you digests (or individual messages) directly.

There's nothing I can do, I'm not in control of ucbvax.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
20-Feb-88 18:01:57-EST,6013;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sat 20 Feb 88 18:01:55-EST
Date: 20 Feb 88 16:41-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #36
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Saturday, February 20, 1988 4:41PM
Volume 8, Issue 36

Today's Topics:

                      Reducing your toll charges
                     Re: looking for alarm dialer
              RE: Useful service that ESS could provide
                        Re: Books on Telephony
                           missing digests

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

Date: 19 Feb 88 21:59:00 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reducing your toll charges

M.R. Smith recently wrote asking how to lower his toll charges when
calling between two calling areas in N.J.

If the distances are appropriate, perhaps some arrangement of one
or more Remote Call Forwarding set-ups (in tandem) could be employed.

With this setup, Mr. Smith would call his RCF number, which would
forward his call either to the destination, or to another RCF, which
would (eventually) forward his call to the destination number.

Since RCFs are implemented entirely within the CO the line quality
is usually pretty good.  If you want to get really fancy, try to locate
the RCFs in intervening COs that have digital talk paths.

The principal idea here is to put one or more RCFs between you and the
destination, such that each phone call made (you to 1st RCF, and each
hop there after) is a local call.

I believe I read somewhere that NJ tarrifs allow a subscriber to pay
an additional charge to expand his/her "free" calling area.  If this
recollection is accurate, you may be able to use this alone, or
in combination with the RCFs (perhaps also so priviledged) to achieve
a "toll-free" talk path.

Foreign exchange service may be another option for you, again depending
on the distances involved.  (I don't have a map of NJ handy, sorry).

Best Wishes,
Bob Enger
CONTEL Federal Systems
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Pedersen)
Subject: Re: looking for alarm dialer
Date: 19 Feb 88 22:50:02 GMT
Reply-To: encad![e-mail] (John Pedersen)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
$
$    I'm trying to set up a remote alarm system which will place a phone
$call when an alarm goes off.  I can activate the dialer with a NO or NC

The first place to check is the one sold by Radio Shack. Although it does
not meet all your specifications is does do much of it. For example it does

Dial on eith a NO or NC contact
Can dial up to 4 numbers continiously for x minutes (x=30?)
Message is synthesized, does not recognize voice just dials waits x seconds
(x is programmable) gives its message describing problem, tells you to call
it back to confirm receipt of alarm, and then hangs up. It then waits about
30 seconds for a callback and begins dialing the second number in its list.

It is battery backed up. In fact 1 of the messages that may or may not be set
to be alarmed is power outage.

It also has audio input for monitoring ambients of the alarm area.

Like I said, it doesn't meet all your specs but is a $99 start. (sometimes on
sale for $79)

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 08:00:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Subject: RE: Useful service that ESS could provide

--text follows this line--
      Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 10:00:23 PDT
      From: [e-mail] (Dick King)
      Subject: a useful service ESS could provide

      It could allow the user to prefix any dialing with DD*, where DD is
      two digits, and the number would appear on the phone bill.

      Useful for remembering what calls were business calls or for
      separating calls made by roommates.  Not secure, of course, but there
      are many applications for which this is okay.

Both Sprint and Centrex allow you to do this.  Except that with
Centrex the account codes can be any lenght, and your phone bill is
sorted first by account codes, second by date, third by number.  You
can also get your bill in machine-readable form.

MIT Does this for long distance phone calls billed to MIT account numbers.

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

From: netsys![e-mail] (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Books on Telephony
Date: 20 Feb 88 01:34:49 GMT
Reply-To: netsys![e-mail] (David Lesher)


> Article <[e-mail]> From: rochester!moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)
#
# 2. Does anyone have books that they can recommend on the subject?
Believe it or not...
Radio's Hack sells book called
'Understanding Telephone Electronics' or such.
In my many years involved on the fringes of the field, I had
never seen a book that described telephones so an EE could
understand them. This one does.
No: swinging trouble, reverse battery or open pairs
It talks in ordinary, everyday electronics terms that the *real*
world uses everyday. For $3.95, it cannot be beat.

--
Fetch the Holy hand grenade
decuac!netsys!wb8foz

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

Date: Sat 20 Feb 88 16:37:34-EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: missing digests

Did you miss digests 30-32? I have issue 30 but would appreciate it if someone
could remail me back issues 31 and 32. In the flurry to get mail out, I must
have done something wrong and flushed the digests. Another explanation is
that I cancelled the batch job twice with a problem I had to correct and those
may have been the two digests we are missing. In any event I'm sorry for
the confusion.

--jsol

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
22-Feb-88 21:37:26-EST,13834;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 22 Feb 88 21:37:24-EST
Date: 22 Feb 88 19:57-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #37
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Monday, February 22, 1988 7:57PM
Volume 8, Issue 37

Today's Topics:

                         Today's topics 2/19
                      Re: What network am I on?
                     Area Codes in North America
                          How big is a cell?
                Re: a useful service ESS could provide
                    Re: Reducing your toll charges
                        Re: Books on Telephony
                Re: a useful service ESS could provide
      Reducing your toll charges:  Only if you're close enough!
    Re: Reducing your toll charges:  Only if you're close enough!

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Today's topics 2/19
Date: Sat Feb 20 11:28:19 1988

Dick King ([e-mail]) suggests that a two digit billing code be
added to how we dial numbers, in order to identify <who> -- in a multiple
dwelling, for example, made a given call.

Not a bad idea, and in fact is being used by the OCC's now, but in a little
different format. I assume the use of DD on the front would be voluntary.
That is, if someone using a phone thus equipped chose to simply dial the
ten digit number, there would be no restriction. Or would there?

What Sprint does now on request is require a two digit ID code on the end of
the number. If the system administrator requires this, then the call will not
be processed without it. In our office, my two digit ID is "48", and my long
distance calls are placed: 65 (to get WATS) ACC-PPP-NNNN48. Without it, a
recording advises me to use my billing code, or ask the system administrator
for assistance.

If this were implemented everywhere, I'd prefer to see it on the end of
the number.

Of course, we <do> have a form of that now. Calls which require special
billing can always be placed on your (name of telco here) Calling Card.
The format seems to be standard nationally. You dial zero, the area code
and number, then wait for the zip tone. Then, enter the ten digits of the
phone to be billed and the four digit personal ID number. You can get more
than one personal ID per line I am told, but this method does require
dialing quite a few more digits.

Very curiously, I happen to have an Illinois Bell Calling Card, an AT&T
Calling Card and an MCI Credit Card. The first two have the identical
data on them including the PIN. The MCI card differs only in one respect;
the PIN is different (by a couple digits!). Apparently AT&T assigns all the
PIN's and other details on these, regardless of which OCC (or themself) has
the account.

What I would REALLY like to see under ESS though, is the addition of an eighth
digit to the local phone number which would serve as a 'check digit' to
help prevent wrong numbers. It (8th digit) would be calculated mathematically
from the other seven (or ten) and virtually eliminate wrong numbers unless
it 'matched up' correctly to the other seven (or ten).

Many credit card processing companies use a variation on this now, to prevent
errors by clerks who punch in the account number, etc. Typically, accidental
reversal of the digits will result in 'no such number' rather than an
incorrect number being charged or credited. Why not to help prevent wrong
numbers also?

[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 14:59:07 PST
From: hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail] (Tim Pozar)
Subject: Re: What network am I on?

[e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg) wrote:
> What is the 800 number one calls to find out what long distance
> network is being used?
>
> (E.g., I dial 1-800-xxx-xxxx and get a recording like: "Welcome to AT&T.")
>

   800-555-4141...

[I just checked and the number is 1-700-555-4141. There is (to the best
of my knowledge) no 800 number that will do the same thing. --jsol]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 23:08:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Grant)
Subject: Area Codes in North America

For those of you who don't have this list, it could come in handy.
It's a numeric list of Area codes in Northa America.

3 new area codes were assigned this year, 407 (Florida), 508,
(Massachusetts), and 719, (Colorado).

Notice that only 706, 708, 908, 909, and 917 are unassigned.

Also notice that Mexico, (903 and 905), is also accessible by the
international country code 52.  Does anyone know if 903 and 905
completely overlap the country code 52?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
201 New Jersey
202 District of Columbia
203 Connecticut
204 Manitoba
205 Alabama
206 Washington
207 Maine
208 Idaho
209 California
212 New York
213 California
214 Texas
215 Pennsylvania
216 Ohio
217 Illinois
218 Minnesota
219 Indiana
301 Maryland
302 Delaware
303 Colorado
304 West Virginia
305 Florida
306 Saskatchewan
307 Wyoming
308 Nebraska
309 Illinois
312 Illinois
313 Michigan
314 Missouri
315 New York
316 Kansas
317 Indiana
318 Louisiana
319 Iowa
401 Rhode Island
402 Nebraska
403 Alberta, Yukon, and N.W. Territory
404 Georgia
405 Oklahoma
406 Montana
407 Flordia (as of April 16, 1988)
408 California
409 Texas
412 Pennsylvania
413 Massachusetts
414 Wisconsin
415 California
416 Ontario
417 Missouri
418 Quebec
419 Ohio
501 Arkansas
502 Kentucky
503 Oregon
504 Louisiana
505 New Mexico
506 New Brunswick
507 Minnesota
508 Massachusetts (as of July 16, 1988)
509 Washington
512 Texas
513 Ohio
514 Quebec
515 Iowa
516 New York
517 Michigan
518 New York
519 Ontario
601 Mississippi
602 Arizona
603 New Hampshire
604 British Columbia
605 South Dakota
606 Kentucky
607 New York
608 Wisconsin
609 New Jersey
612 Minnesota
613 Ontario
614 Ohio
615 Tennessee
616 Michigan
617 Massachusetts
618 Illinois
619 California
701 North Dakota
702 Nevada
703 Virginia
704 North Carolina
705 Ontario
706 *Unnassigned*
707 California
708 *Unnassigned*
709 Newfoundland and Labrador
712 Iowa
713 Texas
714 California
715 Wisconsin
716 New York
717 Pennsylvania
718 New York
719 Colorado (as of March 5, 1988)
801 Utah
802 Vermont
803 South Carolina
804 Virginia
805 California
806 Texas
807 Ontario
808 Hawaii
809 Puerto Rico
812 Indiana
813 Florida
814 Pennsylvania
815 Illinois
816 Missouri
817 Texas
818 California
819 Quebec
901 Tennessee
902 Prince Edwards Island and Nova Scotia
903 Mexico (parts also accessible by country code 52)
904 Florida
905 Mexico (parts also accessible by country code 52)
906 Michigan
907 Alaska
908 *Unassigned*
909 *Unassigned*
912 Georgia
913 Kansas
914 New York
915 Texas
916 California
917 *Unassigned*
918 Oklahoma
919 North Carolina

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 17:49:52 EST
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: How big is a cell?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)

When I first learned about cellular telephony, my impression what that
they intended a typical cell to be a mile or two across.  But it seems
in many cases that cells near the edge of a service area are far bigger.
How big can a cell be?
[A cell is limited only by transmitter and antenna characteristic.]

On a slightly related point, if you pick up your cellular phone near a
point where two separate cellular systems meet (e.g., in centeral New
Jersey between New York and Philadelphia) how do the two systems decide
who gives you your dial tone?  For that matter, can calls be handed off
from one system to another, or only within one cellular exchange?
[You get an arbitrary cellular system, and if you're really lucky
you get switched back and forth. In most systems the call can't be
transferred across cellphone companies, so you are disconnected from
the call and you have to place the call again. --JSol]

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: a useful service ESS could provide
Date: 20 Feb 88 21:55:22 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)


In article <8802191800.AA22595@kestrel> [e-mail] (Dick King) writes:
> It could allow the user to prefix any dialing with DD*, where DD is
> two digits, and the number would appear on the phone bill.

    Our PBX at work (An AT&T System 25, I think) has a similar feature.
I forget the exact sequence of what you need to "dial", but you can force
any call to be logged as originating from any extension.  The intent is to
allow you to make a call from somebody else's phone and have it charged to
yours, but of course, there is nothing to keep you from doing it the other
way around.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 88 10:49:12 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: Re: Reducing your toll charges

Good idea, but it would be too many jumps, too expensive.  The
Optional Toll plan doesn't reach far enough.
Mark

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 88 14:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Books on Telephony


There are a number of good recent books on Telephony.  For a business school
course I am
using  "BUSINESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS" published by Irwin.

See also "Understanding Modern Telecommunications" published by McGraw Hill

and Telecommunications for Managemetn also by McGraw Hill

"Data Communication Fundamentals and Applications" is also not bad, published
by Merrill.

Marvin Sirbu
CMU

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 88 14:44:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: a useful service ESS could provide


As a way of keeping track of my business calls from my home phone, I simply
route them over
an LD carrier other than the default (using 10XXX).  Typically they show up on
my local phone
bill listed separately by carrier.

Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 88 11:48:03 CST
From: <ihnp4!laidbak!obdient![e-mail]>

To:
Path: obdient!blair
From: [e-mail] (Doug Blair)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: What network am I on?
Summary: 700-555-1212
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Feb 88 17:49:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Obedient Software Corp, Wheaton, IL
Lines: 18


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes:
> What is the 800 number one calls to find out what long distance
> network is being used?
>
It's not an 800 number, it's (I think the only) 700 number, and I haven't
the faintest idea if kit's toll free or not.  To learn your long distance
company call:

    1-700-555-1212

Doug Blair

--
===============================================================================
| Doug Blair                                  ... ihnp4!laidbak!obdient!blair |
|               "I'm not a Consultant, but I play one on TV."                 |
| Obedient Software Corporation,  1007 Naperville Road,   Wheaton, IL   60187 |
===============================================================================

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

Date: 21 Feb 88 22:13:00 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reducing your toll charges:  Only if you're close enough!

Mark:

As I said, I didn't have a map of N.J. to consult.
Sorry to have gone off in the wrong direction.

To cover larger distances will probably entail paying some form of time or
traffic based charge, which I assumed you would like to avoid.

If the destination you wish to reach is accessable from any data network, you
might wish to see if there is an access point into the network close to you,
and whether you would actually save any money that way (you will probably
have to pay some traffic based charges).

The other avenue which occurs to me is the use of WATS line services.  A
number of vendors now provide them.  Unfortunately, WATS service will entail
time based charges, but this may be unavoidable if the distance is as great
as you suggest.

If you wish, you could investigate leasing either analog or digital private
line data service between your location, and your destination.  If you're
willing to tollerate 9600 baud or below, you should be able to get away with
ordering an unconditioned "3002" series analog circuit.  Use of this
alternative will require you to buy modems which will operate on a leased
line, and you will have to have permission from your destination to have your
circuit terminated their premesis, etc.  While the cost of this service will
probably be pretty great (if your distance is great), it does have the
advantage of being usage insensitive.

Good Luck,
Bob

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 88 22:37:59 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: Re: Reducing your toll charges:  Only if you're close enough!

I looked into these options, and they cost more than my salary.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Mark

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
25-Feb-88 22:16:54-EST,8081;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 25 Feb 88 22:16:53-EST
Date: 25 Feb 88 20:14-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #39
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Thursday, February 25, 1988 8:14PM
Volume 8, Issue 39

Today's Topics:

                           telephone types
                     Your Long Distance Carrier?
                 Area codes 903/905 and Mexico rates
                       Re: Calling card numbers
                      Re: What network am I on?
                               Numbers
            Correction to NPA list posted by Michael Grant

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 88 23:16:48 EST
Subject: telephone types

What is a ``2500MMGB'' set?  More precisely, what does the ``MMGB'' suffix
indicate?

        --Steve Bellovin

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 88 09:35:56 EST
From: Barry Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Your Long Distance Carrier?

Okay, so we think it's 1 700 555 2121 or 4141 or 1212.  Well,  I  tried  a  few
random  combinations and it appears that 1 700 555 xxxx will get me a recording
thanking me for selecting a particular carrier (where x is any digit 0-9).

-barry

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

Date: Tue 23 Feb 88 12:24:57-CST
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area codes 903/905 and Mexico rates

The Mexico area codes definitely do not overlap all of country
code 52.  Area code 905 is used for Mexico City, (52-5-nnn-nnnn),
and area code 903 is used for certain areas of northern Mexico,
but I'm not sure of the exact mapping.

Clive

P.S.  While on the subject, does anybody know whether any non-ATT
carriers have lines into Mexico?  The last time I checked, the highest
price per mile for a phone call from the U.S. was for calls to Mexico.
In fact, calls to Mexico were the most expensive overall, regardless
of the distance.  Does anybody who has checked more recently have any
counterexamples?  (When comparing rates, I normally use the "per each
additional minute" charge during the most discounted time period.
E.G.  Austin, TX to Mexico City is 97 cents; Austin to Hong Kong is 81
cents.)

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 88 15:59:39 EST
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Calling card numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Very curiously, I happen to have an Illinois Bell Calling Card, an AT&T
>Calling Card and an MCI Credit Card. The first two have the identical
>data on them including the PIN. The MCI card differs only in one respect;
>the PIN is different (by a couple digits!). Apparently AT&T assigns all the
>PIN's and other details on these, regardless of which OCC (or themself) has
>the account.

No, actually the local operating company assigns your calling card number, and
provides it to AT&T. (This info from my cousin who runs a small telco in
Vermont and finds making up the calling card numbers to be a minor pain. The
RBOCs provide the info directly, the small companies via a trade group that
maintains their data base.) It appears that the various OCCs invent card
numbers by themselves, using a scheme which resembles the original, i.e. your
10-digit phone number followed by 4 extra digits except when toll fraud is a
problem in which case they make up all 14 digits.

If the various long distance companies are really all equally at arms' length
from the local telcos, I see no reason why the OCCs couldn't get their calling
card numbers from the telcos, so that you would have one calling card number
that would work no matther what long distance company a phone exchange
happened to route your call to, making life much easier for us who use pay
phones in airports.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, [phone]
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 88 16:07:32 EST
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: What network am I on?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Pozar) writes:
>[e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg) wrote:
>> What is the 800 number one calls to find out what long distance
>> network is being used?
>> (E.g., I dial 1-800-xxx-xxxx and get a recording like: "Welcome to AT&T.")
>[I just checked and the number is 1-700-555-4141. There is (to the best
>of my knowledge) no 800 number that will do the same thing. --jsol]

It's unlikely you could find such an 800 number, since the routing rules for
800 calls are entirely different from those for regular calls.  For 800
numbers, the routing is currently by prefix, e.g. 800-950 and several
others go to MCI, 800-877 goes to Sprint, and all the rest go to AT&T or
the local operating company.

The problem is that at the time of the Bell breakup, AT&T got all of the
routing equipment that handles the translation of 800 numbers, even though the
BOCs are supposed to provide equal access 800 service with the 800 numbers
being assigned, I suppose, by Bellcore. It's taking a long time for the BOCs
to install their 800 equipment, MCI squawked at the delay, and so the
government mandated the current hack of routing by prefix in the interim. For
all I know, in most places the 800 numbers are still handled by AT&T under
contract to the BOCs just as all long distance directory assistance is still
handled by AT&T under contract to the various OCCs.  Expect lots of excitement
when they try to cut over to the new system and all 800 service stops working.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, [phone]
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw

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

Date: Tue 23 Feb 88 16:02:42-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Numbers

    Actually.......
    (700) 555-XXXX  will tell  you who  your carrier  is.  For  some
reason unclear to  me, they sometimes  say XXXX is  1212, 2121 or  4141.
Makes no diff.  POPCORN (Time in the  Bay Area is the same, POP-XXXX  is
just as good.
    (905) (903) and (706) are what I guess can be called pseudo-area
codes. (706) Northwest Mexico and (905) Mexico City are listed as dialing
arrangements for AREAS NOT EQUIPPED FOR INTERNATIONAL DIALING.  In fact,
they list  them  90+5  (the  city code)  and  70+(two  or  three  digits
beginning with 6).  I assume (903) is the same type of arrangement.
    (700) is one of AT&T's "reserved" ACs.  Besides the carrier ID,
they also use it for Alliance Teleconferencing Service.

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 23 Feb 88 22:46
Subject: Correction to NPA list posted by Michael Grant

If you are planning on keeping a copy of the area code list provided
by Michael Grant, you should make the following corrections:

903 is unassigned
706 is Northwestern Mexico
708 is assigned to Illinois effective next year (312/708 split)

To answer Michael's question about how much of Mexico is covered by 905 and 706:

905 is Mexico city only (equivalent to +52 5 XXX XXXX);
706 is Northwestern Mexico only (equivalent to +52 6X XXX XXX).

These are special codes for North American use only to support calling from
exchanges which cannot dial 011+ yet.  Other countries must dial with +52.

/john

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
25-Feb-88 23:59:04-EST,10902;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 25 Feb 88 23:59:00-EST
Date: 25 Feb 88 20:18-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #40
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                      Thursday, February 25, 1988 8:18PM
Volume 8, Issue 40

Today's Topics:

             How cellular phones pick the cell to talk to
                    areacode list with corrections
                       Watson II / Telco wiring
                         PADS and Characters

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 23 Feb 88 23:01
Subject: How cellular phones pick the cell to talk to

In V8#37, John Levine asks how a cellular phone picks which system you talk
to when you're near the boundary between two systems.  Although it may appear
that an arbitrary system is selected, there are some rather straightforward
rules which determine what happens.

First a little bit of background.  In any cellular service area, there will
usually be two (never more) licensed operators.  One will be known as the
non-wireline or "A" carrier and will have an odd-numbered system ID; the other
will be known as the wireline or "B" carrier and will have an even-numbered
system ID.  "A" carriers use channels 1-333; "B" carriers use channels 334-666.
(Additional channels have been allocated; I don't know how they are assigned.)

Each cell constantly transmits the system ID on the paging channel; each
cellular telephone constantly scans the paging channels to see if it can
adequately receive and parse the system ID.  Telephones generally have the
following minimum discrimination capability:  (A) Scan "A" frequencies only,
(B) Scan "B" frequencies only, (S) Scan both "A" and "B" frequencies and prefer
a "home-type" carrier but accept a carrier of the opposite parity if no home
type carrier can be found.

When a cellular telephone scans, it will lock onto the strongest cell it can
hear (in accordance with the scanning option chosen) and listen to only that
one paging channel until it does a rescan.  Rescans are done fairly frequently
(every few seconds).  While a call is in progress, there are no rescans; a
telephone will only switch cells if it is told to do so by the cell it is
currently connected to.

A telephone which has only the minimum capability above will, when idle, switch
somewhat aimlessly back and forth between the two systems as the received signal
strength varies.  This can be annoying if you're waiting for an incoming call,
and the two systems are not "networked" together to provide multi-system paging.

Networking between systems not owned by the same company is still quite rare,
but is being done by the two "A" carriers in the NYC / Connecticut area (as of
this January), by the two "B" carriers in the Green Bay / Appleton area, and
by the two "B" carriers in the Oklahoma City / Shawnee area.

More systems will be networked as service areas start bumping into each other.
In the case of systems owned by the Baby Bells, Judge Greene has to sign waivers
to permit them to network with adjacent systems.  The long-term goal is for
nationwide networking.  In Canada, where the regulatory environment is somewhat
different, there are some *very* large systems.  Both Cantel and Bell Cellular
operate systems which stretch continuously from Windsor (next to Detroit) all
the way to Quebec City -- a distance of about 700 miles.

Some telephones allow more control than the minimum above.  Additional options
I have seen are (1) "reverse preference" which causes the phone to prefer a
non-home type system but accept a home-type, (2) home system-ID only which
causes the set to ignore anything but the home system ID, (3) specific system-ID
only which allows you to enter the system ID you want to talk to, and (4) ignore
system ID which allows you to enter a list of system IDs which you will ignore
while otherwise operating in one of the basic modes mentioned earlier.

With these extra options you can arrange to pick up a more distant system if you
want.  For example, before Contel Cellular turned on the new Manchester/Nashua
system in New Hampshire, it used to be possible to use NYNEX as far north as the
Merrimack toll booth.  This is more than fifteen miles from the nearest NYNEX
cell and could be done with a 1/2 watt portable unit.  (Car units are 3 watts.)
Using one of the options which allow specification of system ID could make that
still possible.

The legality of using a distant system when you are in an area licensed to
another company is somewhat hazy.  Although we all know that you can't make
radio waves stop at a state line, some cellular operators have been known to
make nasty noises when adjacent systems are "stealing" their revenue, and have
demanded that these systems put up highly directional antennas.  I think this
is a crock; the systems should just network with each other and provide the
best possible service to customers of both systems.

/john

P.S.:  The largest single cell I know of is CCT Boatphone in Road Town, Tortola.
They claim coverage over roughly 8000 square miles (a circle with a diameter of
over 100 miles).  Coastel, in the Gulf of Mexico, has cells with diameters of
about 65 miles, but they tend to overlap.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 88 10:34:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Grant)
Subject: areacode list with corrections

Thanx to all of you who sent me corrections on my previous posting.
I've integrated the changes people have sent me, and here it is
again.  I got this info out of the Dillon Colorado phone book
originally.

Now, could someone please type in all the prefixes for each of these
area codes :)

For those of you who don't have this list, it could come in handy.
It's a numeric list of Area codes in Northa America.

3 new area codes were assigned this year, 407 (Florida), 508,
(Massachusetts), and 719, (Colorado).

Notice that only 706, 708, 908, 909, and 917 are unassigned.

Also notice that Mexico, (903 and 905), is also accessible by the
international country code 52.  Does anyone know if 903 and 905
completely overlap the country code 52?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
201 New Jersey
202 District of Columbia
203 Connecticut
204 Manitoba
205 Alabama
206 Washington
207 Maine
208 Idaho
209 California
212 New York
213 California
214 Texas
215 Pennsylvania
216 Ohio
217 Illinois
218 Minnesota
219 Indiana
301 Maryland
302 Delaware
303 Colorado
304 West Virginia
305 Florida
306 Saskatchewan
307 Wyoming
308 Nebraska
309 Illinois
312 Illinois
313 Michigan
314 Missouri
315 New York
316 Kansas
317 Indiana
318 Louisiana
319 Iowa
401 Rhode Island
402 Nebraska
403 Alberta, Yukon, and N.W. Territory
404 Georgia
405 Oklahoma
406 Montana
407 Flordia (as of April 16, 1988)
408 California
409 Texas
412 Pennsylvania
413 Massachusetts
414 Wisconsin
415 California
416 Ontario
417 Missouri
418 Quebec
419 Ohio
501 Arkansas
502 Kentucky
503 Oregon
504 Louisiana
505 New Mexico
506 New Brunswick
507 Minnesota
508 Massachusetts (as of July 16, 1988)
509 Washington
512 Texas
513 Ohio
514 Quebec
515 Iowa
516 New York
517 Michigan
518 New York
519 Ontario
601 Mississippi
602 Arizona
603 New Hampshire
604 British Columbia
605 South Dakota
606 Kentucky
607 New York
608 Wisconsin
609 New Jersey
612 Minnesota
613 Ontario
614 Ohio
615 Tennessee
616 Michigan
617 Massachusetts
618 Illinois
619 California
701 North Dakota
702 Nevada
703 Virginia
704 North Carolina
705 Ontario
706 Mexico (equivalent to +52 6X XXX XXX)
707 California
708 Illinois (as of November 11, 1989)
709 Newfoundland and Labrador
712 Iowa
713 Texas
714 California
715 Wisconsin
716 New York
717 Pennsylvania
718 New York
719 Colorado (as of March 5, 1988)
801 Utah
802 Vermont
803 South Carolina
804 Virginia
805 California
806 Texas
807 Ontario
808 Hawaii
809 Puerto Rico
812 Indiana
813 Florida
814 Pennsylvania
815 Illinois
816 Missouri
817 Texas
818 California
819 Quebec
901 Tennessee
902 Prince Edwards Island and Nova Scotia
903 *Unassigned*
904 Florida
905 Mexico (equivalent to +52 6X XXX XXX)
906 Michigan
907 Alaska
908 *Unassigned*
909 *Unassigned*
912 Georgia
913 Kansas
914 New York
915 Texas
916 California
917 *Unassigned*
918 Oklahoma
919 North Carolina

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

From: hp-sdd![e-mail] (Tim Steele)
Subject: Watson II / Telco wiring
Date: 24 Feb 88 16:04:05 GMT


Just got a Watson II card for my PC, but can't figure out how to connect it
up to the UK telephone system.  Any info on how your US Telco jacks are
wired would be appreciated!

Thanks

Tim

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 88 07:59:57 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PADS and Characters

              We use X.25 PADS/Switches made by both Dynapac and Memotec to
         provide multiple connections via dry circuits here at NSWC.
         Recently we had a requirement to provide connectivity for some
         Honeywell equipment. We, or rather I, was surprised to discover
         that these PADS will not, at first glance work.  The reason seems
         to be that the Honeywell uses a non-ASCII character format called
         ASPI. If asked up front I would have "assumed" that these PADS
         would be "protocol transparent" - something similar to "user
         friendly" in the software world.
              My questions about all of this are as follows:
                   1. Are we doing something fundamentally wrong, should
                   these PADS pass the ASPI data.
                   2. Are PADS in general "character format" sensitive, and
                   if so, why.
                   3. Any options, other PAD/SWITCH manufacturers we should
                   be looking into.
                   4. Any one else out there using the Memotec/Dynapac gear
                   and run into a similar situation.
              Any help would be greatly appreciated.


                   Thomas Hinders
                   Telecommunications group
                   Naval Surface Warfare Center
                        [e-mail]
                               or
                        [e-mail]
                   if you insist:
                    Autovon 290 4225
                    Comm [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
26-Feb-88 22:05:05-EST,4283;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 26 Feb 88 22:05:04-EST
Date: 26 Feb 88 21:13-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #41
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Friday, February 26, 1988 9:13PM
Volume 8, Issue 41

Today's Topics:

                     Re: looking for alarm dialer
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?

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

From: felix![e-mail] (Dennis Griesser)
Subject: Re: looking for alarm dialer
Date: 26 Feb 88 03:38:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dennis Griesser)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
>    I'm trying to set up a remote alarm system which will place a phone
>call when an alarm goes off.

Black and Decker makes an autodialer now that hooks into their home security
system.  I've seen them at several hardware stores.  The dialer is inexpensive
(<$99), but doesn't do too much.

I think that it calls a special response center (that you subscribe to for
about $25/month) and sends the computer there some pertinent info.  That's
what I gleaned from a quick look at the box.  Perhaps it can do more.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 88 00:11:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Ole Jacobsen)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ole Jacobsen)

The 700-555-xxxx works if you prefix it with 10xxx too, that is try
ALL your available Equal Access carriers and hear ALL the different
recordings. If you've got AT&T as your default, you can get the MCI
recording by dialling 10222 700-555-4141, for instance.

There was some speculation that when the "Choose-your-default-carrier"
wars died down, we would see a lot of ads for "try us on a
case-by-case basis" using 10xxx. I don't see much evidence of this
happening. The 10xxx is still a little known feature, billing is real
strange (often delayed by months on your BOC bill), and the carriers
are confused. The other day I got a call from a curious carrier who
had noticed that I was using them on and off, informing me that I
could sign up and stop "testing" their service. When I explained that
I was not "testing" their service he appeared quite perplexed.

I've found that 10xxx is wonderful when certain prefixes block or
you can't get through using the default carrier.

"America, The Land of CHOICE, everything from the type of bread in
your sandwich to your long distance carrier...."


Ole


"Med Televerket inn i fremtiden"

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

From: [e-mail] (John Pedersen)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 26 Feb 88 13:43:18 GMT
Reply-To: encad![e-mail] (John Pedersen)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Nelson) writes:

I just tried a few of these numbers on our companys long distance carrier and
got a recording that said "Your call can not be completed as dialed. Please
check the number and try again or call your customer service representative
at 1-800-444-4444. Z3??"

I think we are using MCI but can't tell for sure


--
[e-mail]
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing
EMC Engineering Wichita KS
318-688-8837

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 88 07:46:04 PST
From: <ptsfa!pbhyc![e-mail]>

To: ames!comp-dcom-telecom
Path: pbhyc!jdf
From: [e-mail] (Jack Fine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: snider interface--what is it?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Feb 88 15:45:59 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 9


I was recently asked to explain "snider" interface to someone and frankly I
have never heard of it.  They said it was a rs232c type of interface or at
least was a way to connect to rs232c.  Anyone out there ever heard of it or
am I on a snipe hunt?

Thanks

Jack

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
28-Feb-88 21:11:03-EST,2501;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sun 28 Feb 88 21:11:01-EST
Date: 28 Feb 88 19:00-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #42
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                        Sunday, February 28, 1988 7:00PM
Volume 8, Issue 42

Today's Topics:

                         10xxx codes -- list?
            "What line is this?" feature on AT&T System 25
                        list of 10xxx numbers

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

Date:     Sat, 27 Feb 88 11:36:46 PST
From:     [e-mail] (Michael Helm)
Subject:  10xxx codes -- list?


Anyone have a cross-reference of what 10xxx code stands for what
long-distance carrier?

Thanks,
Michael Helm ([e-mail])
Lawrence Berkeley Lab

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: "What line is this?" feature on AT&T System 25
Date: 28 Feb 88 04:41:56 GMT


    In many    areas, there is a magic number you can call to get a
computer voice telling you what number you have called from.  Does anybody
know if an AT&T System 25 PBX has a similar feature to tell you what
extention you are calling from?  Many times when hooking up phones around
the lab, I come accross an unused jack with dial tone in it and no way to
find out what extention it is other than to guess and try calling it to see
if it rings.  I've tried picking the AT&T installers' brains; either such a
feature doesn't exist or they won't tell me what it is.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

Date:       Sunday, 28 Feb 88 13:03:59 EST
From:       Michael Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject:    list of 10xxx numbers



Anyone know where I can find a list of lond distance carrier numbers
(10xxx numbers)?
Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Smith                     Bitnet: MNSMITH@UMAECS
AIDSNEWS                             Why: 413-586-6414
155 Main Street                    CSnet: [e-mail]
Northampton, MA 01060               Arpa: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Mar-88 22:44:58-EST,12217;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Tue 1 Mar 88 22:44:56-EST
Date: 1 Mar 88 21:14-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #43
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Tuesday, March 1, 1988 9:14PM
Volume 8, Issue 43

Today's Topics:

                        Re: How big is a cell?
                     Call Waiting and Trailblazer
                   here are the equal access codes
                             10XXX Codes
               Re: "What line is this?" feature on AT&
                        PLANTRONICS Phonebeam

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

From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Re: How big is a cell?
Date: 26 Feb 88 06:18:24 GMT


Re: size

Here in Orlando, the service area spans a good 100 miles from north
to south. There are only 5 cells in the Orlando systems.

Re: two neighboring systems

Another example: Orlando and Melbourne are two seperate systems, however
one will hand calls off to the other.

Also, calls made from the Melbourne system to local numbers in Orlando,
are treated as local calls, while Bell South charges INTRA-LATA for non
cellular calls between the same points.
--
                    Mikel Manitius
                    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: Call Waiting and Trailblazer
Date: 29 Feb 88 04:49:42 GMT


I have just made the unpleasant (to me) discovery that when Trailblazer
modems are in PEP mode they are very resistant to carrier drops.
Everyone else may think this is great, but its a problem for me.

I only have one phone line at home and it has call waiting on it. For
years I have taken advantage of the fact that when I am on line with a
modem and a call came in, the carrier would be broken long enough by
the call waiting signal that the modem would drop and I would get my
call.

It looks to me like the Trailblazer just fights through the noise and
tells me nothing about it. The S10 register which normally controls the
"carrier loss to disconnect time" is only effective  in "slow mode" (ie
2400 baud or slower, no PEP).

Any suggestions?


--
Ken Mandelberg      |  {decvax,sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!km  UUCP
Emory University    |  km@emory                             BITNET
Dept of Math and CS |  [e-mail]                        ARPA,CSNET
Atlanta, GA 30322   |  Phone: [phone]

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

Subject: here are the equal access codes
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 09:12:27 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>



(these were posted in this group 8 months ago.  some carriers may have
 disappeared by now.  many are available on a regional basis only.)

>originally From: sun!texsun!pollux![e-mail] (John Reece)

The following is a list of long distance carrier access numbers of the
form 10XXX. An asterisk indicates that the number is used but the name
of the company is not available.


001    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
002    AmeriCall LDC
003    RCI Corporation
004    *
005    *
006    *
007    Tel America
009    *
010    *
011    Metromedia Long Distance
012    Charter Corporation (Tri-J)
013    Access Services
014    *
015    *
018    *
020    *
021    Mercury
022    MCI Telecommunications
023    Texnet
024    Petricca Communications Systems
028    Texnet
030    Valu-Line of Wichita Falls
031    Teltec Saving Communications
033    US Sprint
035    *
036    Long Distance Savers
039    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
040    *
042    First Phone
044    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
050    *
051    *
053    American Network (Starnet)
054    *
055    *
056    American Satellite
057    Long Distance Satellite
058    *
059    COMNET
060    Valu-Line of West Texas
061    *
062    *
063    COMNET
065    *
066    *
069    V/COM
070    National Telephone Exchange
072    *
077    *
080    AMTEL Systems
081    *
082    *
084    Long Distance Service (LDS)
085    WesTel
086    *
087    *
088    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
089    Telephone Systems
090    WesTel
092    *
093    Rainbow Communications
095    Southwest Communications
098    *
099    AmeriCall
120    *
121 *
122    RCA Global Communications
123    *
124    *
131    *
133    *
137    All America Cables and Radio (ITT)
142    First Phone
146    ARGO Communications
170    *
177    *
188    Satellite Business Systems
200    *
201    PhoneNet
202    ExecuLines
203    Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel)
204    United Telephone Long Distance
205    *
206    United Telephone Long Distance
210    *
211    RCI
212    Call US
213    Long Distance Telephone Savers
214    Tyler Telecom
215    Star Tel of Abilene
216    *
217    Call US
218    *
219    Call USA
220    Western Union Telegraph
221    *
222    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
223    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
224    American Communications
225    *
226    *
227    ATH Communications (Call America)
228    *
229    Bay Communications
230    *
231    *
232    Superior Telecom
233    Delta Communications
234    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
235    *
236    *
237    Inter-Comm Telephone
238    *
239    Woof Communications (ACT)
240    *
241    American Long Lines
242    Choice Information Systems
243    *
244    Automated Communications
245    Taconic Long Distance Service
246    *
247    *
248    *
249    *
250    Dial-Net
251    *
252    Long Distance/USA
253    Litel Telecommunications
255    All-State Communications
256    American Sharecom
258    *
260    Advanced Communications Systems
263    Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications)
264    *
265    *
266    *
267    *
268    Compute-A-Call
269    *
270    *
271    *
272    *
275    *
276    CP National (American Network, Starnet)
277    *
278    *
280    *
282    *
283    *
284    American Telenet
285    *
286    Clark Telecommunications
287    ATS Communications
288    AT&T Communications
295    *
298    Thriftline
299    *
300    *
301    *
302    Austin Bestline
303    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
304    *
307    *
310    *
311    SaveNet (American Network, Starnet)
312    *
313    *
314    *
318    Long Distance Savers
321    Southland Systems
322    American Sharecom
323    *
324    First Communication
326    *
330    *
331    Texustel
332    *
333    US Sprint
335    *
336    Florida Digital Network
337    *
338    Midco Communications
339    Communication Cable Laying
341    *
342    *
343    Communication Cable Laying
345    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
348    *
350    Dial-Net
353    *
355    US Link
357    Manitowoc Long Distance Service
358    *
362    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
363    Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop)
366    *
369    American Satellite
370    *
372    *
373    Econo-Line Waco
375    Wertern Union Telegraph
379    *
382    *
385    The Switchboard
390    *
393    Execulines of Florida
399    *
400    American Sharecom
401    *
404    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
405    *
411    *
412    Penn Telecom
414    *
415    *
421    *
422    *
424    *
426    *
428    Inter-Comm Telephone
432    Lightcall
435    Call-USA
436    Indiana Switch
440    Tex-Net
441    Escondido Telephone
442    First Phone
443    *
444    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
445    *
450    *
452    *
455    Telecom Long Distance
456    ARGO Communications
457    *
458    *
462    American Network Services
464    Houston Network
465    Intelco
466    International Office Networks
468    *
469    GMW
470    *
472    Hal-Rad Communications
475    *
480    Chico Telecom (Call America)
482    *
484    *
486    *
488    United States Transmission Systems (ITT)
497    *
500    *
505    San Marcos Long Distance
511    *
512    *
515    Burlington Telephone
523    *
529    Southern Oregon Long Distance
532    Long Distance America
533    Long Distance Discount
535    *
536    Long Distance Management
537    *
538    *
539    *
543    *
547    *
550    Valu-Line of Alexandria
551    Pittsburg Communication Systems
552    First Phone
555    TeleSphere Networks
556    *
565    *
566    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
567    Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere)
579    Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD)
580    *
584    *
585    *
587    *
588    *
590    Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech
599    Texas Long Distance Conroe
600    *
601    Discount Communications Services
602    *
606    Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone
607    *
610    *
616    *
622    Metro America Communications
626    *
627    *
628    *
634    Econo-Line Midland
638    *
646    Contact America
647    *
652    *
654    Cincinnati Bell Long Distance
655    Ken-Tel Service
658    *
660    Tex-Net
661    *
666    Southwest Communications
669    *
675    Network Services
678    *
680    Midwest Telephone Service
682    Ashland Call America
684    Nacogdoches Telecommunications
685    *
687    NTS Communications
688    *
689    *
698    *
700    Tel-America
704    Inter-Exchange Communications
707    Telvue
709    Tel-America
711    *
717    Pass Word
722    *
723    *
724    *
726    Procom
727    Conroe-Comtel
728    *
729    *
733    *
734    *
735    Marinette-Menominee Lds
736    *
737    National Telecommunications
738    *
741    ClayDesta
742    Phone America of Carolina
743    Peninsula Long Distance Service
747    Standard Informations Services
753    *
755    Sears Communication
757    Pace Long Distance Service
759    Telenet Communication (US Sprint)
760    American Satellite
765    *
766    Yavapai Telephone Exchange
767    *
770    *
771    Telesystems
774    *
776    *
777    US Sprint
778    *
782    *
785    Olympia Telecom
786    Shared Use Network Service
787    Star Tel of Abilene
788    ASCI's Telepone Express Network
789    Microtel
792    Southwest Communications
800    Satelco
801    MidAmerican LD (Republic)
805    *
808    *
818    *
821    *
822    *
823    *
824    *
825    *
826    *
827    TCS Network Services
833    Business Telecom
834    *
835    *
836    *
837    *
838    *
839    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
847    VIP Connections
850    TK Communications
852    Telecommunicatons Systems
853    *
855    *
857    *
859    Valu-Line of Longview
862    *
864    *
866    Alascom
868    *
870    *
872    Telecommunications Services
874    Tri-Tel Communications
876    *
878    *
879    Thriftycall (Lintel Systems)
880    *
881    Coastal Telephone
882    Tuck Data Communications
883    TTI Midland-Odessa
884    TTI Midland-Odessa
885    The CommuniGroup
887    *
888    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
889    *
895    Texas on Line
897    Leslie Hammond (Phone America)
898    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
899    *
900    *
909    *
910    Montgomery Telamarketing Communication
911    *
915    Tele Tech
919    *
927    *
933    North American Communications
936    Rainbow Commuinications
937    Access Long Distance
938    Access Long Distance
945    *
950    *
951    Transamerica Telecommunications
955    United Communications
957    *
958    *
960    Access Plus
963    Tenex Communications
969    Dial-Net
977    *
983    *
985    America Calling
986    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
987    ClayDesta Communications
988    Western Union Telegraph
991    Access Long Distance
992    *
995    *
996    *
999    *

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

Date: Mon 29 Feb 88 10:54:29-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10XXX Codes

    or Carrier Identification Code Assignments which consist of both the
10XXX Feature Group D and the 950-0XXX and 950-1XXX Feature Group B codes are
listed in Bellcore Technical Reference TR-EOP-000093, Telephone Area Code
Directory (TACD).
    This is also the *detailed* AC directory listing the correct AC for
small towns never found in the maps or abbreviated versions.  No attendant
should be without it.  This is one of the things that fell through the cracks
with the breakup, it took me over two years to run down who was keeping it.
They sell for some nominal cost.
    Sorry, but the list is much too long for my typings skill.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "What line is this?" feature on AT&
Date: 29 Feb 88 19:06:00 GMT



Our Northern Telecom switch at Univ. of Il. has such a feature, but
our local AT&T switch doesn't.

            Mike Berger
            Department of Statistics
            Science, Technology, and Society
            University of Illinois

            [e-mail]
            {ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!berger

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

Date:  1 Mar 88 08:10 PST
From: William Daul / McAir / McDonnell-Douglas Corp  <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANTRONICS Phonebeam

Is there a way to connect this to my standard home phone line?  Thanks,  --Bi((

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 2-Mar-88 21:21:07-EST,8098;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Wed 2 Mar 88 21:21:05-EST
Date: 2 Mar 88 19:56-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #44
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Wednesday, March 2, 1988 7:56PM
Volume 8, Issue 44

Today's Topics:

                            Telco problem
                       Re: 10xxx codes -- list?

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

Subject: Telco problem
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 88 08:27:32 -0500
From: Daniel Long <[e-mail]>

My upstairs neighbor and I are experiencing the same, intermittent problem with
our phones:  occasionally, when people call us, the phone keeps ringing even
after we pick up the handset.  We can (barely) hear the party at the other end
(in between rings).  Having them call back usually solves the problem.  This
has been going on for several weeks now but only occasionally (and possibly
only with certain LD callers).  The Telco office in Arlington, MA is not an ESS
(i.e.  we don't yet have any calling features such as call-waiting,
speed-calling, equal-access, etc).  I plan to give Telco a call but I was
hoping someone could arm me with the right jargon (or even a diagnosis) to get
through the process more easily.

Thanks,
Dan

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

From: rochester!moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)
Subject: Re: 10xxx codes -- list?
Date: 1 Mar 88 21:21:12 GMT
Reply-To: rochester!moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Helm) writes:
>
>Anyone have a cross-reference of what 10xxx code stands for what
>long-distance carrier?
>

I got this from the ongoing anti-Sprint discussion in misc.consumers.  I offer
no guarentees of reliability or accuracy.

001    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
002    AmeriCall LDC
003    RCI Corporation
007    Tel America
011    Metromedia Long Distance
012    Charter Corporation (Tri-J)
013    Access Services
021    Mercury
022    MCI Telecommunications
023    Texnet
024    Petricca Communications Systems
028    Texnet
030    Valu-Line of Wichita Falls
031    Teltec Saving Communications
033    US Sprint
036    Long Distance Savers
039    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
042    First Phone
044    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
053    American Network (Starnet)
056    American Satellite
057    Long Distance Satellite
059    COMNET
060    Valu-Line of West Texas
063    COMNET
069    V/COM
070    National Telephone Exchange
080    AMTEL Systems
084    Long Distance Service (LDS)
085    WesTel
088    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
089    Telephone Systems
090    WesTel
093    Rainbow Communications
095    Southwest Communications
099    AmeriCall
122    RCA Global Communications
137    All America Cables and Radio (ITT)
142    First Phone
146    ARGO Communications
188    Satellite Business Systems
201    PhoneNet
202    ExecuLines
203    Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel)
204    United Telephone Long Distance
206    United Telephone Long Distance
211    RCI
212    Call US
213    Long Distance Telephone Savers
214    Tyler Telecom
215    Star Tel of Abilene
217    Call US
219    Call USA
220    Western Union Telegraph
222    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
223    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
224    American Communications
227    ATH Communications (Call America)
229    Bay Communications
232    Superior Telecom
233    Delta Communications
234    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
237    Inter-Comm Telephone
239    Woof Communications (ACT)
241    American Long Lines
242    Choice Information Systems
244    Automated Communications
245    Taconic Long Distance Service
250    Dial-Net
252    Long Distance/USA
253    Litel Telecommunications
255    All-State Communications
256    American Sharecom
260    Advanced Communications Systems
263    Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications)
268    Compute-A-Call
276    CP National (American Network, Starnet)
284    American Telenet
286    Clark Telecommunications
287    ATS Communications
288    AT&T Communications
298    Thriftline
302    Austin Bestline
303    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
311    SaveNet (American Network, Starnet)
318    Long Distance Savers
321    Southland Systems
322    American Sharecom
324    First Communication
331    Texustel
333    US Sprint
336    Florida Digital Network
338    Midco Communications
339    Communication Cable Laying
343    Communication Cable Laying
345    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
350    Dial-Net
355    US Link
357    Manitowoc Long Distance Service
362    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
363    Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop)
369    American Satellite
373    Econo-Line Waco
375    Wertern Union Telegraph
385    The Switchboard
393    Execulines of Florida
400    American Sharecom
404    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
412    Penn Telecom
428    Inter-Comm Telephone
432    Lightcall
435    Call-USA
436    Indiana Switch
440    Tex-Net
441    Escondido Telephone
442    First Phone
444    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
455    Telecom Long Distance
456    ARGO Communications
462    American Network Services
464    Houston Network
465    Intelco
466    International Office Networks
469    GMW
472    Hal-Rad Communications
480    Chico Telecom (Call America)
488    United States Transmission Systems (ITT)
505    San Marcos Long Distance
515    Burlington Telephone
529    Southern Oregon Long Distance
532    Long Distance America
533    Long Distance Discount
536    Long Distance Management
550    Valu-Line of Alexandria
551    Pittsburg Communication Systems
552    First Phone
555    TeleSphere Networks
566    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
567    Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere)
579    Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD)
590    Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech
599    Texas Long Distance Conroe
601    Discount Communications Services
606    Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone
622    Metro America Communications
634    Econo-Line Midland
646    Contact America
654    Cincinnati Bell Long Distance
655    Ken-Tel Service
660    Tex-Net
666    Southwest Communications
675    Network Services
680    Midwest Telephone Service
682    Ashland Call America
684    Nacogdoches Telecommunications
687    NTS Communications
700    Tel-America
704    Inter-Exchange Communications
707    Telvue
709    Tel-America
717    Pass Word
726    Procom
727    Conroe-Comtel
735    Marinette-Menominee Lds
737    National Telecommunications
741    ClayDesta
742    Phone America of Carolina
743    Peninsula Long Distance Service
747    Standard Informations Services
755    Sears Communication
757    Pace Long Distance Service
759    Telenet Communication (US Sprint)
760    American Satellite
766    Yavapai Telephone Exchange
771    Telesystems
777    US Sprint
785    Olympia Telecom
786    Shared Use Network Service
787    Star Tel of Abilene
788    ASCI's Telepone Express Network
789    Microtel
792    Southwest Communications
800    Satelco
801    MidAmerican LD (Republic)
827    TCS Network Services
833    Business Telecom
839    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
847    VIP Connections
850    TK Communications
852    Telecommunicatons Systems
859    Valu-Line of Longview
866    Alascom
872    Telecommunications Services
874    Tri-Tel Communications
879    Thriftycall (Lintel Systems)
881    Coastal Telephone
882    Tuck Data Communications
883    TTI Midland-Odessa
884    TTI Midland-Odessa
885    The CommuniGroup
888    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
895    Texas on Line
897    Leslie Hammond (Phone America)
898    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
910    Montgomery Telamarketing Communication
915    Tele Tech
933    North American Communications
936    Rainbow Commuinications
937    Access Long Distance
938    Access Long Distance
951    Transamerica Telecommunications
955    United Communications
960    Access Plus
963    Tenex Communications
969    Dial-Net
985    America Calling
986    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
987    ClayDesta Communications
988    Western Union Telegraph
991    Access Long Distance

--
               rochester \
David Esan                | moscom ! de
                    ritcv/

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 6-Mar-88 13:14:01-EST,7449;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sun 6 Mar 88 13:13:59-EST
Date: 6 Mar 88 11:55-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #45
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Sunday, March 6, 1988 11:55AM
Volume 8, Issue 45

Today's Topics:

                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                      Mitsubishi Cellular Phone
                      Re: PLANTRONICS Phonebeam
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                             700-555-1212
                10988 LD Access code and modem carrier

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

From: [e-mail] (Akkana)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 3 Mar 88 22:14:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ole Jacobsen) writes:
> happening. The 10xxx is still a little known feature, billing is real
> strange (often delayed by months on your BOC bill), and the carriers

Interesting -- I didn't have any trouble getting this info from PacBell
when I signed up for service here in San Diego (surprising after dealing
with ConTel in New Mexico, who said "Equal Access?  What's that?  You
must mean three-way calling, here's a brochure describing that feature").
When I said I wasn't sure what carrier I wanted (not having had experience
with any but Sprint and AT&T, both of whom I was pretty sure I didn't
want), she told me that I could put off specifying the carrier and use
10xxx dialing in the meantime.  A list of carriers arrived in the mail
two days later.  I haven't noticed any delay on 10xxx billing here,
either (at least on the MCI calls).

> are confused. The other day I got a call from a curious carrier who
> had noticed that I was using them on and off, informing me that I
> could sign up and stop "testing" their service. When I explained that
> I was not "testing" their service he appeared quite perplexed.

There do seem to be billing problems -- someone from Allnet keeps
calling my number asking why we've been using their service without
subscribing and apparently wanting to tell us to stop (I think, but
they haven't managed to catch me at home yet).  Perhaps all they want
to do is solicit my subscription to get me to stop "testing".  I may
subscribe service anyway, since it's the only one I've found so far
which has decent line quality (Sprint used to be really good before
equal access, but now I can't even understand voices on it -- I hear
other people on the line more loudly than I do the person who is
supposed to be calling me on Sprint).


--
    ...Akkana
    LaboratoryForBiologicalDynamicsAndTheoreticalMedicine, UCSD
    [e-mail]      ihnp4!lanl!brain.ucsd.edu!akkana

"I think I'll take a walk.  Hmm, wonder where this wire goes?"
            -- Max Headroom

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Dervan)
Subject: Mitsubishi Cellular Phone
Date: 4 Mar 88 19:50:21 GMT


Has anyone had any experience with Mitsubishi Cellular phones?  I got a
flyer from Amex today offering me one for $95/month for 24 months.
This is the phone and portable pack.  They also do the initial start-up with
Bell South Mobility.  Any info on these phones is appreciated.
-Richard
--
 _________________________________________________________________________
| Richard B Dervan                     BitNet: ccoprrd@gitvm1             |
| Office of Computing Services         ARPA  : [e-mail]     |
| Georgia Institute of Technology      CIS   : 70365,1012                 |
| Atlanta, Ga 30332                    MCI   : RDERVAN                    |
|   uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprrd   |
|__________________"We don't fit the mold...we build it"__________________|

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

From: psuvax1!vu-vlsi!dsinc![e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: PLANTRONICS Phonebeam
Date: 4 Mar 88 00:51:22 GMT
Reply-To: psuvax1!vu-vlsi!dsinc![e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)


In article <MDC-WBD-D85XW@OFFICE-8> [e-mail] (William Daul / McAir / McDonnell-Douglas Corp) writes:
>Is there a way to connect this to my standard home phone line?  Thanks,  --Bi((

Sure there is, it depends on the model.  Plantronics makes three models
of the phonebeam.  We use them and I love mine.  One model is a 25 pair
type that requires a speakerphone block adapter to hook up.  Those
adapters are available from supply houses and come with wiring
instructions you need to be a telco engineer to use.

Phonebeam also makes a model that has a plain old RJ11 jack on the end.
Those are easy, just plug them in to a wall jack and away you go.

A third model is made to hook into the old Key system amphinol connector
and work that way.  Those also require a speakerphone block adapter.

You didnt state which type you have, so I guess its not the easy one.

Check with North Supply or some other phone supply house for the
adapter, Plantronics can give you the type needed.  They even
have an 800 number, but I dont have it available here at home.

--
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                Voice: [phone]
{allegra,bellcore,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd    FAX:   [phone]

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

From: rabbit1![e-mail] (Tom Donohue)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 4 Mar 88 18:10:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ole Jacobsen) writes:
> There was some speculation that when the "Choose-your-default-carrier"
> wars died down, we would see a lot of ads for "try us on a
> case-by-case basis" using 10xxx.

I live in the Philadelphia 'burbs.  Bell of PA enclosed a
flyer in my most recent bill urging me to prefix my calls
to nearby Southern New Jersey towns with 10BPA to save $$
compared to AT&T rates.  (I never call South Jersey, so I
assume my neighbors received this flyer too).
--
-- tom        ...!{allegra,caip,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax!hutch!tom

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

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 88 13:26:16 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: 700-555-1212


If I dial that with a 10xxx prefix here I am warned that it is
not necessary to dial a long distance carrier prefix when making
this call.

-Ron

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier
Date: 5 Mar 88 20:11:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)


I dialed 10988+1700 555 1414 and got a a modem carrier.  So , I hooked
up the computer, dialed in at 1200 baud and used 7bit No Parity and 1
stop.
I got an:
ID:
prompt.
Does anybody know what this is?
Mark

--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604, CN 5063        that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903   {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 7-Mar-88 23:22:34-EST,8705;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 7 Mar 88 23:22:32-EST
Date: 7 Mar 88 22:04-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #46
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, March 7, 1988 10:04PM
Volume 8, Issue 46

Today's Topics:

              Re: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                   Please post on comp.dcom.telecom
                  Private Pay Phones Plaguing Public

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

Subject: Re: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 88 14:42:38 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge, MA
Cc:
Bcc:

In article <[e-mail]> Smitty writes:

?I dialed 10988+1700 555 1414 and got a a modem carrier.  So , I hooked
?up the computer, dialed in at 1200 baud and used 7bit No Parity and 1
?stop.
?I got an:
?ID:
?prompt.
?Does anybody know what this is?

    988 routes calls to western union -- it will be interesting to see if
    you ever get a bill.  do other 700 calls generate tolls ?  if you were
    a legitimate western union outlet, you could probably make all sorts
    of transactions...

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Herman)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 6 Mar 88 21:42:22 GMT


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Akkana):
Status: O

>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ole Jacobsen) writes:
>> happening. The 10xxx is still a little known feature, billing is real
>> strange (often delayed by months on your BOC bill), and the carriers
>
> Interesting -- I didn't have any trouble getting this info from PacBell
> when I signed up for service here in San Diego....

10XXX dialing still seems to be an unknown feature to many BOC personnel.
When I moved into my new appartment, I called C & P customer service and
asked them for a list of long distance companies and their access codes.

When I asked about 10XXX dialing, I was told that I could have a
list of long distance companies and their custom service numbers, but I
would have to call each company and get the access number from them.
I have a feeling that they want you to call the companies so that you
can set up a billing account.  They also told me there is a
$5 dollar surcharge to switch default long distance  companies.

Well, since I thought that 10XXX was public information, I called the
Maryland Public Service Commision.  They were absolutely no help.
They had never heard of 10XXX numbers.

At least before the breakup, Ma Bell was consistant.

                           JoeH.

[e-mail]

P.S.  Thank you to whoever reposted the 10XXX list.
--
"Everything is wonderful until you know something about it."

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

From: rabbit1![e-mail] (Tom Donohue)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 4 Mar 88 18:10:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ole Jacobsen) writes:
> There was some speculation that when the "Choose-your-default-carrier"
> wars died down, we would see a lot of ads for "try us on a
> case-by-case basis" using 10xxx.

I live in the Philadelphia 'burbs.  Bell of PA enclosed a
flyer in my most recent bill urging me to prefix my calls
to nearby Southern New Jersey towns with 10BPA to save $$
compared to AT&T rates.  (I never call South Jersey, so I
assume my neighbors received this flyer too).
--
-- tom        ...!{allegra,caip,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax!hutch!tom

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Please post on comp.dcom.telecom
Date: Sun Mar  6 17:17:59 1988


>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry N
>lson) writes:
>
>I just tried a few of these numbers on our companys long distance carrier and
>got a recording that said "Your call can not be completed as dialed. Please
>check the number and try again or call your customer service representative
>at 1-800-444-4444. Z3??"
>
>I think we are using MCI but can't tell for sure
>
>
>--
>[e-mail]

     That is an MCI number for Calling Card service.
(for those of you who want to know, its point of call routing to wherever
you are at the time).
     "Z3" probably should be 2ZZ, which is a switch id (it's a generic sw i.d.,
it really does'nt exist.).

     Yes, you are on MCI if you got that recording. Other MCI recordings are
(CCAD)..."or call 1-800-888-1800, 2??" (our 800 switch recording), "Thank
you for choosing MCI as your long distance carrier...." our 700-555-4141
test recording.

     [e-mail]
     MCI Trouble Reporting Center/via the Portal System
     San Francisco, Calif.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Private Pay Phones Plaguing Public
Date: Sun Mar  6 19:49:44 1988

<from the Chicago Sun-Times, Friday 3-4-88, written by Jim Quinlan>

Credit card users who make calls on privately owned pay phones are usually
in for a shock when the bill arrives, according to Datapro Research Corp.

The New Jersey telecommunications information service said consumers using
private phone service, called Alternate Operator Service, frequently face
unexpected charges of 10 times the amount charged by AT&T.

The Alternate Operator business, which came into existence following the
breakup of the Bell System, was used primarily by hotels and motels in the
beginning. Alternate Operator firms pay large commissions to those who
install their phones.

Although Illinois Bell provides billing services for three Alternate Operator
Service companies, they warn that anyone using an unfamiliar pay phone
must be cautious.

Richard Hill, a spokesman for Illinois Bell suggested that callers should
find a phone plainly marked "Illinois Bell", or xxxx-Bell in other parts
of the country. Likewise a phone with a seal saying it is operated by
General Telephone or Centel is safe to use said Hill, who added that these
phones are regulated by various state regulatory agencies such as the
Illinois Commerce Commission. The rates are well known and published.

Hill said the various Bell Operating Companies provide the best value for
the service.

Al Talbott, chief telephone engineer for the Illinois Commerce Commission
said Alternate Operator Service operations require only certification by
the commission. The AOS' are not regulated by the ICC, nor are they in
most states. Talbott said they were particularly excluded, but he does not
know how or why that came about.

Although the original intention was to allow Alternate Operator Services
rates to compete with other telephone services, no one anticipated their
rates would be so high.

The problem is, they catch unsuspecting customers by suprise and shock
according to Talbott. Many of their coin telephone instruments look 'just
like' phones provided by Bell. Talbott said there have been enough
complaints about these pay phones that the commission is planning to take
a new look at them and their operations, but for now those phones are
legal.

Talbott suggested consumers should ask for the name of the service placing
their call when calling from 'suspect phones', such as those at airports
and hotels. Ask specifically what the call is going to cost when calling
through a hotel switchboard. When using private pay phones which accept
credit cards for billing, find out from someone at the company how much
will be billed to your credit card.

And like Hill, he suggested that when a choice of payphones is available
in a location, you may wish to look for one with a tag saying "xxx-Bell".
In some areas, he noted, the tag may say 'genuine Bell' or 'Telephone Company
Coin Phone' or words to that effect.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
And in the Action Line column the day before, a business man complained of
being charged <eighteen dollars> for a one minute call -- in the evening --
from Chicago to New York City. Action Line was able to retrieve his money
for him.

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 9-Mar-88 21:54:59-EST,6525;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at  9-Mar-88 21:06:52
Date: 9 Mar 88 21:06-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #47
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Wednesday, March 9, 1988 9:06PM
Volume 8, Issue 47

Today's Topics:

                          Nationwide paging
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                            301-328 moved
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                            Re:  dcom show
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                      the number you dialed....

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

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 88 13:40:54 est
From: Brendan Reilly <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nationwide paging


Has anyone had success using a nationwide paging service.
My experience so far has been that this industry is just
starting up, and that bugs need to be worked out.  Is anybody
out in front of the pack with a working system?

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

From: [e-mail] (S. H. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 9 Mar 88 14:45:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (S. H. Schwartz)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Donohue) writes:
>
>I live in the Philadelphia 'burbs.  Bell of PA enclosed a
>flyer in my most recent bill urging me to prefix my calls
>to nearby Southern New Jersey towns with 10BPA to save $$
>compared to AT&T rates.  (I never call South Jersey, so I
>assume my neighbors received this flyer too).

New Jersey Bell (local carrier) has converse service from SW NJ to Phillie
and NE NJ to NYC: prefix with 10NJB.

--
                     *** QUESTION AUTHORITIES ***
                          Rashi, Rif, Maharal...
S. H. Schwartz       [phone]  [e-mail]
                     [phone]  ...rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!shs

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

Date:     Wed, 9 Mar 88 12:54:58 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  301-328 moved

301-328 was formerly Woodstock, Maryland but is now in Baltimore city.
I don't know what happened to people who had phones on 301-328 (and I
haven't been in Woodstock yet), but I notice some Woodstock area listings
on neighboring Ellicott City exchange (and this now picks up the Woodstock
post office).

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

From: [e-mail] (Alexander Dupuy)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 9 Mar 88 18:10:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Alexander Dupuy)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Donohue) writes:
>
>I live in the Philadelphia 'burbs.  Bell of PA enclosed a
>flyer in my most recent bill urging me to prefix my calls
>to nearby Southern New Jersey towns with 10BPA to save $$
>compared to AT&T rates.

New Jersey Bell has a similar campaign ("Dial 10-NJB") here in NYC,
encouraging people making calls to Jersey to save over AT&T rates.  If
we only had equal access, my roommates (whose parents live in Trenton
and Princeton) would probably give it a try.

@alex

inet: [e-mail]
uucp: ...!rutgers!columbia!dupuy

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

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 88 12:25:32 EST
From: hplabs!sun!sundc![e-mail] (Michael Grant)
Subject: Re:  dcom show

I believe it's Connect '88 going on this week, march 7-10 at the
Javitt's Convention Center in NYC, USA.

-Mike

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

From: rja <steinmetz![e-mail]>
Date: 7 Mar 88 14:20:27 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: edison!rja
From: [e-mail] (rja)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 10xxx access
Keywords: Long Distance Carriers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Mar 88 14:20:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization:  GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 22

In Virginia, CENTEL's 12/87 telephone book lists every 10xxx access code
for carriers who expect to provide "egual access" service when we get cut
over later this month.  The book points out that one MUST "make arrangements"
with the long-distance carrier BEFORE using their LD service.  This is because
most LD carriers have no way to bill users unless the user gives them a
customer name and billing address to send the bill to each month.  If you use
them without "signing up" you get the use of their service (in effect) for
free because they have no means to bill.  This is why they are calling you
at home and asking why you haven't signed up.  "Try out" periods are not
necessarily legal if you haven't signed up with that carrier or at least have
their permission.
  C&P Telephone's phone book of 8/87 for Hampton Raods, VA isn't nearly
as explicit as CENTEL, but does talk about the 10xxx codes and the procedures
for using alternative LD carriers.  It sounds like your local telco isn't
completely on top of things.
  I suspect that intentionally using a carrier that you haven't signed up with
could well leave you open to a lawsuit from the LD carrier for using the
service without the intent to pay, but I'm not a lawyer.
  For my own part, I found that AT&T is cheapest for in-state calls within
Virginia from my area to No.VA and Hampton Roads, so I've signed up with
them.  Their lines always work cleanly and I don't usually call out of state.
    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: the number you dialed....
Date: Mon Mar  7 23:04:07 1988

Reading about the fellow who dialed 10988-1-700-1-555-1414 and getting a
carrier made me want to try --

From my default carrier, 1-700-555-1414 gets me a message 'you have reached
Status: O

the AT&T Long Distance Service. Thank you for choosing AT&T'.

When I dial 10988-1-700-555-1414 I recieve a message saying 'the number you
dialed cannot be reached with the carrier access code you have chosen. Please
check the access code and dial your call again, or ask your long distance
service representative for assistance. This is a recording 312-1B.'

Apparently we don't get Western Union access up here, because 10988-anything
failed to go through, returning the aforementioned intercept message instead.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Mar-88 19:43:36-EST,4534;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 10 Mar 88 19:43:35-EST
Date: 10 Mar 88 17:45-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #48
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Thursday, March 10, 1988 5:45PM
Volume 8, Issue 48

Today's Topics:

                    Re: Mitsubishi Cellular Phone
                Calling 10xxx without signing up first
              Re: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier
                              10XXX info

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

From: dalesys%lamont.Columbia.edu@lamont (dale chayes)
Subject: Re: Mitsubishi Cellular Phone
Date: 10 Mar 88 00:12:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Dervan) writes:
>
> Has anyone had any experience with Mitsubishi Cellular phones?  I got a
> flyer from Amex today offering me one for $95/month for 24 months.

I have no personal experience with the Mitsubishi, but we have a Panasonic
portable that we have been using since the middle of the summer with no
complaints.

Ignoring the interest, you are going to pay about $2,300 to ammex. We paid
about $1,700 for the Panasonic which included registration and all that.

Beware that the real cost is in the monthly bills. Check out the different
options before you decide on the type of service (rate) you sign up for.

If you are on the road all day, and make lots of 9-5 calls, you can buy
a block of time per month deal. If you live on your boat, you can get
a cheaper after 7pm to 7am deal.

It is a relatively fluid market: THE BUYER HAD BEST BEWARE.

--
Dale Chayes Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University
usmail: Route 9W, Palisades, N.Y.  10964
voice:    [phone] extension 434    fax: [phone]
usnet:    ...philabs!lamont!dale

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 10 Mar 88 08:12
Subject: Calling 10xxx without signing up first

>  I suspect that intentionally using a carrier that you haven't signed up with
>could well leave you open to a lawsuit from the LD carrier for using the
>service without the intent to pay, but I'm not a lawyer.

Bologna.  Dialing 10xxx without signing up does not imply lack of intent to pay.
The carrier gets your phone number when you dial the call.  The carrier has
access to your name and address (your local telco must provide it on request).

If a carrier doesn't want you using their service without signing up, the
carrier should not process the call if you're not in the database.

Unless you fail to pay when the bill arrives, it's perfectly legal to use the
services of any carrier you can reach with 10xxx.

/john

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

Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 10:37:15 PST
From: Jeff Woolsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier
Reply-To: nsc![e-mail] (Jeff Woolsey)

I get a modem carrier when I try to place any call using 10375 as
the prefix.  It answers as
EASYLINK
ID?

The CIC list posted earlier identifies it as Western Union.
--
--
I wish people would stop running into my car!

Jeff Woolsey  National Semiconductor
[e-mail]  -or-  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 10XXX info
Date: 10 Mar 88 20:34:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()


When I signed up for my long distance service with Allnet, they gave
me their 5 digit code so I could begin calling before the local phone
company switched everything together.  They also gave me the 5 digit
codes of a couple of other carriers when I asked.

I noticed that the white pages has the following comment:

Long Distance Companies participating in Easy Access (1+ dialing)
will also have a unique five-digit Company Code.  By dialing the
Company Code plus the Area Code and the telephone number, your call
will be routed over that company's lines.  This service is called
Company Code Dialing which may be used in addition to Easy Access.
(You may have to make arrangements with some companies before using
their codes.)

[The unnecessarily capitalized words are in the original].

David Gast
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
12-Mar-88 01:56:57-EST,3323;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sat 12 Mar 88 01:56:56-EST
Date: 12 Mar 88 01:14-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #49
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Saturday, March 12, 1988 1:14AM
Volume 8, Issue 49

Today's Topics:

                Re: Private Pay Phones Plaguing Public
              Re: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Robert Smith)
Subject: Re: Private Pay Phones Plaguing Public
Date: 10 Mar 88 21:55:29 GMT


Does anybody know what payphones (other than NJ Bell) are "safe" in
NJ?
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604, CN 5063        that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903   {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Dervan)
Subject: Re: 10988 LD Access code and modem carrier
Date: 11 Mar 88 16:49:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff Woolsey) writes:
> I get a modem carrier when I try to place any call using 10375 as
> the prefix.  It answers as
> EASYLINK
> ID?
>
> The CIC list posted earlier identifies it as Western Union.

I believe this is an electronic mail service offered my Western Union.  Maybe
the prefix code allows you to access the service from anywhere with equal-
access without having to remember lots of phone access numbers.

-Richard
--
 _________________________________________________________________________
| Richard B Dervan                     BitNet: ccoprrd@gitvm1             |
| Office of Computing Services         ARPA  : [e-mail]     |
| Georgia Institute of Technology      CIS   : 70365,1012                 |
| Atlanta, Ga 30332                    MCI   : RDERVAN                    |
|   uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprrd   |
|__________________"We don't fit the mold...we build it"__________________|

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

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 9:40:51 EST
From: [e-mail]

To: [e-mail]
Path: bbn!bbn.com!levin
From: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling 10xxx without signing up first
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Mar 88 14:40:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation
Lines: 10


Mostly (around here, anyhow) the carriers available for 1+ access have
an arrangement with the local Telco: calls made using 10xxx by non
subscribers are billed by the Telco who passes the payment on to the
carrier.  I have had a page of Sprint bill along with the page of ATT
bill in my N E Tel bill.

    /JBL

UUCP: {harvard, husc6, etc.}!bbn!levin
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
14-Mar-88 21:29:35-EST,9498;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 14 Mar 88 21:29:34-EST
Date: 14 Mar 88 19:51-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #50
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, March 14, 1988 7:51PM
Volume 8, Issue 50

Today's Topics:

                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
     700 numbers, 900 numbers, LATAs & Calling Cards, Dial a Porn
                            600 area code?
                Codex/Motorola/UDS leased/dial modems
                         Wiring in my house.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Mende pie)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 13 Mar 88 10:37:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alexander Dupuy) writes:
> New Jersey Bell has a similar campaign ("Dial 10-NJB") here in NYC,
> encouraging people making calls to Jersey to save over AT&T rates.  If
> we only had equal access, my roommates (whose parents live in Trenton
> and Princeton) would probably give it a try.

   No ... the 10NJB only works to a few parts of NJ.   From NY they
only work the surrounding counties.  You cant use it in any many
counties (morris and middlesex come to mind).   I assume that somthing
similar works for PA area.



                             /bob
--
     [e-mail]    {...}!rutgers!mende    [e-mail]

YOW!!  The land of the rising SONY!!

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 14 Mar 88 07:06
Subject: 700 numbers, 900 numbers, LATAs & Calling Cards, Dial a Porn

From:    Greg Monti  National Public Radio        9-MAR-1988 19:13
Subj:    700 numbers, 900 numbers, LATAs & Calling Cards, Dial a Porn

700 numbers:  Someone implied recently that (area code) 700 numbers were another
province of AT&T.  This can't be true, since other LD companies offer services
(occasionally) using NPA 700.  Besides the number used to identify your primary
long distance carrier (1-700-555-4141, free) I have only seen two 700 numbers
advertised publicly:
     0-700-456-1000:  This was advertised as AT&T Alliance Teleconferencing (or
AT&T Teleconferencing Alliance).  The latter implies that AT&T is offering the
service in conjunction with other companies.  True?  A quick test of this number
shows that it is not automatically-routed to the proper LD carrier like 800
numbers are.  From a phone whose default LD company is not AT&T, one must dial
10288 first.  The advertisement never mentioned that.  1-700-456-1000 does NOT
work, it must be preceded with the 0.
     100-411-700-777-7777:  I'm not kidding.  I actually saw a TV commercial on
WWOR(TV) Secaucus NJ (serving the New York market but widely viewed via
satellite and cable) advertising this number.  Note that they broke up the
number in a way it would be easy for Joe Blow to remember.  They announced it
as "one hundred, four eleven, seven hundred and seven sevens."  The correct way
to break this up is 10041-1-700-777-7777 where 10041 is a 10XXX code
representing some special service division of Allnet.  (Allnet's regular 10XXX
is 10444.) The fine print whizzed by faster than I could read it, but I think
it said "available from area codes 212, 718, 516, 914, 201 and 203" and
"available only in equal-access areas" (which are few in New York) and "billing
services provided by Allnet."   This service is one of those party lines where
you get to talk to anybody else who also dials in, intended to be a
singles-bar-by-phone.  Kind of an LD-carrier-provided version of 976 or other
specialized prefixes.

900 numbers after equal access:  What's the story on these?  Far as I know,
all 900 numbers are "owned" by AT&T.  Therefore, all LOC exchanges should know
to route all 900 calls to AT&T.  Especially equal access ones.  However, a very
small disclaimer in one of those "vote by phone" 900 polls on TV said "Sprint
and MCI customers may need to dial 10288 first."  If a CO is smart enough to
understand equal access, shouldn't it be smart enough to route all 900 calls
to AT&T or whererver they need to go?

Calling Cards, billed by LOC or AT&T:  If you use either an AT&T Card or a
LOC Calling Card (they have the same number and same procedure for use) to
make a call from, say, a pay phone, the rules for "who carries this call" are
the same as from any other phone.  If both the originating phone and
the terminating phone are in the same LATA (not the same STATE), the call is
routed by whatever local company controls the originating phone.  It gets
BILLED by the local company which issued the card, even if that is different
than the LOC that carried the call.  If the call is within a LATA but involves
two LOC's (possible if you call across franchise borders) then the two
LOC's together handle the call and the billing is done by the LOC which issued
the card.
     Example:  my C&P of Virginia calling card is used to make a call
from Long Beach CA (served by GTE) to Los Angeles CA (served by Pac Bell).
Both Long Beach and LA are in the Los Angeles LATA.  GTE and Pac Bell
cooperate to route the call.  It appears on the C&P Calling Card Calls page
of my C&P of Virginia phone bill.  It doesn't matter whether the call is in
fact considered local or long distance.  As long as it's intra-LATA, C&P does
the billing.
     If I make a call using that card from Long Beach to San Francisco, in
different LATAs, GTE Long Beach hands the call off to AT&T (as it would any
direct dialed inter-LATA call from an AT&T-default phone).  AT&T hands it off
to Pac Bell San Francisco to complete the call.  This call appears on the
AT&T Card Calls page of my phone bill.
     By the way, for the AT&T Card instructions (0 + AC + number) to work, you
must place the call from a phone whose default long distance company is AT&T.
ALL pay phones owned by local Bell companies and independents that I know of
have AT&T as the default long distance company, considerably simplifying
things. Such a call CAN be completed from a phone with a non-AT&T carrier as
the default, but one must dial 10288 + 0 + AC + number for it to work.
     One more twist:  in a few states (only Connecticut that I know of), the
state utility commission has pre-empted the LATA-boundary decision which
resulted from the AT&T breakup.  In Connecticut, Southern New England Tel,
the local company is REQUIRED to carry all LD calls within the state, regardless
of any LATA boundaries that may be crossed.  In effect, the state is made into
a de-facto LATA.  This is legally possible since neither federal courts nor the
FCC can regulate intrastate communications.  This is a blatant case of monopoly
protectionism and was roundly criticized by MCI, AT&T and US Sprint when it
happened.

Dial a porn lockout:  A story in a February issue of the Washington Post notes
that C&P Telephone will eventually move so-called dial-a-porn adult
entertainment services off the 976 prefix to a separate prefix.  Customers will
have to specifically authorize C&P to process calls from their phone to the new
prefix in order to hear (and be billed for) dial-a-porn services.  Written
authorization from the customer will be required.  This system will either
replace or exist in addition to the existing method of having customers pay
$4.50 to have all 976-prefixed calls from their phone shut off.  Announced
startup date: 4/1/88.  New prefix:  (202) 915.

Greg Monti, National Public Radio, 2025 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Zank)
Subject: 600 area code?
Date: 14 Mar 88 10:01:18 GMT


I Like To Know If AnyOne Can Tell Me What Is The (600) Area Code for?
I Have Call It by Call 1(600)555-1212, I got some operater, Can some
-one tell me what is this for?

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

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 13:18:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Codex/Motorola/UDS leased/dial modems

We've got a number of the modem-type devices following literally sitting
 around:

{Codes | Motorola | UDS}
25882
224ARM16M
LSI9600

Our hope is to take two of whatever we need and run TCP/IP over what
I guess would be a leased line.  Unfortunately, we have (you guessed it) No
Manuals.  So, we'd be extremely grateful to anyone who can

1) tell us just what these things are
2) get us copies of documentation

Anthony A. Datri
Scribe Systems
[e-mail]
q113ad0r@cmuccvb (bitnet)

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

Date: 14 Mar 88 15:01:42 EST
From: Seshashayee Murthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wiring in my house.

New York Telephone says it owns the wiring in my house.  I charges me
a rental of about $2.50 along with a fee of about 1.50 for fixing
my lines if something is wrong.

What would they do if I said that I did not want their wiring in my
house?  Would they cut their wiring, so as to make it unusable?  Has
anybody gotten rid of the telephone company's charge without too much
trouble in rewiring?

Sesh Murthy, Murthy at Ibm.com, 914-789-7840

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
15-Mar-88 20:54:00-EST,11588;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Tue 15 Mar 88 20:53:55-EST
Date: 15 Mar 88 19:30-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #51
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Tuesday, March 15, 1988 7:30PM
Volume 8, Issue 51

Today's Topics:

                      long distance (dis)service
                               202-915
                   Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
                     Connecticut vs. competition
                       Re: Wiring in my house.
                       I would check further...
                         Dial a Porn Lockout

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

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 09:25:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Larry Michaels)
Subject: long distance (dis)service


Now that we finally have equal access out here (Silver Spring MD), I would like
to find out which 10XXX numbers work.  I have tried several and so far have
come up with the following:
011    Metromedia
220    Western Union
222    MCI
288    ATT
333    Sprint (10777 does not work)
444    Allnet
488    ITT

There was also a prefix for Southernet, but I don't recall it off hand.  For
each prefix tried, I dialed 1-700-555-4141.  For the ones listed above, I got
a recording thanking me for using that company's service.  When I tried to place
an actual call using Metromedia however, I got a recording telling me that they
are sorry, the number which I am calling from is not in their files.  If I would
like to join the many Metromedia customers I should dial 950-1011, wait for the
tone, and then dial seven more digits.  Dialing any invalid 10XXX + 1 + area
code causes an instant fast "busy" signal.  Does anybody have a more complete
list of 10XXX prefixes which work in my (301-681) exchange?

By the way, my default carrier is now MCI.  The connection quality has been
very good to excellent.  For the previous few years I used Sprint, and
connection quality was almost always excellent (well, for the last two years
anyway).  Their billing of course was a mess; they made me send them a copy of
a cancelled check for a bill which they claimed I never paid.  Their customer
service people (when I was able to get through to them) were always very
polite and helpful.  It wasn't their fault that only ~50% of the credits they
entered into the computer ever made it to the billing department.  AT&T is
a completely different story however.  About a year and a half ago, I received
a page with my C&P bill indicating a long-distance directory assistance call on
AT&T (no number or time given).  I did not make any such calls, but I
suspected that the charge may have been mistakenly billed when I dialed
the 700-555-4141 number.  I called AT&T's customer (dis)service
and spoke to one of their representatives.  The conversation began
roughly this way: "There is a charge on my bill for a call which I didn't
make." "We don't bill customers for calls they don't make.  If there
is a charge on your bill, you made the call and you have to pay for it.".  The
conversation deteriorated from there.  I informed the man that I hadn't made
any long-distance DA calls, and that if I had, I would have used Sprint because
they charge 10 cents less for the same call.  That didn't amuse him, but he
informed me that the DA call would be directed to an AT&T operator in any case,
and I told him that regardless, it was still 10 cents less.  I also mentioned
the 700-555-4141 call which I made, and he assured me that those calls are free.
After several minutes of arguing, he refused to budge and told me that my only
recourse was to just not pay the bill, and that when C&P hounds me for non-
payment it's my problem, not his.  A few hours later I decided to try my luck
again.  This time I got a different (dis)service representative who gave me the
same story as the first.  I tried to convince him that maybe the antiquated C&P
equipment misinterpreted the 700- call as DA, but he didn't care.  He finally
grudgingly agreed to remove the charge, but, if it happens again, they won't be
so nice the second time.

                    Larry Michaels
                    <nrl-css.arpa>

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

Date:     Tue, 15 Mar 88 9:14:21 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  202-915

Notice that 202-915 represents a use of N0X/N1X for the first time.
(Isn't there also going to be a 301-915 in Baltimore for the same
purpose?)
Also, how does this affect long-distance?  Some areas don't have 976.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Your Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 15 Mar 88 13:56:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alexander Dupuy) writes:
> New Jersey Bell has a similar campaign ("Dial 10-NJB") here in NYC,
> encouraging people making calls to Jersey to save over AT&T rates.  If
> we only had equal access, my roommates (whose parents live in Trenton
> and Princeton) would probably give it a try.

New Jersey Bell is not permitted to handle calls between NYC and Princeton
or Trenton.  Both are inter-lata calls.  The 10-NJB stuff only works between
NYC and a few counties of Northern NJ.  I think it includes Hudson, Essex,
Bergen, Union, and Passaic Counties.  I know it does not allow us to call
NYC from Somerset County (we're 30 miles from NYC).

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 15 Mar 88 12:05
Subject: Connecticut vs. competition

V8I50 mentioned that there is no LD competition in Connecticut, and
it's like one big LATA.  True.  But Connecticut is a special case anyway.

The concept of "LATA" was created as a response to the MFJ (Modified
Final Judgement, the AT&T breakup order) which prohibited the Bell
companies (RBOCs) from long distance service.  RBOCs are allowed only
to carry calls 1) within a LATA; 2) locally across LATA boundaries
(i.e., Salem NH to Lawrence MA, no tolls) and 3) across "corridor
exceptions" (New Jersey to PA and NY, but only some counties in each
corridor).  Note that historically, NJB and NYT owned the LD facilities
across the hudson, NOT AT&T.

Whether or not competition is allowed within a state is up to the state.
Intrastate calls are still an AT&T monopoly in several states, even though
there are multiple LATAs.  So if you have equal access, it's only
applicable to interstate calls.  The MFJ didn't and couldn't change this;
the franchise to carry toll within a state is issued by the state!  Some
states have only one LATA, so the BOC instead of AT&T gets the monopoly.
(The BOC gets the intra-LATA monopoly in multi-LATA states.  Some also
allow inter-LATA but not intra-LATA competition.  Etc.)

Connecticut, though, is essentially exempt from the MFJ, since all but
two exchange (2/3 of the Town of Greenwich, most expensive town in the US,
still served by NYT) are served by Southern New England Tel, NOT a Bell
company.  SNET is allowed to provide long distance, anywhere, anytime,
not to mention lots of other things prohibited to RBOCs.  In this sense
SNET is more like United Tel, Lincoln Tel, Rocheseter Tel., etc.  What
makes SNET so interesting is that they have almost the whole state to
play in, no Bell competition.  And no AT&T either, since the Conn. PUCA
has decided they don't want competition.  BTW, Hawaii is also a Bell-fre
state, being all GTE territory.  I don't know if they have competition
for intrastate service.
       fred

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

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 13:18:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Martin Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring in my house.

Each state regulates inside wiring in different ways.  For a period after
divestiture, most telcos were allowed to charge a wire cost recovery fee.
After this was paid, the owner of the building owned the wires.  In PA, Bell of
PA offers a maintenance service of about $1.50/mo (I think) for which they will
provide inside wire maintenance, but this is strictly optional.

Some consultants have told the telephone companies on behalf of their clients
that they no longer want their inside wiring, that they were going to install
their own.  The telephone company can retrieve their wire or abandon it, as
they see fit.  In many instances, the telco abandons it, because it is simply
too expensive to remove.
I would suggest discussing the matter with your co-workers and find out what
they did, if anything.  You can also write to your PUC with a complaint.  I
hope this helps.

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

From: [e-mail] (When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
Date: 15 Mar 88 13:21
Subject: I would check further...

> Date: 14 Mar 88 15:01:42 EST
> From: Seshashayee Murthy <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Wiring in my house.

> New York Telephone says it owns the wiring in my house.  I charges me
> a rental of about $2.50 along with a fee of about 1.50 for fixing
> my lines if something is wrong.

    Huh?   Did NY Tel install the wiring for _you_ or the previous owner
    (if there was one)?   If they installed it for _you_ (I assume
    pre-divestiture install date) then yes, they own it w/o question.   If
    they installed it for a previous owner and you just "inherited" it,
    then they probably still own it. Other than that, I am not certain of
    the letter of the law here.

> What would they do if I said that I did not want their wiring in my
> house?
> Would they cut their wiring, so as to make it unusable?  Has
> anybody gotten rid of the telephone company's charge without too much
> trouble in rewiring?

    The wiring would be legally termed "abandoned" and past experience
    within  DEC says that YOU are liable for any removal chages, should you
    choose to discontinue service.

    If you discontinue service and elect to leave their wiring in place,
    then I _believe_ that you are verboten to use said wire for any
    purpose.    Also I am not certain where they would "cut" their wiring.

         /doug

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expessed above reflect
         neither my employer's views, nor anything else for
         which I may be held responsible.  Any statement of
         fact in the above has a high probabilty of being
         incorrect. In fact, I never said anything. So
         there.   ;^)

========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
    id AA20486; Tue, 15 Mar 88 10:20:39 PST

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

Date: 15 Mar 88 14:15:40 PST (Tuesday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dial a Porn Lockout

Pac Bell announced that the charge for "locking out" access to 976 prefix ( in
order to prevent use of dial a porn or lots of calls to dial a joke, etc) has
been reduced  from $2.00 to 1 cent.  Calif PUC (I think it was) said the law
authorizing lockout says "for a charge not to exceed $5.00" and the PUC
interpreted that to require some charge.  So the charge was set at 1 cent.  Both
the PUC and Pac Bell are urging the legislature to make it possible not to
charge anything.

Bob Swenson

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
17-Mar-88 22:46:50-EST,15276;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 17-Mar-88 21:56:03
Date: 17 Mar 88 21:56-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #52
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Thursday, March 17, 1988 9:56PM
Volume 8, Issue 52

Today's Topics:

                         DEATH of the ARPANET
                        Re: Nationwide paging
                         Cyber Foundation BBS
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
        FCC reported ready to drop plan to boost phone charges
              Modem access fee proposal scrapped by FCC

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

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 18:04:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DEATH of the ARPANET

There have been a number of rumors about the impending death of the
ARPANET.  Here is the current DARPA position.

Brian Boesch

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


    DEATH OF THE ARPANET AND OTHER PARANOIA

There have been a number of rumors throughout the community that the
ARPANET project is being terminated. Many individuals and
organizations have expressed concern that the service that they have
become accustomed to will be terminated.

Enough rumors, now a word from your sponsor, DARPA.

The ARPANET project in fact is being terminated, but not soon.  DARPA
is in the business of conducting research into critical NEW technologies
that will advance the state of the art.  ARPANET is neither new,
nor state of the art.  It is slow and  expensive.

ARPANET was founded in the early 70's when 56Kbit/second trunks were
on the cutting edge of modulation and transmission technology. Packet
switching was unheard of.  (An interesting fact is that the average
terminal of the day was 30cps giving the net trunks about a factor of
230 faster than the average user interface). Since that time the
project expanded into the INTERNET where a number of dissimilar
networks could be interconnected relatively transparently.  The
internet grew from about 63 hosts to over 20,000. The local nets that
connect to the ARPANET and other Wide Area Nets (WANs) progressively
increased in speed.  The result is that while in '73 a large number of
users could effectively share one trunk, today, one user on a PC can
overload the entire capacity of the ARPANET.

In addition to being overloaded, the ARPANET is no longer able to
support its other prime function, that of a research base.  To conduct
any kind of experiment on the ARPANET causes too much service
disruption to the community.

Finally, the ARPANET is absorbing a significant fraction of our total
research budget in what is really a support function.

Solution, eliminate the source of the problem.  Rather than cutting
off the community our approach is to outgrow the ARPANET in a few
years.

The follow on network experiment will be called the Defense Research
Internet (DRI). We are also working in conjunction with other Federal
agencies, most notably National Science Foundation, to integrate our
networking experiments with the new regional networks, the NSFNET
project, and other agency networks.

An additional source of confusion is the fact that we are currently
arranging for NSFNET to support some ARPANET users, as part of a joint
effort to reduce costs by phasing out overlapping service.  Our
intention, as always, is to do this with minimal disruption to the
reserach community.

While this happening, we will be putting together the initial version
of the DRI apart from the ARPANET.  From the beginning the DRI will provide
the long distance trunk capacity that the ARPANET lacks. Initial
speeds will be 1.5Mbit/second per link (a factor of 25 improvement).
The DRI will also be segregated into an "experimental" and an
"operational" side.  The experimental side will have higher performance,
with the possibility of higher degree of net problems; the operational
side will support high data-rate applications such as image transfer.
The experimental side will be phased from 1.5Mbit to higher and higher
bandwidths with the intent of eventually reaching gigabit/second
performance; the operational side will take over for the ARPANET.
It will be operated by a contractor, and will be funded as overhead on
individual users' projects rather than becoming a drain on the Networking
research budget.  After the DRI is stable, the ARPANET will be phased out.


PLEASE DON'T BURY US WITH QUERIES ON THE DETAILS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION, WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO ANSWER THEM.  AS DETAILS ARE
FINALIZED AND READY FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION, WE WILL POST THEM.


Mark Pullen & Brian Boesch

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

From: nuchat![e-mail] (Phillip Keen)
Subject: Re: Nationwide paging
Date: 16 Mar 88 20:12:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brendan Reilly) writes:
>
> Has anyone had success using a nationwide paging service.
> My experience so far has been that this industry is just
> starting up, and that bugs need to be worked out.  Is anybody
> out in front of the pack with a working system?

Nationwide paging services are new, and so they need many improvements
and fixes.

--
Thanks,          Snail Address:  Phillip Keen
Phillip Keen                     2705 Martin
                                 Pasadena, TX  77502

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

From: <atari!sun!mcrware![e-mail]>
Subject: Cyber Foundation BBS
Date: 16 Mar 88 23:08:53 CST (Wed)

I've just read something in the "Computer Communications" column of the April
1988 *Computer Shopper* that I find HIGHLY disturbing and which I think should
be brought to the attention of modem users.  I quote the salient portion:

"In a recent issue of *Info-Mat* magazine, an online 'magazine' available on
170 selected BBSs across the country, it was reported that the feds have
underwritten a BBS to monitor the BBS user community, with an eye toward
taxation and regulation.  The Cyber Foundation BBS describes itself and its
system in a text file as 'a non-profit government-supported system run by
the United States Instructional Department. [has anyone ever heard of this
alleged organization?]  This system is a test for the government and FCC to
determine if bulletin board systems, non-paying information exchange systems,
should be charged for use.'

"The sysop of the Cyber Foundation BBS is Chris Regan, who has left messages
to the effect that he does not work for the government, but that the govern-
ment has paid for (part of?) the equipment and operating costs.  An elaboration
of the system's purpose as stated by sysop Regan in some online messages is,
'a test to see if bulletin boards, their phone lines, and others, should be
taxed or have a tariff placed on the information.'

"Other regulatory ideas discussed on the BBS by the sysop have included the
licensing of modems (similar to ham radio), and the licensing of BBSs, inclu-
ding the segregation of BBSs by computer type, and foregoing any semblance of
BBS privacy by giving a government official the right to log on and 'inspect'
all messages and files at random times.

"There is little justification for regulating computer communication via
telephone.  As a licensed ham radio operator, I understand the reasons why
transmission of voice or data over the radio spectrum are regulated, but none
of these reasons are applicable concerning telephone usage.  When I make a
call on my telephone, whether I communicate by voice or computer, it is a
private matter between the party I am calling and me.  The government has no
more business pursuing private messages I have left on a BBS than they do
voice messages I leave on a friend's answering machine.  The FCC has spent
the last several years reducing regulation on the radio services; there is
absolutely no reason for them to set up a whole new area of regulation in
the telephone service.

"These ideas for bureaucratic power grabbing, invasion of privacy, limitation
of free speech and government money grubbing need to be refuted before they
advance any further.  The Cyber Foundation BBS is located somewhere in
Connecticut and the phone number is [phone].  I encourage you to
call it up and let your opinions be known (courteously, of course)."

[end quote]

I have called the phone number, and found a BBS that does indeed go by that
name, with the stated Chris Regan as sysop.  Those messages I looked at didn't
seem to discuss the issues mentioned in the *CS* article; however, any threat
to the Constitution merits investigation.  (I left a message with the sysop
expressing my concern.)  Does anyone out there know anything about this BBS?
Are the cited issues really under discussion there?  Thanks...

        James Jones

[My opinions?  Who'd want them?  Certainly not some company...]

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

From: rja <steinmetz![e-mail]>
Date: 17 Mar 88 12:58:17 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: edison!rja
From: [e-mail] (rja)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Owning the premises distribution wiring
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Mar 88 12:58:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization:  GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 10

  Here in Virginia I'm certain that the customer owns the wires, whether
they were installed by telco pre- or post-divestiture.  Both CENTEL and
C&P/Bell Atlantic offer to "maintain" [sic] your wires in your house for
a few bucks per month, but the choice is entirely the customer's.  My folk's
wiring was done in 1955 and as of divestiture it became ours according to
C&P Telephone.  Back pre-divestiture, when U.Va. went from CENTEL centrex
to their own in-house ROLM VLCBX, they did have to install new wiring.
   [e-mail]

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

From: coherent![e-mail] (Dave Platt)
Subject: FCC reported ready to drop plan to boost phone charges
Date: 17 Mar 88 18:43:17 GMT


Excerpted without permission from the 3/17/88 issue of the San Jose
Mercury News:

"Washington (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission plans to scrap
 a proposal that would substantially increase telephone charges for
 business and home computer users.

"FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick has concluded that, based on strong and nearly
 unanimous opposition to the proposal, the plan should be dropped, according
 to sources at the commission and on Capitol Hill...

"The commission was expected to vote in two or three months to drop the
 proposal...

"Users of [database] services flooded the FCC and Capitol Hill with
 thousands of letters opposing the plan, which would add about $4.50 an hour
 to the cost of hooking up to information services.

"They said the increased charges, which would double the hourly hookup price
 for some information services, would drive many of them off the computer
 networks and crush a fledgling industry."

--

Dave Platt
  UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt     DOMAIN: [e-mail]
    INTERNET: coherent![e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1988  19:30 MST
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem access fee proposal scrapped by FCC

From Pg. 6 of the Wall Street Journal for 17 March 1988.
Status: O

        FCC SCRAPS PLAN TO CHARGE FOR COMPUTER
         ACCESS TO PHONE SYSTEMS, SOURCES SAY

   WASHINGTON - The Federal  Communications Commission
has quietly decided to  scrap  its plan to sharply in-
crease telephone  rates for computer users, agency and
congressional sources said.

   Last week, the agency informed  importamt lawmakers
that it wouldn't go ahead  with its plan to assess so-
called access charges of as much as $5.50 per hour per
user to hook up computer-communication networks to lo-
cal telephone systems.  An  FCC official described the
decision as a tactical move to placate opposition from
Congress and computer users.

   "They got the message loud and clear  from Congress
that this plan was a political and policy loser", said
a House  staffer who was informed of the FCC decision.

   The FCC's about-face is a big victory  for informa-
tion service companies, who  have contended that steep
access charges  would have drivem them out of business
by making  their  services  too expensive.  Currently,
computer-communications networks are exempt from those
access charges.  Computer  users  around  the  country
deluged the FCC with about 10,000 letters opposing ac-
cess fees, the most letters the agency has ever gotten
on a telephone issue.

   The decision to drop the proposal was  made  by FCC
Chairman Dennis Patrick  and the common-carrier bureau
of the  agency, the  sources said.  Mr. Patrick, whose
office wouldn't comment on the decision formally needs
the vote  of at least  one of the  agency's  other two
members to terminate a proposal.  But in  practice, he
can act unilaterally because, as chairman, he controls
which proposals can come to a vote.

   In any event, FCC Commissioner Patricia Diaz Dennis
said she supported  the  decision  to  end the access-
charge plan. "We've got a lot of things on our plate,"
she said.  That's one that would overcrowd it."

   Several agency officials described the FCC's action
as a way of  patching  up  its tattered relations with
Congress which is still fuming over the FCC's decision
to abolish the fairness doctrine.

   Last Thursday, [March 10] Rep.  Edward  Markey (D.,
Mass.), chairman of  the House telecommunications sub-
committee, said  he  would  introduce  legislation  to
kill the  access charge - even though agency officials
said they had assured the congressman's staff that the
FCC itself would kill the plan.  A Markey aide said he
was only  notified  an hour  before Rep. Markey was to
give a previously scheduled speech  on  access charges.
"We'll closely monitor the commission's future actions
to insure  that this onerous charge  doesn't re-emerge
in a new form", Rep. Markey said in  a  statement yes-
terday.

   Rep. Markey and other lawmakers  also  still oppose
Mr. Patrick's pet  plan  to radically alter regulation
of American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

   FCC and congressional sources said the agency would
proceed, but  slowly, with a separate  plan  to assess
charges of about  $4.50  per hour  per user to hook up
private telephone networks to local telephone systems.

   The FCC believes  that both computer-communications
networks and  private telephone networks aren't paying
their fair share of the cost of  local  telephone ser-
vice.  But exempting  computer-communications networks
has more  appeal  politically, because  the  users are
often consumers with  limited ability to pay increased
charges.
                   (end of article)

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Mar-88 23:55:45-EST,8282;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 18 Mar 88 23:55:44-EST
Date: 18 Mar 88 20:45-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #53
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Friday, March 18, 1988 8:45PM
Volume 8, Issue 53

Today's Topics:

                          Nationwide Paging
                Re:  Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                     Re: I would check further...
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

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

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 00:28:01 EST
From: hplabs!sun!sundc![e-mail] (Michael Grant)
Subject: Nationwide Paging

A while ago I did some research on nationwide paging.  I found 2
contenders at the moment.  There are atleast 2 others, Queue and
Megamessage which I was told were not worth looking into.  Queue's
system is based on FM SCA's which just don't work well.  I was told
that Megamessage wasn't really fully up yet, that might have changed
in the last couple of months.

Metrocast
---------

This company uses a pager which scans 14 frequencies in the 150 MHZ
range.  This technique allows them to use already built paging systems
to expand their market.  They say they have fairly complete coverage
in all of the major metropolitian areas.  Their pagers are strictly
alphanumeric.

Pager rental:
$23.00 / month

Service:
$17.00 / month + $1.50 per page (numeric or alphanumeric)
    or
$39.50 / month + $1.50 per alphanumeric page (UNLIMITED numeric paging)

This means:
$40.00 / month + 1.50 per page
    or
$62.50 / month + 1.50 per alphanumeric page (unlimited numeric paging)


National Satelite Paging
-------------------------

This company uses a 900 MHZ pager with satelite down links.  The
coverage is not nearly as complete as Metrocast, and they do not offer
alphanumeric paging at this time but will in the future.

$25.00 one time connect fee

Pager rental:
$15.00 / month

Service:
$33.00 / month + $0.50 / page
    or
$57.00 / month for unlimited paging

This means:
$48.00 + .50 per page per month
    or
$72.00 per month flat rate


Summary
-------

The advantage to NSP over Metrocast is that your pages go to the
entire country always, (but NSP tells me that this is going to change
in the future).  The advantage of Metrocast over NSP is the coverage
area.  With Metrocast, you tell it what area-code you will be
traveling in, and it sends your pages there.  Both have an 800 number
for which you can review your pages in case you missed one.  Metrocast
operates a 24 hour answering service which you can call to receive
missed pages.  Metrocast uses an alphanumeric pager, but you can send
it only numeric pages if you want.  This permits you to only use the
premium alphanumeric paging on an as needed basis.

I hope this helps you in your quest for information.

-Mike Grant

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

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 88 11:39:24 EST
From: Michael Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

According to a C&P repair person from Virginia, he tells me that C&P
owns the wire in a building if the wiring was installed in the building
BEFORE divestature.  In the new buildings, C&P will bring a line into
the wire closet in the basement.  If you want it moved into your
office area/apartment, you pay.  In old buildings, the will bring the
wire into your office or apartment.

-Mike Grant

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

From: ucbvax!ucscc.UCSC.EDU![e-mail] (99700000)
Subject: Re: I would check further...
Date: 17 Mar 88 05:53:25 GMT
Reply-To: ucbvax!ucscc.UCSC.EDU![e-mail] (Jim Haynes)


Seems to me you should check with your state P.U.C. to see what's
happening.  In Calif this year the phone company offered a choice
of you take responsibility for your own inside-house wiring or you
pay them 50 cents a month and they will maintain it.  Also the last
time I needed the lines worked on (the wire from pole to house
got leaky and noisy) they put a box on the side of the house that
holds the lightning protector and a modular jack, so that the
customer can plug a modular phone right into the line wire, disconnecting
the house wiring, to tell whether the trouble is in inside or outside
wiring.  They didn't charge anything for repairing the outside
wire or for the disconnect box.  So I assume all this means they
regard the inside wiring as the homeowner's property and that
if I had elected to pay them the 50cents/month that would be just
a maintenance contract and not rental on the wire.

But of course this kind of thing varies from state to state, so
yours is probably different.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes

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

From: ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Date: 18 Mar 88 06:18:13 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: ssc-vax!clark
From: [e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: More on US Sprint
Keywords: virus, toll fraud, billing problems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Mar 88 06:18:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 52

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

Reprinted without permission from

The Seattle Times, Wednesday, March 16,1988
...........................................................................

U.S. Sprint blames 'toll fraud' for erroneous telephone bills
    Shelby Gilje - Times staff columnist

    You've heard of computer viruses, those mischievous little programs
created by hackers that make computers do wild and crazy things?
    Well, according to U.S. Sprint Communications Co., "toll fraud,"
or a computer virus caused by hackers, was responsible for errors on
the phone bill for J.F. of Bothell.
    J.F. reported that she has had major billing problems with U.S.
Sprint since May 1986, and was billed $146 for calls she had not made.
    Each time she complained, the company promised the error would be
corrected. Finally, in August 1986, she discontinued service with U.S.
Sprint.
    In September of that year she again received an incorrect billing
statement along with a collection notice. She wrote U.S. Sprint again,
and called the customer-service department. An operator checked and
said her file would be placed on hold while the errors were investigated.
However, the billing would continue.
    The opertor assured her that no extreme collection measures would
be taken.
    In December 1986, she received a letter noting that her service
had been disconnected and she still owed more than $140. Again she
called the customer-service department, and again was assured that
an investigation was in progress.
    In December 1987 she received a new bill showing the old balance
as well as some new phone calls.
    "I have never heard of the city in which the new calls originated.
This is outrageous! What happened to the 'investigation'? Has someone
else been issued my old code?" J.F. wrote.
    Now U.S. Sprint has informed us that the erroneous bills have
been removed from J.F.'s account, and that they were accumulated as
a result of "toll fraud." U.S. Sprint said a computer hacker was
accessing its network and, through trial and error, was discovering
codes and using them illegally.
    "Ordinarily, U.S. Sprint attempts to determine who the individual
was that abused the codes. This research is vital for verification
of the abuse. The procedure can be very time consuming and sometimes
procedures are not carried out in the most expeditious manner," Keith
Marcom, a U.S Sprint representitive, wrote to J.F., apologizing for
the delay in resolving her complaint.
......................................................................

Hum... Computer Virus? Sounds like a convenient excuse...

Roger Swann        uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
20-Mar-88 23:21:53-EST,3708;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sun 20 Mar 88 23:21:52-EST
Date: 20 Mar 88 22:18-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #54
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Sunday, March 20, 1988 10:18PM
Volume 8, Issue 54

Today's Topics:

                     Re: I would check further...
                     Re: I would check further...
               European vs. US telephone systems query
                          Who's calling who?

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

From: uiucdcs!pur-ee!clio.las.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: I would check further...
Date: 18 Mar 88 22:54:00 GMT



Here in Illinois, all inside wiring reverted to the owner of the
residence.  This applied to businesses too.  I don't know if it
was universal, but I thought it applied pretty generally around
the country.

For that price, I'd let them remove the wires and put in my own.

            Mike Berger
            Department of Statistics
            Science, Technology, and Society
            University of Illinois

            [e-mail]
            {ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!berger

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

From: uiucdcs!pur-ee!clio.las.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: I would check further...
Date: 18 Mar 88 22:55:00 GMT



Incidentally, be sure that the charge is actually for USING the indoor
wiring.  Here, we can optionally pay a monthly charge for MAINTAINING
the indoor wiring.  But using it is free.

            Mike Berger
            Department of Statistics
            Science, Technology, and Society
            University of Illinois

            [e-mail]
            {ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!berger

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: European vs. US telephone systems query
Date: 19 Mar 88 19:49:31 GMT
Reply-To: iuvax![e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)



A friend of mine would like to purchase an answering machine in the
united states, to be used on the telephone system in West Germany.
Aside from the obvious power difference for powering the thing, is
there any problem on the telephone end, eg. are the protocols similar
enought that the US machine could talk with the West German telephone
system, or if not, is there a streight-forward hack to allow this?

-charles

--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]             {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ihnp4}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Who's calling who?
Date: 19 Mar 88 22:54:47 GMT


    An extememly bizarre thing happened to me the other day.  My phone
rang and when I picked it up, what I heard was the sound of a remote phone
ringing (as if I had placed a call and was waiting for the other party to
pick up).  After a few seconds, I heard what sounded like somebody picking
up the phone but (after a few very confused moments) it was obvious that
the person on the other end was somebody who had just placed a call and was
surprised that I wasn't the person she had called.

    Anybody have any idea what might have happened?
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
21-Mar-88 22:36:12-EST,7241;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 21 Mar 88 22:36:10-EST
Date: 21 Mar 88 21:38-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #55
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, March 21, 1988 9:38PM
Volume 8, Issue 55

Today's Topics:

                       Re:  Who's calling who?
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                       Re: Wiring in my house.
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                         V & H tarrif tables

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

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 09:55:53 EST
From: Michael Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Who's calling who?

Yes, sounds like you were a victem of the infamous 3-way-call prank where
some prankster calles you and someone else with 3-way-calling and listens
to the confused conversation for his/her listening enjoyment pleasure.

-Mike

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

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 88 11:58:07 GMT
From: prlb2!fun-cs![e-mail] (Patrick Geurts)
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: fun-cs!pge
From: [e-mail] (Patrick Geurts)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Unattended faulty terminals of a W.A.N.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Mar 88 10:47:04 GMT
Organization: F.U.N.D.P., Computer Science, Namur, Belgium
Lines: 15
Keywords: WAN tele-maintenance networks


I am interested in the problem of tracking and maintaining faulty unattended
terminal over a wide area network. For examples of such terminals, one would
give automatic counting tellers or gas station counters. I did not find so far
accurate materials on this topic. Can someone tell me about interesting
articles or share his experience on this matter. I hope this is the right
newsgroup to post this request. Please mail your answers to [e-mail]

Patrick Geurts.
Institut d'Informatique
F.U.N.D.P.
Rue Grangagnage 21
5000 Namur
Belgium
[phone] ext 26 52
[e-mail]

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

From: steinmetz![e-mail] (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Wiring in my house.
Date: 21 Mar 88 15:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: kbsvax.steinmetz![e-mail] (William E. Davidsen Jr)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seshashayee Murthy) writes:
>What would they do if I said that I did not want their wiring in my
>house?  Would they cut their wiring, so as to make it unusable?  Has
>anybody gotten rid of the telephone company's charge without too much
>trouble in rewiring?

  I know several people who have done this. The result is that it
depends on the service person to some extent. They will cut some wire.
They will install an isolator ($50-150 depending on your area). The only
person who had serious trouble was one who was mad at the phone company
and took it out on the installer. Big mistake. Every vertage of surface
wiring was removed, and all the wiring in the walls was either pulled
out or cut flush with a wall or floor. If you paint over wiring it looks
really bad to rip the wiring out.

  In general you will only have to pay a one time fee and run 2-4 feet
of wire. If you phone company or installer is feeling obnoxious you can
spend several days redoing the wiring and trying to match paint.
--
    bill davidsen        ([e-mail])
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

From: Rick Carl <steinmetz![e-mail]>
Date: 21 Mar 88 19:15:09 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: edison!rgc
From: [e-mail] (Rick Carl)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Nationwide paging
Summary: Nationwide paging...cellular technology
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Mar 88 19:15:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 18

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brendan Reilly) writes:
>
> Has anyone had success using a nationwide paging service.
> My experience so far has been that this industry is just
> starting up, and that bugs need to be worked out.  Is anybody
> out in front of the pack with a working system?

I thought that nationwide paging is an "offshoot-technology"
of the cellular technology...
If this is true, it's no wonder that bugs need to be worked out :-)
My guess is that Motorola or Johnson Controls are ahead of the
pack since they are the original Cellular-people.

Does anyone know if ITT ever got their cellular system working???
--
Rick Carl               GE Fanuc  -  Charlottesville, VA  22901
[e-mail]       old arpa: [e-mail]
[e-mail]         old uucp: {seismo,decuac,houxm}!edison!rgc

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

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 16:19:45 EST
From: [e-mail]

To: [e-mail]
Path: bbn!bbn.com!levin
From: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 700 numbers, 900 numbers, LATAs & Calling Cards, Dial a Porn
Summary: AT&T's special relationship, despite divestiture
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Mar 88 21:19:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation
Lines: 19


It seems there remain lots of ways AT&T still occupies a special
position with respect to the local telcos.  Calling cards is one; I
experienced another last week.

I dialled "0"--the New England Telephone operator--to inquire about
long distance rates.  Yes, she said, she could help me: I was
connected to an AT&T person (I suppose a Rates and Routing operator).
To find out the MCI and Sprint rates for instance I had to call the
LD carrier directly.

(Incidental information: the destination of the call was Israel;
Sprint doesn't go there; the MCI call took place quickly and sounded
very clean and strong, like next door, except for the typical slow
direction switching on the satellite link.)

    /JBL

UUCP: {harvard, husc6, etc.}!bbn!levin
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 08:08:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas R. Coffland)
Subject: V & H tarrif tables

Please post this question on comp.dcom.telecom.

Subject: V & H tarriff tables

Can someone please tell me how to get the V&H tarriff tables.  I would
prefer to get them on some type of computer media.  My goal is to get
this information into my PC for billing purposes.  I will also need
updates as changes come out.

                                        Thanks,
                                        Doug Coffland
                                        [e-mail]
                                        415-423-7867

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
22-Mar-88 20:38:10-EST,4761;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Tue 22 Mar 88 20:38:08-EST
Date: 22 Mar 88 19:50-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #56
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Tuesday, March 22, 1988 7:50PM
Volume 8, Issue 56

Today's Topics:

                              V&H Tables
                    Long Distance Rate Schedules?
                        Re: Who's calling who?

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

Date: Tue 22 Mar 88 08:50:34-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: V&H Tables

About where to get the V&H Tables (and updates) some suggestions:
    o  Buy them from Bellcore 290W Mt Pleasant Ave
           Livingston, NJ 07039 [phone]
    o  Buy them from a 3rd Party Supplier such as CCMI/McGraw-Hill
           Info Sys Co          [phone]
    o  Get them free from your LD Carrier.  Ask for a tape of
           NPA-NXXs they serve.  It will contain much info you don't
           need but, somewhere in there, the V&H coordinates will appear

Questions:
    o  Are you sure you are not re-inventing the wheel?.  There are
           about 500 Call Accounting packages in the market which do
           this for you.  (Priced from $450 to $20K)
    o  Why?. Exact pricing of dialed calls has the following flaws:
           + Errors in timing.  Your system may or may not get answer
           supervision from the distant end, your CPU may (will) make
           subtle rounding errors in generating SMDR records.
           + Computional variations.  AT&T uses a multi-step algorithm
           in pricing calls.  Other carriers use the simpler square root
           of the sum of the squares (of the differences) divided by 10
       + Automatic Routing.  Since your switch is going to select the
           path a call takes and each path may have a different pricing
           scheme, pricing each call could be difficult and meaningless
           (for example, if you bill back, will the user pay more or less
           depending on which route his call took?

Suggestion:
    o  Consider some type of "blended" pricing algorithm.  The trend
           is generally towards usage (time) sensitive pricing rather
           than distance (V&H).

Sorry if this is $2 answer to a nickel question.

+HECTOR+

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

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 88 09:30:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Subject: Long Distance Rate Schedules?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg)

>Can someone please tell me how to get the V&H tarriff tables.  I would
If these are the tables on how muchlong distance calls cost, I
wouldn't mind getting them too. After several requests to AT&T, MCI,
and Sprint, I've ended up with copies of magazine advertisements,
calling card flyers -- but no LD rate schedules.

Thanks,

--
## Daniel M. Rosenberg /////// CSLI/Stanford //////////////// [phone]
## INTERNET: [e-mail] //////////// UUCP: {ucbvax, decvax}!csli!dmr
## I've my opinions, Stanford theirs. I don't speak for them, nor they for me.#

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

From: [e-mail] (S. H. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Who's calling who?
Date: 22 Mar 88 18:55:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (S. H. Schwartz)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
>
>    An extememly bizarre thing happened to me the other day.  My phone
>rang and when I picked it up, what I heard was the sound of a remote phone
>ringing (as if I had placed a call and was waiting for the other party to
>pick up).  After a few seconds, I heard what sounded like somebody picking
>up the phone but (after a few very confused moments) it was obvious that
>the person on the other end was somebody who had just placed a call and was
>surprised that I wasn't the person she had called.

The Dimension PBX has an option where, if I'm trying to call another
inside extension, but it's busy, I set my phone to redial in the
background.  When the other person's phone becomes free, PBX grabs his
line, and rings my phone; then I answer, and -his- phone starts
ringing.

Still, the destination shouldn't hear ringing until the source picks
up for the second time.
--
                  ---***---
         Spring cleaning: get the BREAD out!!
S. H. Schwartz       [phone]  [e-mail]
                     [phone]  ...rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!shs

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
28-Mar-88 18:45:30-EST,3845;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 28 Mar 88 18:45:27-EST
Date: 28 Mar 88 17:33-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #57
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, March 28, 1988 5:33PM
Volume 8, Issue 57

Today's Topics:

                       Re:  Who's calling who?
              Connecting a modem to a 2 line phone jack
                        811 Translation Table

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re:  Who's calling who?
Date: 23 Mar 88 01:40:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)


[e-mail] (Michael Grant) writes:
> sounds like you were a victem of the infamous 3-way-call prank

    Nice try, but I don't think that's what happened.  The party I
ended up talking to insisted that she had just *placed* a call, not gotten
one as would happen with a 3-way prank.  Then again, in the confusion I
suppose it's possible that either she didn't say what she meant to say, or
I didn't understand her right.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

From: bellcore!bpa!sjuvax![e-mail] (Chuck(ster))
Subject: Connecting a modem to a 2 line phone jack
Date: 26 Mar 88 05:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: bellcore!bpa!sjuvax![e-mail] (Chuck(ster))




I have a Hayes 1200b modem installed in an AT&T 6300 PC, and the office
that it is in has a 2-line phone.  The phones wall plug is not the
standard size, it is wider.  How do I connect the modem to the 2 line
wall jack?  (It it not necessary to have the phone operational when
the modem is in use - but it would be nice if it is an easy to do hack).

Any help at all would be appreciated.

Chuck Conway
--
Chuck Conway, Mopar Pilot             ...!allegra\
[e-mail]  -or-  ...!rutgers!cbmvax!bpa!sjuvax!cc743810
                                    ...!princeton/
"If it won't do 150 mph, take it back."  -Corvette Engineering Group

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

Reply-To: ucsd!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!pro-mars![e-mail]
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 88 11:49:46 PST
From: ucsd!pro-mars.cts.com![e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: 811 Translation Table

{This topic applies to readers in the Pacific*Bell serving areas, though other
RBOC's might have a similar switching arrangement.}

I'm attempting to compile a table that translates Pacific*Bell's 811 numbers
into their 10 digit equivalents.  I welcome any assistance you might provide,
even if it's just the 811 numbers out of your local white pages.  If you'd
like a copy of this table, just let me know.  I hope to have some modest
compilation ready by mid-April.

For those net.readers unfamiliar with Pac*Bell's 811 network, it's a network
loophole allowed for in the Modified Final Judgment (MFJ) that permits RBOC's
to carry inter-LATA "administrative" traffic over their own facilities.  The
811 network is a feature for Pac*Bell customers 'cuz it allows toll-free
calling to your telco representative from any of the 10 CA LATA's.  Even if
you're in an independent telco area, dialing 1+811 usually succeeds in getting
you to a tandem that can perform the 811 translation.

-- Bill                                 _   /|    Oop!
                                        \'o.O`
(crash!pro-mars![e-mail])          =(___)=      Ack!
                                           U

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 1-Apr-88 19:30:09-EST,13656;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 1 Apr 88 19:30:07-EST
Date: 1 Apr 88 18:34-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #58
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                            Friday, April 1, 1988 6:34PM
Volume 8, Issue 58

Today's Topics:

                       Re:  Who's calling who?
                       The 10xxx Table - Again.
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                       Two-line cordless phones
               Re: Connecting a modem to a 2 line phon
                      ISDN/OSI Positions at COS
                     Ohm my, this is shocking!!!
                             more sprint

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Gaarder)
Subject: Re:  Who's calling who?
Date: 29 Mar 88 17:13:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Gaarder)


Once upon I time, when I was in high school, a friend and I took 2 phone
lines, called the John Birch Society on one and the National Socialist
White People's Party on the other, connected the two lnes together, and
listened.  This was before 3-way calling was even heard of.

--
Steve Gaarder
Cornell University, 171 Hollister, Ithaca NY 14853           607-255-5389
UUCP: {cmcl2,shasta,rochester,uw-beaver}!cornell!batcomputer!sparks
BITNET: [e-mail]        ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 88 09:15 EST
From: "Scott D. Green, Classroom Services" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The 10xxx Table - Again.

I lost my list of 10xxx access codes.  Would someone be kind enough to
e-mail it to me (no need to take up anymore Digest space with it?  Thanks.

Scott Green
[e-mail]

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

From: Kral <amdahl!drivax![e-mail]>
Date: 29 Mar 88 17:10:58 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: drivax!braun
From: [e-mail] (Kral)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: communication handbooks request
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Mar 88 17:10:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kral)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Research, Inc.
Lines: 15

I recently received a brochure for "Communication Handbooks and Publications"
from GTE.  I have two questions to pose to the net:

1)    Are these publications useful for non-GTE sites/equipment?

2)    Does AT&T put out similar publications?

Please email, I rarely manage to wade through to this group.

Thanx,

--
kral     408/647-6112            ...{ism780|amdahl}!drivax!braun
        Think Globally   ...  Act Locally
DISCLAIMER: If DRI knew I was saying this stuff, they would shut me d~-~oxx

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

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 88 10:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two-line cordless phones


Anyone have a working two-line cordless?  My Southwestern Bell
likes to send high-pitch noise over the phone line even when
the receiver is in the cradle, as well as other misfeatures.
It's a Freedom Phone 5000 which places such as the The Sharper Image
have stopped selling.  Suggestions for a replacement welcome.

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

From: uiucdcs!pur-ee!clio.las.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Connecting a modem to a 2 line phon
Date: 30 Mar 88 19:43:00 GMT



Often, the second line is the outer pair (yellow/black) of conductors,
while the primary line is the inner pair (red/green).  The wider jacks
are frequently wired the same way, unless other options are present.
If you plan to use the primary line for dialing out, you may just be
able to plug your cable into the jack, provided your modem doesn't
connect the black/yellow wires, or use them for A1 switching, etc.

            Mike Berger
            Department of Statistics
            Science, Technology, and Society
            University of Illinois

            [e-mail]
            {ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!berger

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

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 12:25:21 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jay G. Gadre)
Subject: ISDN/OSI Positions at COS



                 TECHNICAL POSITIONS AT COS


The Company:

The Corporation for Open Systems International is a  nonpro-
fit  research  and  development firm founded in 1986 for the
purpose of  working  toward  worldwide  information  systems
interoperability.  COS receives funding from a consortium of
major  Corporations  which  includes  major   hardware   and
software  companies, information and communications services
companies and information systems users.

COS's major focus is the promotion and acceleration  of  OSI
(Open  Systems  Interconnection),  ISDN (Integrated Services
Digital Network), and related international standards.


The Position:

COS  currently  has  several  openings  for   senior   level
Engineers  and  Software Developers in the Engineering Divi-
sion.  The interested individual should be an expert  in  at
least one communication protocol.  Your expert understanding
of the protocol will be used in  developing  COS  specifica-
tions  and test systems for OSI and ISDN protocols, partici-
pation in National Bureau of Standards OSI Workshops,  rapid
prototyping  of  emerging  standards and conformance testing
methodologies, and attending  various  conferences/workshops
related to OSI and ISDN.


The Qualifications:

An advanced degree, MS/PhD in CS, EE or  related  field  (or
equivalent  experience)  and  a good knowledge of communica-
tions protocols is required.  A minimum  of  four  years  of
professional  experience  with at least two years of experi-
ence with ISDN and/or OSI protocols is also  required.   One
or more years experience in any combination of C/UNIX, LISP,
PROLOG, and  conformance  testing  of  protocols  is  highly
desired.


The Salary:

Highly competitive, consistent with education, training, and
experience; along with an excellent benefits package.


The Place:

COS headquarters in beautiful McLean, Virginia is located in
the  metropolitan Washington, DC area.  All the cultural and
political attractions of Washington and environs  are  close
by.  Ski resorts, beaches, hiking, and other attractions are
all within easy reach.


If you feel you can make a major impact on the future of OSI
and  ISDN and are otherwise interested in COS, please send a
cover letter and a resume or curriculum vitae to:

Dr. Jay Gadre
Manager, Advanced Studies
Corporation for Open Systems
1750 Old Meadow Road
McLean, Virginia 22102

uucp: ...!uunet!cos.com!jgg
internet: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

COS is an Equal Opportunity Employer

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

From: [e-mail] (Skip, @DTN 249-4704, BUO/E54)
Date: 31 Mar 88 17:19
Subject: Ohm my, this is shocking!!!

.   .   .   .   .   .   .
.   .   .   .   .   .   . (Obligatory three pages for forwarding addresses)
.   .   .   .   .   .   .

AN UNUSUAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CALL

This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual
telephone service call he handled while living in England.

It is common practice in England to signal a telephone subscriber by
signaling with 90 volts across one side of the two wire circuit and ground
(earth in England).  When the subscriber answers the phone, it switches to
the two wire circuit for the conversation.  This method allows two parties
on the same line to be signalled without disturbing each other.

This particular subscriber, an elderly lady with several pets called to
say that her telephone failed to ring when her friends called and that on
the few occations when it did manage to ring her dog always barked first.
Torn between curiosity to see this psychic dog and a realization that
standard service techniques might not suffice in this case, Pat proceeded
to the scene.  Climbing a nearby telephone pole and hooking in his test
set, he dialed the subscriber's house.  The phone didn't ring.  He tried
again.  The dog barked loudly, followed by a ringing telephone.  Climbing
down from the pole, Pat found:

     a. Dog was tied to the telphone system's ground post via an iron
        chain and collar.
     b. Dog was receiving 90 volts of signalling current.
     c. After several jolts, the dog was urinating on ground and barking.
     d. Wet ground now conducted and phone rang.

Which goes to prove that some grounding problems can be passed on.

This annecdote excerpted from Syn-Aud-Con Newsletter, Vol4, No 3, April 1977.

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

From: ssc-vax!shuksan![e-mail] (Gary Evans)
Subject: more sprint
Date: 31 Mar 88 22:03:32 GMT


***   ***   ***

Reprinted without permission from

The Seattle Times, Wednesday, March 16,1988
............................................................................

U.S. Sprint blames 'toll fraud' for erroneous telephone bills
    Shelby Gilje - Times staff columnist

    You've heard of computer viruses, those mischievous little programs
created by hackers that make computers do wild and crazy things?
    Well, according to U.S. Sprint Communications Co., "toll fraud,"
or a computer virus caused by hackers, was responsible for errors on
the phone bill for J.F. of Bothell.
    J.F. reported that she has had major billing problems with U.S.
Sprint since May 1986, and was billed $146 for calls she had not made.
    Each time she complained, the company promised the error would be
corrected. Finally, in August 1986, she discontinued service with U.S.
Sprint.
    In September of that year she again received an incorrect billing
statement along with a collection notice. She wrote U.S. Sprint again,
and called the customer-service department. An operator checked and
said her file would be placed on hold while the errors were investigated.
However, the billing would continue.
    The opertor assured her that no extreme collection measures would
be taken.
    In December 1986, she received a letter noting that her service
had been disconnected and she still owed more than $140. Again she
called the customer-service department, and again was assured that
an investigation was in progress.
    In December 1987 she received a new bill showing the old balance
as well as some new phone calls.
    "I have never heard of the city in which the new calls originated.
This is outrageous! What happened to the 'investigation'? Has someone
else been issued my old code?" J.F. wrote.
    Now U.S. Sprint has informed us that the erroneous bills have
been removed from J.F.'s account, and that they were accumulated as
a result of "toll fraud." U.S. Sprint said a computer hacker was
accessing its network and, through trial and error, was discovering
codes and using them illegally.
    "Ordinarily, U.S. Sprint attempts to determine who the individual
was that abused the codes. This research is vital for verification
of the abuse. The procedure can be very time consuming and sometimes
procedures are not carried out in the most expeditious manner," Keith
Marcom, a U.S Sprint representitive, wrote to J.F., apologizing for
the delay in resolving her complaint.
......................................................................

Hum... Computer Virus? Sounds like a convenient excuse...

Roger Swann        uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark

As usual, I disavow any knowledge of my actions.

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

Date: 28 Mar 88 09:17:20 CST (Mon)
From: ihnp4!iquery![e-mail] (Matt Reedy)

To: petro!ihnp4!comp-dcom-telecom
Path: iquery!matt
From: [e-mail] (Matt Reedy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Long Distance Rate Schedules?
Summary: LD Rate info not worth it
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Mar 88 15:17:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Programmed Intelligence, San Antonio
Lines: 24


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes:
> >Can someone please tell me how to get the V&H tarriff tables.  I would
> If these are the tables on how muchlong distance calls cost, I
> wouldn't mind getting them too. After several requests to AT&T, MCI,
> and Sprint, I've ended up with copies of magazine advertisements,
> calling card flyers -- but no LD rate schedules.

You can obtain the V&H tables, and LD rate information, but I've found
it's probably not worth the trouble.  Reason?  This information changes
*daily*  We built a call accounting system for PC's and needed LD rate
information for pricing (we got the rate info from a company called
Tele-tech Services, P.O. Box 757 McAfee NJ 07428   201/827-4421).  The
problem is that almost as soon as you receive the info, it's out of date.
The BOC's are forever updating their intra-lata rates and AT&T is (less
frequently) updating the interstate rates.  For this reason Tele-tech offers
a monthly update service, so that once you've bought the info, you can keep
it current (costs about $40/month).

matt
--
Matthew Reedy                harvard!adelie!iquery!matt
Programmed Intelligence Corp.        [phone]
830 NE Loop 410, Suite 412        "just ONE MORE compile...."
San Antonio, TX  78209-1209

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 3-Apr-88 05:56:42-EDT,16335;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sat 2 Apr 88 22:13:19-EST
Date: 2 Apr 88 21:06-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #59
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Saturday, April 2, 1988 9:06PM
Volume 8, Issue 59

Today's Topics:

                   Another Story of Sprint Problems
                  Integrated Network Management Call
         European vs. US telephone systems query:  Responses

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

Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 19:11:26 EST
From: ll-xn!ames!hc!csed-1!csed-47![e-mail] (Eric Roskos)
Subject: Another Story of Sprint Problems

Here is yet another story of U. S. Sprint problems.  Although it is
long and complex, the length and complexity are part of the story, and
it does have a moral.  And, I have actually simplified the story a lot;
there was a lot more confused-billing and letter-writing involved than
the hilights I have given here....

About 2 years ago, I moved to Bellevue, Washington, which is served by
GTE (General Telephone).  With my initial phone service, I was assigned
AT&T, because equal access was not yet available in that area; so, I
subscribed to U. S. Sprint (which at the time had been recently created
out of its two predecessor companies) by the old dial-up service.

About 6 months later, Equal Access came to the area, and I received a letter
from Sprint (after I'd made my selection of Sprint) telling me how my old
account was being transferred to the new "1+" service; my old account, they
said, would cancelled immediately "to keep someone from fraudulently
misusing it."

Unfortunately, this was not true.  Due to the well-known Sprint billing
problems, charges continued to trickle in for calls I'd made many months
before; with careful checking, I found that none were duplicates, although
at one point I got confused and overpaid by about $56 when they failed to
credit my account promptly for the previous month's payments (not the only
time they failed to do so, just the only time I failed to catch it).
These charges all appeared on bills sent directly from Sprint, rather
than through GTE.

At the same time, they began billing me via my regular GTE bill, which, it
said on the bill, "was provided as a service to U. S. Sprint".

Eventually, I moved away from Seattle, and cancelled my GTE account, along
with my Sprint account through GTE (the old account, you'll recall, had
been "automatically cancelled" earlier).  GTE sent me a final bill, which
included some Sprint calls, which I paid.

The end result was that I had a $56 credit on my old, very-long-cancelled
account, and a zero balance on my more recently cancelled account.  So,
I filled in the "change of address" forms that came with the credit, and
wrote on the bill "please send a check for the credit balance".

They never sent a check for this credit balance.  Then, six months after
I'd left the area, GTE sent me a bill with new Sprint charges (for calls
which I apparently had indeed made), along with a note saying that these
were charges that had been newly found due to "improvements" in the billing
process.  Now I had a $56 credit and $60 worth of charges, both for the
same telephone number, and I attempted to get this corrected by writing
to both companies -- since GTE was only billing "as a service to Sprint,"
I reasoned, Sprint could just correct this apparent accounting error
themselves.  I also sent GTE a check for the correct balance, since I did
owe about $4.00, and since GTE was apparently responsible for collection
of however much I did owe at that point.

But today, I got a call from GTE, requesting that I pay them the $60,
because "the computer" wouldn't let them correct the problem, and Sprint
had (they said) already billed GTE for the money.  I would have to pay
GTE, and then get the money back from Sprint myself somehow.

My first reaction was to take some action similar to that which Sprint would
take if it was me who was 6 months delinquent in my payments.  But, after
thinking awhile, I decided to call them and try to straighten out the problem
first.

What I found was that Sprint had apparently marked the oldest account as
"cancelled" in response to my most recent letter, and had credited my new
Sprint account here in Alexandria for the balance, leaving GTE with a
charge of $60.  So, now if I pay the $60 to GTE, which I will do, when my
next bill comes, everything *should* be corrected (unless they discover
some more "lost" charges), although I have to write a check to cover
Sprint's mis-billing, essentially to perform a transfer of funds from one
of two duplicated accounts to the other, which they allegedly can't do
themselves.

Incidentally, despite all the billing problems, the customer service
representative had an English-language description of the actual action
taken ("Customer requested credit balance be refunded.  Balance credited
to new account nnnnnnnn") and who it was done by (an office responsible
for "correspondence") on her display of my account.  This was not so bad
if you think about the implementation; at least the software
seems to work.

I had said there was a moral to this story, but after telling it, I see that
there are actually just diffuse morals:

1) the original one: don't trust Sprint to cancel accounts when they are
   "supposed" to.  Call them up and be sure.  In this case, they apparently
   left the very-old account active due to their continually-incoming
   temporarily-misplaced charges.  And, they did have two accounts, rather
   than simply transferring the old one to the new equal-access billing, or
   even tying them together in any way that they could transfer the credit
   on one to the outstanding balance on the other.

2) Sprint's billing continues to have problems.  I am really curious how
   they could have such serious problems, since charges seem to come in over
   six month periods, interleaved from a variety of locations; I can envision
   dusty tapes being found under a pile of papers and being sent in to the
   central office to be added to the next month's bills (even bills
   on accounts that have been cancelled for six months).   and

3) It all works out in the end, if you keep after everyone enough.  Though
   I must admit, it is unfortunate that one must provide one's own efforts
   to correct such problems for free, while companies usually have fines and
   fees to cover their costs in correcting problems in the opposite direction...

Will I still use Sprint?  Well, for awhile.  But I guess I'll start looking
at other companies.  There is only so long you can continue to be forgiving,
especially when the company's mistakes cause a customer service representative
from the collection office of your (former) local phone company to call you...

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

From: sundc![e-mail]
Subject: Integrated Network Management Call
Date: 31 Mar 88 16:01:00 GMT




____________________________________________________________

              ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS
           FIRST IFIP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
               INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT

                  BOSTON, May 14-17, 1989

The First  International  Symposium  on  Integrated  Network
Management  sponsored  by  IFIP WG 6.6 and hosted jointly by
the National Bureau of Standards and MITRE corporation  will
be  held  in  Boston.  The  objective of the symposium is to
create an international forum for information  exchange  and
cooperation  between  vendors,  system  integrators,  users,
researchers, and standardization  bodies.  Presentations  on
management  policy,  administration,  and operation of local
and wide area communication networks, including data, voice,
and integrated communications are solicited.  In particular,
the program of the symposium will concentrate on the follow-
ing  subjects, emphasizing the integration of different sys-
tems:

    o management requirements and standardization issues

    o models/architectures/algorithms

    o fault, configuration and name, accounting,
      performance, and security management

    o heterogeneous networks

    o protocols

    o quality of service

    o management data bases

    o knowledge based systems

    o planning systems

    o user interfaces and management languages

    o implementations and case studies

    o and other related topics

The Proceedings of the symposium  will  be  published  as  a
hardbound  volume  by  the North-Holland publishing company.
Authors are invited to submit unpublished papers on the top-
ical areas indicated. Contributions of a more general nature
(tutorial) are also welcome. Please submit five  copies  (in
English,  restricted to 12 single spaced pages) to either of
the two addresses by September 1, 1988. The cover page  must
contain:  the  paper title, full name, affiliation, complete
address and phone number of each author. All papers will  be
refereed.    Acceptance  notifications  will  be  mailed  by
December 1, 1988. Final camera  ready  papers  will  be  due
January 10, 1989.



General Chair:                   Program Committee:
Paul Brusil, MITRE, USA          Sudhir  Aggrawal,  Bell   Com.
                                 Res., USA

General Vice-Chair               Eric Aupperle, U. of Michigan,
Dan Stokesberry, NBS, USA        USA

                                 Dave Clark, MIT, USA

                                 Andre Danthine, University  de
                                 Liege, Belgium

                                 Deborah Estrin, U.  of  South.
                                 California, USA

Program Co-Chair                 Guy  Juanole,  LAAS  du  CNRS,
Branislav Meandzija, SMU, USA    France

                                 Kim   Kappel,   Digital   Com.
                                 Assoc., USA

                                 Dipak  Khakhar,  Lund  Univer-
                                 sity, Sweden

Program Co-Chair                 Gautam Kar, IBM Research, USA
Jil Westcott, BBN Labs., USA
                                 Yoshikazu   Kobayashi,    IBM,
                                 Japan

                                 Koos Koen, Informatica, ZA

Submit papers to either          Gerard Le Lann, INRIA, France
Branislav Meandzija (Americas,
Australia)                       Gesualdo   LeMoli,   Pol.   di
SMU, CSE Department, 322 SIC     Milano, Italy
Dallas, TX 75275 - 0122, USA
                                 Louis Pouzin, CNET-PAA, France
or

Wolfgang    Zimmer    (Europe,   R.   Rathnasabapathy,   North.
Africa, Asia)                    Tele. Inc., USA
GMD-FIRST, Hardenbergplatz 2
D - 1000  Berlin  -  12,  West   Morris Sloman,  Imperial  Col-
Germany                          lege, UK

For further  information  con-   Chris Sluman, CAP  Group  PLC,
tact                             UK
Hershey Young
NBS, B217  TEC,  Gaithersburg,   Brian  Spratt,  University  of
MD 20899                         Kent, UK
(Tel: [phone])
                                 Carl Sunshine, UNISYS, USA

                                 Liba Svobodova, IBM  Research,
                                 Switzerland

                                 Liane  Tarouco,  U.  Fed.  Rio
                                 Grande Sul, Brazil

                                 Keith    Travorrow,    British
                                 Telecom, UK

                                 Steve Wilbur, University  Col-
                                 lege London, UK

                                 Wolfgang  Zimmer,   GMD-FIRST,
                                 West Germany
_______________________________________________________________

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: European vs. US telephone systems query:  Responses
Date: 2 Apr 88 21:38:40 GMT
Reply-To: iuvax![e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)




Here are the replies I received to my recent query about the compatibility
of US telephone equipment (eg, answering machines) with the West German
telephone system.  As some people have requested to remain anonymous,
I've simply removed the headers and signatures of all articles...

Thanks to all who responded.

-charles


-----1-----
Subject: Re: European vs. US telephone systems query

It is illegal to hook your own equipment to the phone-system and the BP
(BundesPost), the government postal authorities, who also governs the
phone-system, is very severe with anyone they catch meddling with their
prime profit-center.

BTW, there are no modular plugs, so if your friend decides to go ahead
anyway, he better take along some parts ... yes, it would work.

-----2-----
Subject: Re: Answering machine query

Charles,

I live in Germany, so probably can best answer your question.  No compatibility
problem,  BUT  there  are big time legal problems.  See, the Deutsch Bundespost
(that's Germany's Ma Bell) will only allow "approved" answering machines to  be
hooked  up.   The ones that are approved are pretty outrageously expensive (all
over $200-$300).  Also, you must pay the Bundespost to hook  up  your  machine.
Then  you have to pay a monthly fee to have the priviledge to have the manchine
in the first place.  After being used to the US system, it's pretty ridiculous.
Now, I know several people here who have just hooked their American machines up
and away you go....but you run the risk of fines and loss of  service  if  they
catch  you.


-----3-----
Subject: Re: European vs. US telephone systems query

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>A friend of mine would like to purchase an answering machine in the
>united states, to be used on the telephone system in West Germany.

The German post office, which runs the phone system there, has traditionally
been extremely paranoid about attaching anything not provided by them to the
phone system.  (It used to be illegal to use an acoustic coupler, even though
there was no electrical connection at all.)  Also, unlike most other telephone
authorities, they actually prosecute people who make illegal attachments.

I'd be extremely wary about attaching some U.S. answering machine to a
German phone line -- he could end up in court.  If he insists, you can tell
him that technically most phone systems in the world use the same electrical
interface to the phone (largely the same as that used by Bell in the late
1800's) and assuming he can deal with 110 vs. 220 volts, 50 vs. 60 HZ, and
the different shaped power and phone plugs, any U.S. answering machine
should work.  Perhaps he should move to France where they sell phones and
answering machines in discount stores, just like here.

-----4-----
Subject: Re: European vs. US telephone systems query

I am not sure about West Germany but I have successfully used
US equipment in all the Scandinavian countries and to the best
of my knowledge telephony is about the best standardized area
of telecommunications (thanks to CCITT, which really was the
first serious standardization organisation in the world).

It is possible that US equipment is not type approved in Germany
and should not be connected to the network (that is you are
operating at your own risk) but who cares :-)
Nevertheless, I am >90% sure it works without problems (save the
different voltage, of course).

So, go for it!


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


--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]             {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ihnp4}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 5-Apr-88 18:10:39-EDT,16243;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at  2-Apr-88 21:06:58
Date: 2 Apr 88 21:06-EST
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #59
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Saturday, April 2, 1988 9:06PM
Volume 8, Issue 59

Today's Topics:

                   Another Story of Sprint Problems
                  Integrated Network Management Call
         European vs. US telephone systems query:  Responses

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

Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 19:11:26 EST
From: ll-xn!ames!hc!csed-1!csed-47![e-mail] (Eric Roskos)
Subject: Another Story of Sprint Problems

Here is yet another story of U. S. Sprint problems.  Although it is
long and complex, the length and complexity are part of the story, and
it does have a moral.  And, I have actually simplified the story a lot;
there was a lot more confused-billing and letter-writing involved than
the hilights I have given here....

About 2 years ago, I moved to Bellevue, Washington, which is served by
GTE (General Telephone).  With my initial phone service, I was assigned
AT&T, because equal access was not yet available in that area; so, I
subscribed to U. S. Sprint (which at the time had been recently created
out of its two predecessor companies) by the old dial-up service.

About 6 months later, Equal Access came to the area, and I received a letter
from Sprint (after I'd made my selection of Sprint) telling me how my old
account was being transferred to the new "1+" service; my old account, they
said, would cancelled immediately "to keep someone from fraudulently
misusing it."

Unfortunately, this was not true.  Due to the well-known Sprint billing
problems, charges continued to trickle in for calls I'd made many months
before; with careful checking, I found that none were duplicates, although
at one point I got confused and overpaid by about $56 when they failed to
credit my account promptly for the previous month's payments (not the only
time they failed to do so, just the only time I failed to catch it).
These charges all appeared on bills sent directly from Sprint, rather
than through GTE.

At the same time, they began billing me via my regular GTE bill, which, it
said on the bill, "was provided as a service to U. S. Sprint".

Eventually, I moved away from Seattle, and cancelled my GTE account, along
with my Sprint account through GTE (the old account, you'll recall, had
been "automatically cancelled" earlier).  GTE sent me a final bill, which
included some Sprint calls, which I paid.

The end result was that I had a $56 credit on my old, very-long-cancelled
account, and a zero balance on my more recently cancelled account.  So,
I filled in the "change of address" forms that came with the credit, and
wrote on the bill "please send a check for the credit balance".

They never sent a check for this credit balance.  Then, six months after
I'd left the area, GTE sent me a bill with new Sprint charges (for calls
which I apparently had indeed made), along with a note saying that these
were charges that had been newly found due to "improvements" in the billing
process.  Now I had a $56 credit and $60 worth of charges, both for the
same telephone number, and I attempted to get this corrected by writing
to both companies -- since GTE was only billing "as a service to Sprint,"
I reasoned, Sprint could just correct this apparent accounting error
themselves.  I also sent GTE a check for the correct balance, since I did
owe about $4.00, and since GTE was apparently responsible for collection
of however much I did owe at that point.

But today, I got a call from GTE, requesting that I pay them the $60,
because "the computer" wouldn't let them correct the problem, and Sprint
had (they said) already billed GTE for the money.  I would have to pay
GTE, and then get the money back from Sprint myself somehow.

My first reaction was to take some action similar to that which Sprint would
take if it was me who was 6 months delinquent in my payments.  But, after
thinking awhile, I decided to call them and try to straighten out the problem
first.

What I found was that Sprint had apparently marked the oldest account as
"cancelled" in response to my most recent letter, and had credited my new
Sprint account here in Alexandria for the balance, leaving GTE with a
charge of $60.  So, now if I pay the $60 to GTE, which I will do, when my
next bill comes, everything *should* be corrected (unless they discover
some more "lost" charges), although I have to write a check to cover
Sprint's mis-billing, essentially to perform a transfer of funds from one
of two duplicated accounts to the other, which they allegedly can't do
themselves.

Incidentally, despite all the billing problems, the customer service
representative had an English-language description of the actual action
taken ("Customer requested credit balance be refunded.  Balance credited
to new account nnnnnnnn") and who it was done by (an office responsible
for "correspondence") on her display of my account.  This was not so bad
if you think about the implementation; at least the software
seems to work.

I had said there was a moral to this story, but after telling it, I see that
there are actually just diffuse morals:

1) the original one: don't trust Sprint to cancel accounts when they are
   "supposed" to.  Call them up and be sure.  In this case, they apparently
   left the very-old account active due to their continually-incoming
   temporarily-misplaced charges.  And, they did have two accounts, rather
   than simply transferring the old one to the new equal-access billing, or
   even tying them together in any way that they could transfer the credit
   on one to the outstanding balance on the other.

2) Sprint's billing continues to have problems.  I am really curious how
   they could have such serious problems, since charges seem to come in over
   six month periods, interleaved from a variety of locations; I can envision
   dusty tapes being found under a pile of papers and being sent in to the
   central office to be added to the next month's bills (even bills
   on accounts that have been cancelled for six months).   and

3) It all works out in the end, if you keep after everyone enough.  Though
   I must admit, it is unfortunate that one must provide one's own efforts
   to correct such problems for free, while companies usually have fines and
   fees to cover their costs in correcting problems in the opposite direction...

Will I still use Sprint?  Well, for awhile.  But I guess I'll start looking
at other companies.  There is only so long you can continue to be forgiving,
especially when the company's mistakes cause a customer service representative
from the collection office of your (former) local phone company to call you...

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

From: sundc![e-mail]
Subject: Integrated Network Management Call
Date: 31 Mar 88 16:01:00 GMT




____________________________________________________________

              ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS
           FIRST IFIP INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
               INTEGRATED NETWORK MANAGEMENT

                  BOSTON, May 14-17, 1989

The First  International  Symposium  on  Integrated  Network
Management  sponsored  by  IFIP WG 6.6 and hosted jointly by
the National Bureau of Standards and MITRE corporation  will
be  held  in  Boston.  The  objective of the symposium is to
create an international forum for information  exchange  and
cooperation  between  vendors,  system  integrators,  users,
researchers, and standardization  bodies.  Presentations  on
management  policy,  administration,  and operation of local
and wide area communication networks, including data, voice,
and integrated communications are solicited.  In particular,
the program of the symposium will concentrate on the follow-
ing  subjects, emphasizing the integration of different sys-
tems:

    o management requirements and standardization issues

    o models/architectures/algorithms

    o fault, configuration and name, accounting,
      performance, and security management

    o heterogeneous networks

    o protocols

    o quality of service

    o management data bases

    o knowledge based systems

    o planning systems

    o user interfaces and management languages

    o implementations and case studies

    o and other related topics

The Proceedings of the symposium  will  be  published  as  a
hardbound  volume  by  the North-Holland publishing company.
Authors are invited to submit unpublished papers on the top-
ical areas indicated. Contributions of a more general nature
(tutorial) are also welcome. Please submit five  copies  (in
English,  restricted to 12 single spaced pages) to either of
the two addresses by September 1, 1988. The cover page  must
contain:  the  paper title, full name, affiliation, complete
address and phone number of each author. All papers will  be
refereed.    Acceptance  notifications  will  be  mailed  by
December 1, 1988. Final camera  ready  papers  will  be  due
January 10, 1989.



General Chair:                   Program Committee:
Paul Brusil, MITRE, USA          Sudhir  Aggrawal,  Bell   Com.
                                 Res., USA

General Vice-Chair               Eric Aupperle, U. of Michigan,
Dan Stokesberry, NBS, USA        USA

                                 Dave Clark, MIT, USA

                                 Andre Danthine, University  de
                                 Liege, Belgium

                                 Deborah Estrin, U.  of  South.
                                 California, USA

Program Co-Chair                 Guy  Juanole,  LAAS  du  CNRS,
Branislav Meandzija, SMU, USA    France

                                 Kim   Kappel,   Digital   Com.
                                 Assoc., USA

                                 Dipak  Khakhar,  Lund  Univer-
                                 sity, Sweden

Program Co-Chair                 Gautam Kar, IBM Research, USA
Jil Westcott, BBN Labs., USA
                                 Yoshikazu   Kobayashi,    IBM,
                                 Japan

                                 Koos Koen, Informatica, ZA

Submit papers to either          Gerard Le Lann, INRIA, France
Branislav Meandzija (Americas,
Australia)                       Gesualdo   LeMoli,   Pol.   di
SMU, CSE Department, 322 SIC     Milano, Italy
Dallas, TX 75275 - 0122, USA
                                 Louis Pouzin, CNET-PAA, France
or

Wolfgang    Zimmer    (Europe,   R.   Rathnasabapathy,   North.
Africa, Asia)                    Tele. Inc., USA
GMD-FIRST, Hardenbergplatz 2
D - 1000  Berlin  -  12,  West   Morris Sloman,  Imperial  Col-
Germany                          lege, UK

For further  information  con-   Chris Sluman, CAP  Group  PLC,
tact                             UK
Hershey Young
NBS, B217  TEC,  Gaithersburg,   Brian  Spratt,  University  of
MD 20899                         Kent, UK
(Tel: [phone])
                                 Carl Sunshine, UNISYS, USA

                                 Liba Svobodova, IBM  Research,
                                 Switzerland

                                 Liane  Tarouco,  U.  Fed.  Rio
                                 Grande Sul, Brazil

                                 Keith    Travorrow,    British
                                 Telecom, UK

                                 Steve Wilbur, University  Col-
                                 lege London, UK

                                 Wolfgang  Zimmer,   GMD-FIRST,
                                 West Germany
_______________________________________________________________

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: European vs. US telephone systems query:  Responses
Date: 2 Apr 88 21:38:40 GMT
Reply-To: iuvax![e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)




Here are the replies I received to my recent query about the compatibility
of US telephone equipment (eg, answering machines) with the West German
telephone system.  As some people have requested to remain anonymous,
I've simply removed the headers and signatures of all articles...

Thanks to all who responded.

-charles


-----1-----
Subject: Re: European vs. US telephone systems query

It is illegal to hook your own equipment to the phone-system and the BP
(BundesPost), the government postal authorities, who also governs the
phone-system, is very severe with anyone they catch meddling with their
prime profit-center.

BTW, there are no modular plugs, so if your friend decides to go ahead
anyway, he better take along some parts ... yes, it would work.

-----2-----
Subject: Re: Answering machine query

Charles,

I live in Germany, so probably can best answer your question.  No compatibility
problem,  BUT  there  are big time legal problems.  See, the Deutsch Bundespost
(that's Germany's Ma Bell) will only allow "approved" answering machines to  be
hooked  up.   The ones that are approved are pretty outrageously expensive (all
over $200-$300).  Also, you must pay the Bundespost to hook  up  your  machine.
Then  you have to pay a monthly fee to have the priviledge to have the manchine
in the first place.  After being used to the US system, it's pretty ridiculous.
Now, I know several people here who have just hooked their American machines up
and away you go....but you run the risk of fines and loss of  service  if  they
catch  you.


-----3-----
Subject: Re: European vs. US telephone systems query

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>A friend of mine would like to purchase an answering machine in the
>united states, to be used on the telephone system in West Germany.

The German post office, which runs the phone system there, has traditionally
been extremely paranoid about attaching anything not provided by them to the
phone system.  (It used to be illegal to use an acoustic coupler, even though
there was no electrical connection at all.)  Also, unlike most other telephone
authorities, they actually prosecute people who make illegal attachments.

I'd be extremely wary about attaching some U.S. answering machine to a
German phone line -- he could end up in court.  If he insists, you can tell
him that technically most phone systems in the world use the same electrical
interface to the phone (largely the same as that used by Bell in the late
1800's) and assuming he can deal with 110 vs. 220 volts, 50 vs. 60 HZ, and
the different shaped power and phone plugs, any U.S. answering machine
should work.  Perhaps he should move to France where they sell phones and
answering machines in discount stores, just like here.

-----4-----
Subject: Re: European vs. US telephone systems query

I am not sure about West Germany but I have successfully used
US equipment in all the Scandinavian countries and to the best
of my knowledge telephony is about the best standardized area
of telecommunications (thanks to CCITT, which really was the
first serious standardization organisation in the world).

It is possible that US equipment is not type approved in Germany
and should not be connected to the network (that is you are
operating at your own risk) but who cares :-)
Nevertheless, I am >90% sure it works without problems (save the
different voltage, of course).

So, go for it!


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


--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]             {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ihnp4}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 5-Apr-88 20:38:59-EDT,10580;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Tue 5 Apr 88 20:38:57-EDT
Date: 5 Apr 88 17:42-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #60
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Tuesday, April 5, 1988 5:42PM
Volume 8, Issue 60

Today's Topics:

                 Re: Another Story of Sprint Problems
                  Illinois Bell Unveils ISDN Charges
                            US Sprint saga
             RISKS of using the "AT&T Public Phone Plus"
                           BOYCOTT COCOTS!
            Re: Connecting a modem to a 2 line phone jack

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard B. Dervan)
Subject: Re: Another Story of Sprint Problems
Date: 3 Apr 88 18:14:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard B. Dervan)


I had exactly the problem described earlier.  I finally got US Sprint to
transfer the $60 credit balance I had over to my new dial 1 account.  It
took about 6 phone calls and 4 months, but everything is ok now, or so
it seems.  Maybe I'll switch to MCI and use Sprint as a secondary carrier
by using the carrier access code....
-Richard

 _________________________________________________________________________
| Richard B Dervan                     BitNet: ccoprrd@gitvm1             |
| Office of Computing Services         ARPA  : [e-mail]        |
| Georgia Institute of Technology      CIS   : 70365,1012                 |
| Atlanta, Ga 30332                    MCI   : RDERVAN                    |
|      uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!gatech!neon!rbd      |
|__________________"We don't fit the mold...we build it"__________________|

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

Date: Wednesday, 30 March 1988  23:02-MST
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject:   Illinois Bell Unveils ISDN Charges

On March 28, Illinois Bell Telephone Company released its long-awaited list
of charges for its new Integrated Services Digital Network service, a system
that permits voice, high speed data and video transmissions over standard
phone lines.

Ameritech, parent company of Illinois Bell and other phone companies said the
cost for ISDN service would be roughly 1.2 to 1.3 times higher than the price
of a 'comparably equipped' Centrex service, the current business telephone
standard, which offers mainly voice transmission.

They said the comparison was based on Centrex with the maximum of three calling
features, as opposed to ISDN service, with roughly thirty features.

Illinois Bell, the first telephone company in the nation to begin ISDN service,
made the announcement at the Interface '88 conference at McCormick Place,
following by one day its filing of a tariff with the Illinois Commerce
Commission discussing pricing for the new system.

Illinois Bell said basic ISDN service will begin in the suburban Oak Brook
area and downtown Chicago area during the third quarter, 1988. Other area
markets will be phased in during 1989-1990.

ISDN is generally considered a major breakthrough that will allow all types
of computer, office and voice equipment to communicate easily and cheaply.
The service will eliminate the miles of wires and cable under office floors
that currently keep phones and computers connected.

Beginning in the summer and running through the end of 1988, Illinois Bell
will offer a six month introductory package for the service to give customers
a chance to learn about ISDN in their own offices. The packages will be in
combinations of ten lines and thirty lines; they will include voice services
only, data services only, and combined voice and data services.

Here are some pricing examples:
An ISDN line with circuit switched voice capabilities only will cost $146.50
in one time installation charges, and $16.58 per line/month for service. For
a fully loaded ISDN line with voice and data capability, the one time charge
for installation will be $246.50 and $29.68 per line/month for service.

These charges of course do not include ISDN telephone hardware purchases or
rentals, nor do they include the costs of internal 'house wiring' to connect
a company's wires to the phone network junction box in the building.

Questions for readers: Do you think their pricing is fair? Do you think there
is (will be soon) a market for ISDN service? If ISDN was available in your
community, would [you] subscribe? Why or why not?

Thanks for your consideration, and responses.

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

Subject: US Sprint saga
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 88 12:44:15 -0400
From: [e-mail]


here's another incredible story about US Sprint billing...

last month, one of my old roommates received a local telco bill with
$70 worth of calls on the US Sprint page...  the calls were made during
the months of January through May, 1987.

this is a 14 month billing delay!!  the FCC allows 2 years for long distance
companies to bill calls to customers -- lucky for GTE Sprint!!!

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

Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 22:24:36 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Subject: RISKS of using the "AT&T Public Phone Plus"
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The AT&T Public Phone Plus service is most often found in airports, rail
stations, etc.  There is a card reader at the bottom of the phone which will do
the right thing (purportedly) with your AT&T card (I didn't think to try my
FoNCard), a bank card, or an AmEx/DinersClub/etc.

Some days ago I was in Boston's Logan Airport and I spotted one of these phones
so I went up to investigate.  Instead of seeing a "Welcome" sort of screen on
the display, I saw a display which read "if you want to make another call,
press the <frob> button."  Further inspection revealed that the receiver, while
sitting in the hangup hook, didn't fit well enough to depress the lever which
would have terminated the calling session.  Over the next few days I noted that
the same situation existed on other "Public Phone Plus" devices in remote
places (other terminals of Logan Airport, as well as JFK and LAG airports).

Hasn't anyone been burned by this yet?

# Henry Mensch / <[e-mail]> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
#      {ames,cca,rochester,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 5 Apr 88 10:42
Subject: BOYCOTT COCOTS!


    B O Y C O T T   C O C O T S ! !

When the Massachusetts DPU authorized Customer Owned Coin
Operated Telephones (COCOTs), it was done to permit competition
with New England Telephone's monopoly on coin service.  The DPU
is not likely to have realized that the current anti-consumer
situation would result.

COCOTs are invariable more expensive than New England Telephone
pay phones.  NET offers local calls for 10 cents from its payphones,
COCOTs often charge 25 cents or allow a 10 cent call for a much shorter
period than NET.

But the real problem occurs when the caller, who may not even
realize that the phone is not operated by New England Telephone,
makes a call from a COCOT using an NET or AT&T calling card.
A three-minute call from Acton to Boston, on a Saturday morning,
costs 27 cents plus a 44 cent calling card surcharge.  That same call,
placed from a COCOT, can cost $3.55!  The operator of the COCOT
will bill the caller via the caller's normal New England Telephone
bill.  The unsuspecting caller may not even realize that an NET
coin phone could have provided the call for much less.

Find the nearest New England Telephone pay phone instead.  Or use
a cellular mobile phone, which can call Boston from Acton on a Saturday
morning for 86 cents for three minutes.  A bit more than an NET coin
phone, but drastically less than a COCOT.

BOYCOTT COCOTs!

[Though written for readers in New England, readers in other parts
of the country will find a similar situation exists if COCOTs are
permitted in their states. --jrc]

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

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail] (Kent W. England))
Subject: Re: Connecting a modem to a 2 line phone jack
Date: 30 Mar 88 18:39:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kent England)


In article <[e-mail]> bellcore!bpa!sjuvax![e-mail] (Chuck(ster)) writes:
>
>
>
>I have a Hayes 1200b modem installed in an AT&T 6300 PC, and the office
>that it is in has a 2-line phone.  The phones wall plug is not the
>standard size, it is wider.  How do I connect the modem to the 2 line
>wall jack?

    If it's a wider jack it is probably an eight-wire or RJ-45
jack.  AT&T calls the shots for wiring a 4 pair jack and they maintain
the same pin-out for the first and second line pairs, although pair
one is still pair one, pair two [the second line] is pair three on the
punchdown.  If you want to connect to the first line, I think a
regular one or two pair patch cord should work.  If you want to
connect to the second phone line you need a little adaptor to swap the
first and second pair.  I think these are common at Radio Shack.  You
should be able to plug a cord designed for the narrow jack into the
fat jack.

Here's the two different pin-outs:

    RJ-11 (narrow jack) what the modem wants

    1    2    3    4    5    6
    Pr    R2    R1    T1    T2    Pr

    T&R refer to tip and ring [like + and -]. I may have the pin
number ordering reversed.  The number refers to the ordering of the
pair on the punchdown.  1 is the first line and 2 is the second line.
Pr is for power (to light your Princess phone :-)

    RJ-45 (wide jack) what the phone is wired for

    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
    P2    P2    R3    R1    T1    T3    Pr    Pr

    Pair one is for voice, the second and third pair for data and
the fourth pair for power, but you can use the third pair for the
second phone line.  Is this too confusing?  Try a standard patch cord
and see if it works, you might have trouble swapping tip & ring,
although I'm not sure but that the modem will work either way.

> (It it not necessary to have the phone operational when
>the modem is in use - but it would be nice if it is an easy to do
>hack).

    That will only work if the modem is on line 2 and the phone on
line 1, of course.

    Kent England, Boston University

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 7-Apr-88 00:08:15-EDT,3134;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 7 Apr 88 00:08:14-EDT
Date: 6 Apr 88 18:20-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #61
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Wednesday, April 6, 1988 6:20PM
Volume 8, Issue 61

Today's Topics:

                             Phase shift
                        another privacy issue

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

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 23:13:53 EST
From: Charles Daffinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phase shift
Reply-To: iuvax![e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)


When calling a particular modem from home on what is otherwise a
*very* clear line... (I watched the phone company checking it, and
otherwise hear no noise) I still get occasional brief bursts of
noise.  I've been told that this is due to phase shift in the newer
(3 yr old) digital switching system at the local Bell office.  How
exactly does phase shift happen?  Is there a work-around?  Can the
phone company fix it (ha!)?

(this is at 2400 baud; there is no problem at 1200)

I'll summarise resonses mailed to me.


Thanks,

-charles

--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]             {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ihnp4}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 88 16:23:37 PDT
Subject: another privacy issue

 MSG:FROM: SPGDCM  --UCBCMSA  TO: NETWORK --NETWORK           04/05/88 16:23:36
 To: NETWORK --NETWORK  Network Address

 From: Doug Mosher
 Subject: another privacy issue

 To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax

 Erik Fair posted an interesting article by Brock Meeks regarding a possible
 violation of the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act). That instance
 included the revealing of allegedly private email by a system operator.

 I am curious about a different situation, namely, when a recipient of email
 sends it on to others or makes it public. That is, the party doing the
 revealing is the original and intended recipient, not an unrelated systems
 person.

 I suppose that's fair game, possibly an etiquette violation, but not illegal;
 are there other analyses or opinions on this?

 (          Doug Mosher <[e-mail]>            )
 ( 257 Evans, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, 415/642-5823 )
      another privacy issue

[The article which was posted has not been received by TELECOM as of yet.
It was posted directly to usenet sites in order to reach the largest
possible audience and to permit cross posting of the article to other
newsgroups. Once I receive a copy of the posting, I will send it to TELECOM
directly. --jsol]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
 7-Apr-88 00:25:48-EDT,3042;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at  6-Apr-88 23:29:24
Date: 6 Apr 88 18:20-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #61
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Wednesday, April 6, 1988 6:20PM
Volume 8, Issue 61

Today's Topics:

                             Phase shift
                        another privacy issue

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

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 23:13:53 EST
From: Charles Daffinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phase shift
Reply-To: iuvax![e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)


When calling a particular modem from home on what is otherwise a
*very* clear line... (I watched the phone company checking it, and
otherwise hear no noise) I still get occasional brief bursts of
noise.  I've been told that this is due to phase shift in the newer
(3 yr old) digital switching system at the local Bell office.  How
exactly does phase shift happen?  Is there a work-around?  Can the
phone company fix it (ha!)?

(this is at 2400 baud; there is no problem at 1200)

I'll summarise resonses mailed to me.


Thanks,

-charles

--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]             {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ihnp4}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 88 16:23:37 PDT
Subject: another privacy issue

 MSG:FROM: SPGDCM  --UCBCMSA  TO: NETWORK --NETWORK           04/05/88 16:23:36
 To: NETWORK --NETWORK  Network Address

 From: Doug Mosher
 Subject: another privacy issue

 To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax

 Erik Fair posted an interesting article by Brock Meeks regarding a possible
 violation of the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act). That instance
 included the revealing of allegedly private email by a system operator.

 I am curious about a different situation, namely, when a recipient of email
 sends it on to others or makes it public. That is, the party doing the
 revealing is the original and intended recipient, not an unrelated systems
 person.

 I suppose that's fair game, possibly an etiquette violation, but not illegal;
 are there other analyses or opinions on this?

 (          Doug Mosher <[e-mail]>            )
 ( 257 Evans, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, 415/642-5823 )
      another privacy issue

[The article which was posted has not been received by TELECOM as of yet.
It was posted directly to usenet sites in order to reach the largest
possible audience and to permit cross posting of the article to other
newsgroups. Once I receive a copy of the posting, I will send it to TELECOM
directly. --jsol]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

-------
 7-Apr-88 19:20:04-EDT,8813;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at  7-Apr-88 19:03:42
Date: 7 Apr 88 19:03-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #62
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Thursday, April 7, 1988 7:03PM
Volume 8, Issue 62

Today's Topics:

                 Private Pay Phones and Calling Cards
                        SNET not a Bell co????
           re: another privacy issue (forwarding a message)

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

Date:  6-APR-1988 17:51:12.13
From:   Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private Pay Phones and Calling Cards

Recently, I received a bill from New York Telephone for a Bell Calling Card
call from a private payphone. (I think they are called "COCOTs").

A local call in New York City using a calling card is usually $.47 for the
first minute, including the surcharge for using the card.

My bill from the private phone/COCOT, which was operated by Central Tel.
(??), came to $3.18!!!

Outraged, I called NYTel (collect), and they proceeded to tell me "Well,
you know, you SHOULD have used a New York Tel phone." I told them thanks
for letting me know after the fact, and they told me "Ok, we'll take the
$3.18 off now, but it you do it again, we'll make you pay."  Fair enough.
But what am I supposed to do next time I am on the road and the only phone
is one of those private phones? I mean, they actually make GTE payphones
in GTE territory seem nice! ;-)

Apparently, the COCOT does not dial through the calling card call directly,
but instead calls an 800 number (in this case) or a local number, to reach
an Alternate Operator Service operator. (I know it was an 800 number becuase
you could hear the phone dialing out the 800 call.) The phone seems to have
been able to pass along the number I was trying to reach, but not the calling
card number I dialed in. When the Alternate operator came on, she asked me
to tell her my WHOLE calling card # again, SLOWLY, in front of a group of
people, which I'm sure Bell is just very happy to hear about. :-)

When I received the bill, the COCOT call was billed as an Alternate carrier
call, IE, after my New York Tel local call section and the AT&T Long Distance
call section, there was a section that said "Central Tel." and the charges
for that one call. I'm not sure how they do this, but is it possible that
like some Bell Co's that have their own Equal Access codes for local service
(Bell of PA, New Jersey Bell, and New York Tel., for example), Central Tel
has its own equal access number, which the operators on the other end are
somehow hooked up to? (IE, they dial 10XXX and then 0+AC+# ? Or all calls
that the operators make use a Central Tel 10xxx number so that the Bell
Operating Company knows to bill that call at a different rate?) I'm curious
as to how they do this, and any ideas on this would be appreciated. (I'll
summarize if anyone cares...)

I called my local Bell company at home in Connecticut (SNET) to ask them
about this, and they said its the first they ever heard of a $3 surcharge
for a calling card call, and said I must have made a mistake. In any event,
they assured my, SNET would never bill me for that. I'd like to go back to
that payphone and see if they are right! (SNET still has, in many ways, a
pre-divestiture atitude, which is refreshing after talking to New York Tel
customer reps....!) At least Connecticut does not have private payphones,
so we don't have to worry too much about that here!

Finally, on a recent trip to Tahoe, I noticed that a lot of the payphones,
as well as the hotels, were handled by a AOS outfit called NTS. NTS seems
to operate just like Central Tel, although I haven't received a bill from
them yet, so I don't know how high their rates are. Many hotels there used
the same service. Interestingly, there are many AT&T-like payphones, which
appear to be old Bell phones which were rebuilt and are now sold by AT&T
as private payphones. (They mailed me a catalog about these...). These phones
are especially deceptive, as they don't let you "tone-in" more than 14 digits,
just enough for a calling card call. They also charge $.25 for an * 800 *
call (!!!!) and a 950 call (again, !!!!!). So after foolishly putting in
my $.25 cents to use my school's 800 number to get their PBX, the phone
wouldn't let me tone in my access code, and the PBX hung up on me. When I
called NTS for a refund, they (rudely) told me that "The 25 cents to dial
an 800 number is a service charge, and you don't get it back, period!".

In cases like this, its best to just dial the Pac*Bell operator (or any local
operator, but not "00"), and have them place the clal for you. I know, Pac*Bell
is very fussy about getting an AT&T operator for a cusotmer, but the minute
you tell them "I'm calling from a private patyphone" they suddenly laugh
and put you through, no questions asked. In most cases, although it is slightly
more inconvenient to go through the operator, it saves a lot of time and
a lot of quarters in the long run! This works pretty well for most COCOTs,
so I usually do that rather than dial direct and let the COCOT charge me
600% what I should normally pay...

Sorry this was so long...I think I'll go back my car up into a private payphone
and see if it takes a beating as well as Bell's do ! :-)

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date:  6-APR-1988 18:32:22.01
From:   Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET not a Bell co????

Some time ago, Fred Goldstien (sp?) mentioned that SNET was NOT a Bell
Company.

From what I have been told and have observed, they are (or were) a Bell
Status: O

Company, but they were one of the two that AT&T didn't have a controlling
interest in. SNET employees (as well as other Bell Employees in other BOCs)
have told me that SNET joined the Bell System out of choice, and adopted
the standards and practices of the Bell System, including the Bell logo.
SNET is heavily ESS (very few DMSs), has "Custom Calling" (its called
Totalphone here) exactlye like any other BOC, used Western Electric phones
as well as Western Electric Payphones, has the same Calling Cards as any
other BOC, uses the same Charge-A-Calls as any other BOC, has the same
directories with the standard Bell pictures and rate tables, and lots of
other things which make it look a LOT like a Bell Company.

As a matter of fact, a book published in 1976 for the Bell Centenial listed
Southern New England Tel as a Bell company, and AT&T reps that I deal with
frequently say "SNET? Oh yeah, that Bell in CT...". (Well, not EXACTLY like
that, but sort of...)

I'm not sure what Fred is using to distinguish between a Bell Co. and an
independent. I think the sole difference between SNET and the other Bell
Co.s is that it was AT&T ("The Bell Company") did not have a controlling
interest in SNET. (I'm not sure what the other Bell like that was...
somewhere near PA or sometihng? Anyhone know?) In any event, as I said in
my previous posting about COCOTs/Private Payphones, in most ways, SNET is
much more typical of a Bell Company than many others, such as the "trendy"
Pac*Bell ( :-) ). I certainly wouldn't go so fat as to say that SNET is
comparable to a GTE local company!! SNET would get *REALLY* upset about
that!! ;-)

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[SNET is *still* 18% owned by AT&T. They never had a monopoly on phone
service in Connecticut (I'm an old connecticut boy myself). If you consider
the fact that they use a bell logo then they are a bell company, but
if you consider controlling interest, then they are not. BTW, Doug;
have you ever heard of the telephone company which serves Woodbury,
Southbury and Bethelehem, CT? That company is non bell but buys its
equipment from SNET, which in turn gets it from.... Another BTW:
West Hartford, CT. now has a DMS. They were step for *years*...-jsol]

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

Subject: re: another privacy issue (forwarding a message)
Date: 07 Apr 88 13:24:44 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail]

With paper letters, I believe that the sender owns the copyright.
This has been an issue, I think, when collections of letters to/from
some famous person are published.  If the writer of a letter to the
person refuses consent, then the editor may include only a paraphrase.
Presumably the same might hold for email.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Apr-88 11:56:33-EDT,8883;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sun 10 Apr 88 11:56:30-EDT
Date: 10 Apr 88 11:02-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #63
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Sunday, April 10, 1988 11:02AM
Volume 8, Issue 63

Today's Topics:

               Re: Private Pay Phones and Calling Cards
                       Bell Operating Companies
                         Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
                    Connecticut's semi-Bell status
           Re: RISKS of using the "AT&T Public Phone Plus"
                       trailblazers and HP3000

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard B. Dervan)
Subject: Re: Private Pay Phones and Calling Cards
Date: 8 Apr 88 02:36:22 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard B. Dervan)


I had a similar experience where in Atlanta with NTS pay phones.  I got a call
on my pager and went to the nearest pay phone.  I used by Southern Bell calling
card since I was out of change and expected to see a $.55 charge on my So. Bell
bill.  Lo and behold, there's a $7.00 charge from NTS for a call from Atlanta
to Atlanta.  I contacted Southern Bell about this and they gave me the toll-free
number to NTS for billing questions.  After one month of busy signals, I called
Southern Bell again and really complained this time.  They told me that they
would return the charge to NTS as 'uncollectable'.  It seems that NTS is one
of the services that cater mostly to hotels for local and long distance calls.
Hence, the outrageous long distance charges many hotels have.  I have definitly
learned my lesson....  If it doesn't have the familiar little bell symbol and/or
have the words "genuine bell" on it, I will run (not walk) away from it.

-Richard

 _________________________________________________________________________
| Richard B Dervan                     BitNet: ccoprrd@gitvm1             |
| Office of Computing Services         ARPA  : neon![e-mail] |
| Georgia Institute of Technology      or    : [e-mail] |
| Atlanta, Ga 30332                    CIS   : 70365,1012                 |
| [phone] (Work)                 MCI   : RDERVAN                    |
|      uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers}!gatech!neon!rbd      |
|__________________"We don't fit the mold...we build it"__________________|

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

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 23:59 EST
From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Operating Companies

>From:   Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
>Subject: SNET not a Bell co????
...

>I'm not sure what Fred is using to distinguish between a Bell Co. and an
>independent. I think the sole difference between SNET and the other Bell
>Co.s is that it was AT&T ("The Bell Company") did not have a controlling
>interest in SNET. (I'm not sure what the other Bell like that was...
>somewhere near PA or sometihng? Anyhone know?) In any event, as I said in

The other one was Cincinatti Bell.  There was also Nevada Bell
Telephone Company that was not owned by AT&T, but by Pacific Bell
(which was owned by AT&T).

    jeff
------------
Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter
Computing and Information Systems (Computer Center)
University of Pittsburgh         [e-mail]
110 Old Engineering Hall         [e-mail]
4015 O'Hara Street             [e-mail]
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260         JJC@CISVM{1,2,3}.CCnet
[phone]                 [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 23:00:48 EST
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R. Covert) writes:
>When the Massachusetts DPU authorized Customer Owned Coin
>Operated Telephones (COCOTs), it was done to permit competition
>with New England Telephone's monopoly on coin service.  The DPU
>is not likely to have realized that the current anti-consumer
>situation would result.

Boy, you're not kidding.  I've had COCOTs ask me to pay for 800 calls, and
one asked 90 cents for a 950 call.  Needless to say, I didn't pay.

It seems to me that the current behavior of COCOTs borders on fraud.  Most
of them are made from AT&T pay phones and have instruction cards that in
type style and color closely resemble those used by telco.  Since they so
closely resemble telco payphones, consumers could reasonably expect them to
provide service comparable to that from telco payphones, which they don't.
I certainly never expected that these phones ripped you off for calling
card calls as well as for coin calls.  They don't say anything about it.

A recent flyer in with my phone bill mentioned COCOTs and said in passing
that they're all supposed to identify the provider of the phone on the
phone itself.  I've never seen one that does, so it's time to call the DPU.

John Levine, ima!johnl
--
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, [phone]
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 8 Apr 88 09:12
Subject: Connecticut's semi-Bell status

Just to clarify...

Southern New England Tel used to be a "licensee" of the "Bell System".
That meant they paid maybe 3% off the top to AT&T, and got the rights
to AT&T's patents and manufacturing (cheap).  So they used a Bell in
their logo and provided Bell-quality service (if there was such a
thing, but I suppose it was better than GTE California!)

But came the day of reckoning (the divestiture MFJ), SNET was NOT
classed as a Bell.  They're "innocent", and not prohibited from doing
things that the seven Baby Bells are prohibited from doing.  "Bell"
is now a trademark collectively owned by the RBOCs, but nowadays
usually refers to those seven companies and their associated lawyers,
probation officers, etc.  :-)
      fred

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

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 11:26:41 PDT
From: ll-xn!ucsd!sdsu!csun!polyslo![e-mail] (Prentiss Bowden)
Subject: Re: RISKS of using the "AT&T Public Phone Plus"
Reply-To: ll-xn!ucsd!sdsu!polyslo![e-mail] (Prentiss Bowden)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>stations, etc.  There is a card reader at the bottom of the phone which will do
>the right thing (purportedly) with your AT&T card (I didn't think to try my
>FoNCard), a bank card, or an AmEx/DinersClub/etc.

I once used one of these AT&T Calling Card phones in San Francisco while
waiting for a friends plane to arrive.  I walked up to the first available
phone and the last person to use it didn't completely hang up the phone either--
similar to what is explained here.  I dropped their call and placed a call out
on my card, but as usual I got an answering machine.  I DID try out my other
cards on my answering machine and it did MUTE the audio to the AT&T card phone,
it passed the info to my answering machine at the other end.  I tried it with
an ATM card and a FON card and both sequences were there.

>
>Hasn't anyone been burned by this yet?
>

I am sure they have... and I am sure that AT&T is probably not so forgiving to
see you place a "legitamate" call and then see perhaps one or more denied toll
charge calls.  Maybe SOMEONE out there might be able to deal with this, which
seemingly isn't just a localized (Boston and SF aren't too close) problem.
    ___
 -'/   >      /       |"Pete" Bowden, P.O. Box 905, Santa Maria, CA 93456-0905
  /___/___ --/--___   |    Sysop--LOIS BBS  805-928-6969 (4 public dialups)
 /    /___> /  /___>  |         Packet:  N6QDC@W6IXU or N6QDC@WB6DAO
/   _/\____/\_/\____/ |            ...{csun,sdsu}!polyslo!pbowden
                         Quitting while behind is NOT a viable alternative!

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

From: [e-mail] (Mr. Rick Battle )
Subject: trailblazers and HP3000
Date: 8 Apr 88 19:21:07 GMT


Does anyone have any experience or ideas on how to connect
to HP3000's over the PSTN using Trailblazers as a backup
connection if the 3002 VGC should fail?

This is a host to host using HP DS, not a terminal connection.

Thanks in advance for any info.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
10-Apr-88 13:09:39-EDT,10123;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sun 10 Apr 88 13:09:37-EDT
Date: 10 Apr 88 12:25-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #64
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                          Sunday, April 10, 1988 12:25PM
Volume 8, Issue 64

Today's Topics:

                    Network Administration Survey
                   Submission for comp-dcom-telecom
                                 SNET

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

From: [e-mail] (Joan Gargano)
Subject: Network Administration Survey
Date: 6 Apr 88 00:07:50 GMT


To: Data Communications Managers, Network Adminstrators

    I am a gradute student in the California, State University,
Sacramento, Management Information Science program.  I am working on my
thesis, "Skills Requirements for Network Administration in Management
Information Systems".  My thesis will require the results of two surveys.
I need your assistance to complete the first of these surveys.
    In the first survey, the requirements of a management informations
systems network manager will be defined in terms of business, technical,
management and information systems skills. This survey is being conducted
of network administrators for large organizations with local area networks
as well as connections to wide area networks, to determine the degree of
importance of each of the skills to performance as a network
administrator.
    Second, the curriculum of management information systems degree
programs in the country will be reviewed in a summary of educational
coursework provided to support the network management specialization.
    Finally, an evaluation will be performed of the skills determined
important by current network administrators for network management and the
ability of current management information science/systems programs to
provide them.
    Please complete the following survey and return it to me, by email
or U.S. mail, with any comments you would like to add.  I would like
to complete the survey by April 29, 1988.  I will be happy
to send you a copy of my results when my thesis is complete.
    Your assistance in this project is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Joan Gargano
Computing Services
University of California
Davis, CA  95616
[phone]

ucbvax!ucdavis!jcgargano
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


                   Knowledge and Skills Requirements for
                          Network Administrators


Please provide the following information about your organization, title,
background and duties.

Organization type (underline one):
Educational     Government     Commercial     Military

Approximate number of networked hosts:                 ___________________

Wide area network connections (underline all that apply):
Internet     BITNET     UUCP     SPAN     CSNET     VNET     DEC Easynet

Supported Network Protocols (underline all that apply):
TCP/IP     RSCS     UUCP     DECNET

Your working title  _____________________________________________________

Undergraduate degree ____________________________________________________

Graduate degrees ________________________________________________________

Electronic mail address (optional): _____________________________________

Number of years working with computer networks __________________________

Received formal education in data communications/      Y       N
    computer networks

If yes, how many courses?  _____________

Have taken seminars in data communications/            Y       N
    computer networks

If yes, how many seminars?  ____________

Percentage of knowledge and skills from on             25  50  75  100
the job training and experience.

Do you have a formal organizational networking plan?   Y       N

Is an understanding of organizational information      Y       N
sources and processing helpful to you as a network
administrator?

Do you set managerial policies as boundaries and       Y       N
guidelines for local computer networks.

Do you have a formal network design and documenta-     Y       N
tion methodology.

Please indicate the importance of a working knowledge of the following
areas to perform your job as network administrator.
                                                     Low              High

1.  Data transmission, ie., frequency, spectrum,       1   2   3   4   5
    bandwidth, transmission attenuation.

2.  Transmission media, twisted pair, coaxial cable    1   2   3   4   5
    fiber optic cable, microwave.

3.  Types of signals and modulation.                   1   2   3   4   5

4.  Communication networking techniques, ie.,          1   2   3   4   5
    circuit switching, packet switching.

5.  Local area networks, transmission media,           1   2   3   4   5
    topologies and protocols.

6.  Wide area networks, transmission media,            1   2   3   4   5
    topologies and protocols.

7.  The Open Systems Interconnection Model using       1   2   3   4   5
    a layered model of communications functions.

8.  The Department of Defense heirarchical model       1   2   3   4   5
    internetworking and the TCP/IP protocols.

9.  IBM's Systems Network Architecture                 1   2   3   4   5

10. Digital Equipment Corporations's Decnet            1   2   3   4   5

11. Integrated Services Digital Network standards      1   2   3   4   5

12. The Internet Request for Comments documents.       1   2   3   4   5

13. General knowledge of wide area networks such       1   2   3   4   5
    as the Internet, BITNET, UUCP, SPAN, etc.

14. Voice communications                               1   2   3   4   5

15. Distributed databases                              1   2   3   4   5

16. Network design methodologies and techniques        1   2   3   4   5

17. Electronic mail systems                            1   2   3   4   5

18. Network monitoring                                 1   2   3   4   5

19. Systems analysis and programming                   1   2   3   4   5

20. Theoretical basis for routing strategies           1   2   3   4   5

In your opinion:

How many semester courses of data communications/computer networking
coursework is necessary to prepare management information science/systems
students for network adminstration positions? _________________________

--
Joan Gargano * Univ. of Calif., Davis, Computing Services * [phone]
Internet   [e-mail]
BITNET     jcgargano@ucdavis
UUCP       {ucbvax, lll-crg, sdcsvax}!ucdavis!jcgargano

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

From: David Daemon <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Apr 88 12:42:45 GMT
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

Path: mcnc!unccvax!dya
From: [e-mail] (Edison Carter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Connecting a modem to a 2 line phone jack
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Apr 88 12:44:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Univ. of NC at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ([e-mail] (Kent W. England)) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> bellcore!bpa!sjuvax![e-mail] (Chuck(ster)) writes:

. . .
> >standard size, it is wider.  How do I connect the modem to the 2 line
> >wall jack?

> Here's the two different pin-outs:

>     RJ-45 (wide jack) what the phone is wired for

>     1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
>     P2    P2    R3    R1    T1    T3    Pr    Pr

>     Pair one is for voice, the second and third pair for data and
> the fourth pair for power, but you can use the third pair for the

     Sorry, but this is an extremely sore point with me. The RJ45
jack is obstensibly NOT configured for this "pair one, pair two"
business.

     Pins 1 and 2 of the RJ45S jack are UNDEFINED.  Pin 3 is M1,
a contact closure for exclusion key telephones, to pin 6, M1C.
Pin 4 is Ring, pin 5 is Tip, of the line connected to the PSTN.
Pin 7 and pin 8 define a programming resistor which, upon correct
measurement of the loss of the subscriber loop, tells the modem
(in programmed mode) what transmit level to emit so that -12 dBmV
arrives at the CO.

     RJ41S is similar, but pins 1 and 2 represent Ring and Tip
(respectively) with a fixed loss loop pad inserted in the circuit.
Pins 4 and 5 carry the unmodified ring and tip, respectively,
of the same PSTN circuit.

     There is no such thing (although people do it frequently) as
a two line RJ11W/C jack.  The two line equivalent is RJ14W/C.
The wiring sequence is up to the customer. Pins 1 and 6 are not
defined.  However, as a practical matter, the RJ11W/C plug will
even (usually) pick up T and R (1) of even the 8 pin jack.

     Be forewarned, there are other configurations of 8 pin jacks
which do neat things like remove a shorting bar when a plug is
inserted, operate with the exclusion key, etc.

     The only real flamage is the misunderstanding which most
(including telephone company personnel) have about the data jacks,
and the perpetual misinformation campaign - which the original
poster(s) aren't a part of - about the RJ41/45 data jacks. They
are defined, and have a specific function in life.

     My source is Title 47, United States Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 68, Appendix A, Subpart F, FCC Rules and Regulations,
41 FR at 28699, published July 12, 1976.


David Anthony
WLQV Detroit

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 21:56:24 EDT
Subject: SNET

Actually, I'm fairly certain that AT&T sold its interest in SNET in
the last two years or thereabouts.  The sale was by mutual agreement,
and not part of the divestiture.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
11-Apr-88 20:52:06-EDT,2904;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 11 Apr 88 20:52:05-EDT
Date: 11 Apr 88 20:17-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #65
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, April 11, 1988 8:17PM
Volume 8, Issue 65

Today's Topics:

                                COCOTS
                      Illinois Bell ISDN Tariff

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

From: princeton!pyrnj!argon!westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: COCOTS
Date: 11 Apr 88 12:39:16 GMT


I would like to suggest a simple solution to the COCOT problem.
Certainly any service-provider ought to be able offer public
telephone service at any price, but the price ought to be available
to the public before a call is actually placed.

I suggest that the several states (or perhaps the FCC where
interstate calls are involved) should require that ALL public
telephones display the surcharge schedule for their toll calls, just
as they now display the cost of a local call.  The calling party can
then look at the rate card on the telephone, and compare it with the
rate card on a nearby telephone provided by another company, and
make an informed decision.

What do you think?

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        A node for news.
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | clyde | mtune | ihnp4}!westmark!dave

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

From: sdsu!csun!ttidca![e-mail] (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Illinois Bell ISDN Tariff
Date: 11 Apr 88 18:55:02 GMT
Reply-To: sdsu!ttidca![e-mail] (Dick Jackson)


Thanks to Patrick Townson for his posting about the Illinois Bell ISDN
tariff filing.

>Questions for readers: Do you think their pricing is fair? Do you think
>there is (will be soon) a market for ISDN service?  If ISDN was available
>in your community, would [you] subscribe?  Why or why not?

I am unsure what I get for 1.3 times the cost of a current line.  If my
station equipment lets me use two phones independently, one on each B
channel, then I am clearly ahead.  If instead I can only use one "phone"
for two "appearances", or for voice and simultaneous data (for example),
then *I* am not impressed

I see no compelling reason to choose ISDN other than voice economics, unless
someone has a real need for 64kbps data. I don't believe such a need is
common currently. I think it will be very interesting to see if ISDN finds
customers (in the future) because of the new services it offers/will offer.

Dick Jackson

Path: ..!{trwrb|philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!ttidcc!jackson
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
14-Apr-88 00:21:44-EDT,8375;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 14 Apr 88 00:21:42-EDT
Date: 13 Apr 88 23:30-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #66
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                       Wednesday, April 13, 1988 11:30PM
Volume 8, Issue 66

Today's Topics:

                         Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
                       Call Waiting Indication
                         Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
           partial local echo for 3270 emulation over PDNs?
                     Re: The 10xxx Table - Again.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 15:51:07 EDT
From: [e-mail]

To: [e-mail]
Path: IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU!ralphw
From: [e-mail] (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Non-Bell owned Bell companies
Date: 11 Apr 88 19:51:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 27


Cincinnati Bell is another BOC that AT&T had a minority stake in.

I believe it made the breakup effects much easier there.  They've
always been pretty reasonable about things.
I also believe they were able to get the non-POTS services going faster
there (like a long distance service and software development company).

Too bad they've got GTE (and even smaller companies) around them.  Makes it a
real hassle when traveling.  I travel between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati a lot,
and there are these vast wastelands on I-71 between Cincinnati and Columbus,
and I-70 between Columbus and Wheeling where there are no Bell payphones to be
had.  I've actually gone to the trouble to specially mark a map with
known Bell payphones rest areas, so I know where I can make calls from.
You'd think they give favorable treatment to SPRINT or something, but no 950
numbers seem to work.  (part of this may be due to population density, but
it's a real hassle.)

BTW, is there any carrier out there that doesn't have a 950 surcharge?
SBS Skyline never did, and they were nice enough to activate my code in
all the cities they served.  The MCI took over, and life got tough and
more expensive again.

--
                    - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: [e-mail]    Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK}
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA

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

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 06:21:34 PDT
From: hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail] (John Gilmore)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!

[e-mail] (John R. Levine) wrote:
> Boy, you're not kidding.  I've had COCOTs ask me to pay for 800 calls, and
> one asked 90 cents for a 950 call.  Needless to say, I didn't pay.

I had a private pay phone in Las Cruces, NM take my quarter when I got
ring-no-answer!  It was at a large chain grocery store.  I went inside to
complain, they gave me back the quarter, I went out and called the
second number where my friend might be, ring-no-answer, hung up.  Went
back inside to get the refund again.  This happened four times total
(and I never did find my friend).

The store management explained that a few months earlier, the parent
company had had all the Bell phones removed and put in their own to make
more money.  They sure did, but lost the goodwill of at least one customer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: Call Waiting Indication
Date: 13 Apr 88 14:47:23 GMT


Is there any way to get a call waiting indication other
than the standard short beep. It would be great if it
could be made to ring the phone bell, light a light, or
even just give a longer tone on the handset.

The issue is that I use a modem on my only line and I
would like to know when incoming calls are coming in.
My new modem (trailblazer) fights through the call waiting
beep without a flicker, so I can't tell.


--
Ken Mandelberg      |  {decvax,sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!km  UUCP
Emory University    |  km@emory                             BITNET
Dept of Math and CS |  [e-mail]                        ARPA,CSNET
Atlanta, GA 30322   |  Phone: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Heiby)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
Date: 8 Apr 88 15:58:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ron Heiby)


A similar situation has existed for some time in the Chicago area.
My most recent experience with them was accidental, as I have been
refusing to use these phones for some time.  Unfortunately, a
restaraunt that I used to eat at frequently changed their IL Bell
pay phones to some private operator.  The phones looked like regular
Bell pay phones.  I needed to place a couple of business calls.
The way this works is that I call an 800 number, enter a sequence
of digits to tell who I am, then get another dial tone that allows
me to place the call.  I got through to the 800 number, just fine,
but after I did, the phone refused to allow any additional tones
to be generated from the keypad, preventing me from placing my
call.  Both phones behaved the same way.

To be fair, I used one of the newer AT&T card caller phones that
can often be found in hotel lobbies.  They have a digital display
of a couple of lines telling you what to do.  (I'm not talking about
the phones with the built-in CRT displays.)  I found it nearly impossible
to place the same kind of call on this phone.  It didn't want to
let me send touch-tones from the keypad after my call had been "placed".
Fortunately, in this case, a *real* IL Bell pay phone was nearby.
(Do you suppose that this was an intentional feature of the phone
to discourage use of alternative long distance services???)
--
Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix
"I believe in the Tooth Fairy."  "I believe in Santa Claus."
    "I believe in the future of the Space Program."

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Brim)
Subject: partial local echo for 3270 emulation over PDNs?
Date: 13 Apr 88 20:29:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Scott Brim)


We would like to connect ASCII terminals across a public data network
(e.g. Telenet) to a 3270 emulator (7171) connected to our large IBM
systems.  There are a few problems here: We want to echo locally to the
terminal (at the remote PAD, i.e. far from the host) most of the time,
in order to minimize the number of packets being sent across the PDN;
we plan on packetizing on control characters, and whenever the user
types <esc> plus a sequence of characters (to allow for emulation of PF
keys, etc.).  I'm not sure about the other PDNs, but with Telenet at
least there are X.29 parameters to set it up this way.  The problem is
that we think the 7171 will *always* echo *everything* it hears,
including what the remote PAD is *already* echoing to the terminal.

It looks like what we were hoping to do won't work.  Has anyone used
IBM systems in this way (ascii terminals connected with no special
software across a PDN to a 3270 emulation box)?  If so, how did you do
it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Brim                 [e-mail]
Cornell University Theory Center     {decvax,ihnp4}!cornell!batcomputer!swb
265 Olin Hall                 bitnet: swb@crnlthry
Ithaca, NY  14853             607-255-9392

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Stirling)
Subject: Re: The 10xxx Table - Again.
Date: 14 Apr 88 00:30:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Stirling)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Scott D. Green, Classroom Services") writes:
: I lost my list of 10xxx access codes.  Would someone be kind enough to
: e-mail it to me (no need to take up anymore Digest space with it?  Thanks.
:
: Scott Green
: [e-mail]

Where can I get a copy?
--
Stuart Stirling                    [e-mail]
{decvax,emoryu1,gatech,gt-eedsp,msdc,sbmsg1,sun!sunatl}!emory!silver

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
14-Apr-88 20:29:33-EDT,6294;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 14 Apr 88 20:29:30-EDT
Date: 14 Apr 88 19:43-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #67
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Thursday, April 14, 1988 7:43PM
Volume 8, Issue 67

Today's Topics:

                 protocol conversion and packet nets
                    Re: Illinois Bell ISDN Tariff
                    ISDN (Was Illinois Bell IDSN)
                           A COCOT bargain

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

Date:         Thu, 14 Apr 88 20:57:55 SST
From:         Jim Crooks <[e-mail]>
Subject:      protocol conversion and packet nets

re SUBJ: partial local echo for 3270 emulation over PDNs/13Apr88
   Scott Brim [e-mail] / Telecom-Digest
re Subj: YTERM/13Apr88
   John Valentine john@mcgill1 / IBM7171 discussion


One protocol conversion system that is very happy to run over
packet nets is SIM3270. SIM runs in the mainframe and lets the
FEP handle the X.25 interface (in fact I heard that someone was
using a 4341 front-ending a host+SNA network JUST for protocol
conversion with SIM for 400+ concurrent users, I think it was
GE in the USA).

I don't know how SIMWARE really handles the I/O, but I know that
VT100 + a multitude of other protocols + their own PC software
pkg run very nicely over packet both in Canada, the USA and
Europe.

I seem to remember that VT100 and the like generated a few
garbage characters (when PFkey press went in), but first response
would eat those characters and clean up the screen just fine...
But then SIM was designed (almost from the start) to work with
packet.

Now if you can just get the 7171 to do the same thing (anybody
out there in network land know about how SIM does it and about
7171?)

James W. Crooks

Telephone: [phone]   FAX: [phone]
Telex:     RS 39988    ATTN:((JIM))
Telebox/DIALCOM: 12:GVT331   ATTN:((JIM))
BITNET:    [e-mail]

Institute of Systems Science, National University of Singapore
Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge, Singapore 0511

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

From: casemo![e-mail] (Paul Carew )
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell ISDN Tariff
Date: 14 Apr 88 16:19:57 GMT


>
> I see no compelling reason to choose ISDN other than voice economics, unless
> someone has a real need for 64kbps data. I don't believe such a need is
> common currently. I think it will be very interesting to see if ISDN finds
> customers (in the future) because of the new services it offers/will offer.
>
I guarantee that if you put somebody in a position to choose between a file
transfer at 2.4kbs or a transfer at 64kbs, they will opt for the faster rate.
As for cost, I must admit that I didnt see the posting on the tariff, however
by using 64kbs, the file transfer takes about 1/26th of the time taken by a
2.4kbs link!

    Paul Carew (Case Communications Inc..)

PS. Terminal equipment & PC boards are already becomming avaliable and will
soon rival the cost of modems!

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

Date: Thu 14 Apr 88 12:05:28-PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN (Was Illinois Bell IDSN)


Patrick Townson writes:
>Ameritech, parent company of Illinois Bell and other phone companies said the
>cost for ISDN service would be roughly 1.2 to 1.3 times higher than the price
>of a 'comparably equipped' Centrex service, the current business telephone
>standard, which offers mainly voice transmission.
.......
>The service will eliminate the miles of wires and cable under office floors
.......
>Questions for readers: Do you think their pricing is fair? Do you think there
>is (will be soon) a market for ISDN service? If ISDN was available in your
>community, would [you] subscribe? Why or why not?
.......
A few nits (with Ameritech PR not with Patrick's posting).

"Centrex service, the current business telephone standard".  It once was and
may even be so again but to say that Centrex is "the standard" tody is just
PR BS.

ISDN defines interfaces, not wiring plans.  It may, in fact, INCREASE the
cabling requirements if a 2 wire system is now in use.  Other things (Baluns,
smarter wiring plans) may reduce wire and cabling but it ain't ISDN.

No one is likely to "subscribe" to ISDN per se.  A customer may desire
SERVICES which the LEC can best deliver via ISDN.  Most likely the LEC will
use ISDN as a selling point for Centrex.

Different (but related) topic.  A business line (1MB) in this area is tariffed
at $16.85/month.  A friend who started a small business requiring a single
line was quoted $71/month by PacBell.  After investigation we found the
"quote" included not only the expected bundle of "features" but also listing
in Yellow Pages from here to LA (a slight exageration).

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

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 14:01:43 EST
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: A COCOT bargain
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)

I dropped by my local COCOT the other day while walking the dog, picked up
the handset (no dial tone, just a voice telling me to deposit 25 cents),
and tried dialing 1 809 555 1212.  "Thank you" it said, then shortly the
usual "What island please?"  A real pay phone would have charged 60 cents.
Experimentation showed that from that brand of COCOT, at least, all D.A.
calls are free.

Considering how they overcharge you for all other calls, the free directory
assistance is darned decent of them, and I plan to use COCOTs extensively
for my directory assistance needs.  Each phone seems to have its direct dial
rates programmed into the phone itself, so it'll be interesting to see if they
ever fix them to charge for D.A.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, [phone]
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
18-Apr-88 19:47:47-EDT,13356;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at 18-Apr-88 19:15:31
Date: 18 Apr 88 19:15-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #68
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                           Monday, April 18, 1988 7:15PM
Volume 8, Issue 68

Today's Topics:

                              Re: COCOTS
                     Re: Call Waiting Indication
                       The 10xxx Table via FTP
                         Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
                     Re: Call Waiting Indication
                    Re: Illinois Bell ISDN Tariff
                           PCPursuit query
                              Re: COCOTS
                     Sprint billing not all bad?

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

From: bsu-cs![e-mail] (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: COCOTS
Date: 14 Apr 88 14:37:30 GMT
Reply-To: bsu-cs![e-mail] (Rahul Dhesi)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:
>I suggest that the several states (or perhaps the FCC where
>interstate calls are involved) should require that ALL public
>telephones display the surcharge schedule for their toll calls,...

I prefer this alternative:  Just as the Post Office has mandated that
unsolicited merchandise may be kept as a free gift, the consumer may
safely assume that if no charges are listed on the telephone, then
there are none.
--
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi

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

From: [e-mail] (David Carter)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Indication
Date: 15 Apr 88 16:10:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg) writes:
>Is there any way to get a call waiting indication other
>than the standard short beep.
>Ken Mandelberg      |  {decvax,sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!km  UUCP

Maybe.  If your phone system supplies a battery drop (heard as a loud click
just before the call waiting beep; much of Atlanta does, but some "digital"
offices don't) then you can add an inexpensive device to detect the battery
drop.

The device is a "battery detect relay."  It has two coils that go in series
between the incoming phone line and (in this case) your modem.  While there
is battery on the line (call is up) a SPST contact is held closed.  So when
you get a call waiting the switch will open briefly.  Wire the switch to
whatever else you like (loud buzzer, big light, something to give you a
shock, etc.).

Delta Electronics in Atlanta probably still has them.

David Carter
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!davidc
ARPA: [e-mail]
--
David Carter
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!davidc
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: The 10xxx Table via FTP
Date: 15 Apr 88 14:12:52 GMT
Reply-To: sun.soe.clarkson.edu![e-mail] (Russ Nelson)


In article <[e-mail]> emory!silver (Stuart Stirling) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Scott D. Green, Classroom Services") writes:
>: I lost my list of 10xxx access codes.  Would someone be kind enough to
>: e-mail it to me (no need to take up anymore Digest space with it?  Thanks.
>Where can I get a copy?

The 10xxx table is available by anonymous ftp from sun.soe.clarkson.edu
[128.153.12.3] in /pub/10xxx.
--
-russ
AT&T: [phone]  BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX  Internet: [e-mail]
GEnie: BH01  Compu$erve: 70441,205

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard B. Dervan)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
Date: 15 Apr 88 18:14:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard B. Dervan)


I wish some local telephone companies would realize that a lot of people
(including myself) use touch-tones to access services such as telephone
banking, answering machines, etc.  It is really irritating to place a long
distance call only to find out you can't generate tones.  I recently purchased
a DTMF tone generator to get around that problem.  Works like a charm!

-Richard

| Richard B Dervan                     BitNet: ccoprrd@gitvm1             |
| Office of Computing Services         ARPA  : neon![e-mail] |
| Georgia Institute of Technology      or    : [e-mail] |
| Atlanta, Ga 30332-0275               CIS   : 70365,1012                 |
| [phone] (Work)                 MCI   : RDERVAN                    |
|      uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers}!gatech!neon!rbd      |

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

From: moss!ihuxv![e-mail] (Kekatos)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Indication
Date: 15 Apr 88 20:42:55 GMT
Reply-To: moss!ihuxv![e-mail] (55624-Kekatos,T.G.)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg) writes:
>Is there any way to get a call waiting indication other
  { text deleted }
>My new modem (trailblazer) fights through the call waiting
>beep without a flicker, so I can't tell.

Dear Ken,
My suggestion is to get a second phone line installed with
multi-line hunt.  Or get a second line installed that is used
_only_ for your modem.


Ted G. Kekatos
backbone!ihnp4!ihuxv!tedk                     [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill South, IX-1F-460
Naperville & Wheaton Roads - Naperville, Illinois. 60566 USA

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

From: nusdhub![e-mail] (Robert C. White Jr.)
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell ISDN Tariff
Date: 17 Apr 88 06:52:51 GMT


in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dick Jackson) says:
> Approved: [e-mail]
>>Questions for readers: Do you think their pricing is fair? Do you think
>>there is (will be soon) a market for ISDN service?  If ISDN was available
>>in your community, would [you] subscribe?  Why or why not?
> I see no compelling reason to choose ISDN other than voice economics, unless
> someone has a real need for 64kbps data. I don't believe such a need is
> common currently. I think it will be very interesting to see if ISDN finds
> customers (in the future) because of the new services it offers/will offer.

There is a real problem with the entire ISDN standard....
(no offense...) it was designed with a mainframe-to-mainframe mentality.
[Can you say re-gen your SNA network...??]

You only get 1 (!) packet courtesy of the ISDN provider in which to tell
the "other end" what kind of a beast you are.  Basicly, if you were to
invent a totally new device, or make a major improvement on an old one
you, and the other endpoint, are stuck with sync(ing) up on the open channel.
In a few years, you could be looking at 30+ seconds to make _any_ kind of
connection anywhere.

There is a simple fix for all of this, and inclusively covers _ANY_ kind of
amendments ot the standard!  This fix can be implemented as a _software
only_ (firmware?) change to any currently planned ISDN device [including
something like a 5ESS C.O. Switch.]  and covers such things as future
enhancements to the actual communications rates [etc.]

By implementing this fix, the thickness of the standard should be
substantially reduced.

I have already thought up 14 [or so] marketable devices for ues in the home,
each would make a certain cross-section of the home markets saleable,
and hardware manufactures could make _cheap_ devices to do a few things
everybody would like.  This fix can be sold to anybody.

The problem is, I can't seem to get to the correct person, to tell them.
I have talked to AT&T personnel who were directly working on ISDN
in one form or another.  I have talked to hardware manufactures, and
telcom professionals at TCA <in San Diego>.  I've talked till I'm
totally ill on the subject!

On the avrage, it takes about an hour [face to face, with diagrams] to
"convert" someone who really knows what's going on.  I've done it about
20 times, but the conversations always end with  "Your right!... but
I'm not the one you should be talking to..."  "Ok, who do I talk to?"
"I don't know...  If I can find someone, Ill have them call you."  Followed
by an exchange of buisness cards, and invariably a, I'm sorry I couldn't
help follow-up call  <they call me<.

The idea is VERY simple, and as such, would take too long to explain here
if nobody want's to hear about it.  If anybody cares, or would like to
discuss the idea here on the open net, send me a little mail.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<  All the STREAM is but a page,<<|>>    Robert C. White Jr.           <<
<<  and we are merely layers,     <<|>>    nusdhub!rwhite  nusdhub!usenet       <<
<<  port owners and port payers, <<|>>>>>>>>"The Avitar of Chaos"<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<  each an others audit fence,     <<|>>    Network tech,  Gamer, Anti-christ, <<
<<  approaching the sum reel.     <<|>>    Voter, and General bad influence.  <<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
##  Disclaimer:  You thought I was serious???......  Really????           ##
##  Interogative:  So... what _is_ your point?                ;-)       ##
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 88 14:01:10 +0300
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: PCPursuit query

I have a few questions about PCPursuit.

I know that PCPursuit is running on Telenet's packet switching network. I
also know that the local dialouts that telenet uses can be reached via any
other X.25 service, You just have to know the PAD's NUA. I also know that's
it's legal to call the PAD even if you don't have access to PCP. ( X.25 service
costs more than PCP, and Telent gets it's share in the money ).

Since I don't live in the USA, I never used PCP, and I don't know what are
the steps that a PCP user peforms in order to dial the needed phone number.
so my question is: How can I get a list of the accessible dialers of PCP?
Do PCP users have a list of those dialers and they use it directly, or does
the local PCP PAD gets the phone number, and uses an internal NUA list to
get the correct local dialout?

Shortly, how can I get a list of these NUA's?
Also, can someone send me a list of all area codes accessible by PCP?

please respond my by mail since we don't receive this newsgroup here.

thanks,
Udi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Udi Finkelstein       | Bitnet:   [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Tel Aviv University   | Internet: [e-mail]
Israel                | UUCP:     ...!psuvax1!taurus.bitnet!finkel

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

From: ssc-vax!shuksan![e-mail] (Gary Evans)
Subject: Re: COCOTS
Date: 14 Apr 88 17:01:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:
>
> I would like to suggest a simple solution to the COCOT problem.
> ...(parts edited)...                   ...require that ALL public
> telephones display the surcharge schedule for their toll calls, just
> as they now display the cost of a local call....
>


Yes, I agree with the idea that there should be a rate schedule on
the phone itself and in addition, there should be a FREE number to
call and ask about rates, etc. BEFORE one decides to use the service.

Roger  Swann        uucp: uw-beaver\!ssc-vax\!clark

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

Date:     Mon, 18 Apr 88 12:36:19 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Sprint billing not all bad?

The April '88 issue of "The Office" magazine just came in today's mail, and
I noted the following in the "Telecommunications Insights" column by Thomas
J. Hargadon, page 28:

[Refers to previous column which described Sprint billing foul-ups, and
continues:]

"One very large company uses US Sprint BECAUSE of these problems. It says that
the bills arrive anywhere from one to six months late, giving them a nice cash
cushion, and usually come with less than 70% of the calls they know they made.
US Sprint will have to shape up fast, because such problems cannot last much
longer, if it wishes to survive."

He then goes on to mention COCOT problems such as have been discussed here
recently.

I just wonder if his dire predictions as to Sprint's fate are really
valid. It seems to me that the charges for Long Distance service don't
really have a lot to do with the actual costs of providing that service,
and it may well be that Sprint will continue blundering along, thrashing
wildly with its billings, and still make enough to survive.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this because it demonstrates a viewpoint
which differs from those of earlier Sprint-billing comments.

Regards, Will Martin

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
23-Apr-88 22:38:05-EDT,3428;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Chaos with Chaos/SMTP; Sat 23 Apr 88 22:38:04-EDT
Date: 23 Apr 88 20:13-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #69
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                         Saturday, April 23, 1988 8:13PM
Volume 8, Issue 69

Today's Topics:

                              mag cards
                   Re: Sprint billing not all bad?
                      Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #68
                            7171 via PDN's

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

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 88 22:31:52 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Subject: mag cards


I'm purchasing a machine that reads and writes the mag strips on
credit cards.

Question:  Does anybody know if credit cards are high field or low
field magnetic systems?

Thanks.

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

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 16:23:24 PDT
From: Jordan Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint billing not all bad?

    "One very large company uses US Sprint BECAUSE of these
    problems. It says that the bills arrive anywhere from one to
    six months late, giving them a nice cash cushion, and usually
    come with less than 70% of the calls they know they made."

Well, the party's over.  I did this as well, and in this month's
Pacific Bell bill, I received a bill from Sprint for the last 6 months
worth of calls ... a small note at the bottom said "We hope this isn't
an inconvienience" ... grrr ... so much for any scratch money I had
budgeted for this month ...

/jordan

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

Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 11:21:11 EDT
From: uunet!daitc!csed-1!csed-47![e-mail] (Eric Roskos)
Subject: Re:  TELECOM Digest V8 #68

>"One very large company uses US Sprint BECAUSE of these problems. It says that
>the bills arrive anywhere from one to six months late, giving them a nice cash
>cushion, and usually come with less than 70% of the calls they know they made.
>US Sprint will have to shape up fast, because such problems cannot last much
>longer, if it wishes to survive."

Unfortunately, the "less than 70%" part is not true in the long run.
From my own experience, the remaining 30% do appear on your bills, it's
just that they appear 6-8 months later (my most recent bill shows charges
from August of 1987).

The reason it is such a problem is that, when they (temporarily) lose
calls from your bill, the calls are randomly lost throughout the month --
it's not as if a block of time during the month that you can readily
identify has not been charged for.  Unless you keep records of
all your calls, it is often not apparent that any were lost.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 7171 via PDN's
Date: Fri Apr 22 14:16:59 1988

I would strongly advise that you do not attempt to implement a local
echo for 7171 users.  The 7171 needs to control the echo so that keypresses
such as function keys are not echoed to the screen.  I know it is going
to cost you more $$$ to the PDN provider, but it is either that or have users
contend with gibberish on their screen.

...David

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
 2-May-88 20:50:02-EDT,12076;000000000000
Mail-From: JSOL created at  2-May-88 20:25:01
Date: 2 May 88 20:25-EDT
From: The Moderator (JSol) <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V8 #71
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TELECOM Digest                              Monday, May 2, 1988 8:25PM
Volume 8, Issue 71

Today's Topics:

                 Re:  Your call did not go through...
                 Re: Your call did not go through...
            Re: Is there a path from BITNET to Compuserve?
                 Re: Your call did not go through...
                         Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
                          re: ISDN standards
                 foreign exchange in a shopping mall

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

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 22:25:35 EDT
From: Michael Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Your call did not go through...

>        I just called Sun's service center and got the usual "dial 1 for
>software assistance, dial 2 for hardware assistance" message.  I dialed 1
>and got a recording saying, "da Da DAH!  You call did not go through,
>please try again.  212 4T", which raises several questions.

1-800-USA-4SUN, I'm pretty sure that they are subscribers to AT&T's
Extended 800 service.  The recordings you hear, "Thankyou for calling
Sun Microsystems..." are generated by the AT&T network.  When you
press enough keys for the network to decide where to dump the call, it
then puts your call through.

I am told that this system is also used for the 900 Dialit service.

-Mike Grant

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 12:35:06 EDT
From: [e-mail]

To: [e-mail]
Path: bbn!bbn.com!levin
From: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Exchanges that look like area codes
Keywords: N0X N1X excahnges alternate theory
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Apr 88 16:35:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation
Lines: 22


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Marston) writes:
: . . . anyone
:calling from outside the 212 area code would dial 1-212-603-xxxx to get
:this firm and there would be no ambiguity. People within 212 would ALL
:dial 603-xxxx, just seven digits, because any number in 212 can reach any
:other number in 212 without dialing 1 first. If a New Yorker dials 1-603-,
:you know that 7 more digits will follow and the call is destined for NH.

The point is, however, that some places, like Maryland for instance,
do not use a prefix 1 to identify toll calls.  For those places, the
only way to distinguish a local call to the 603 exchange from a long
distance call to New Hampshire is by waiting N seconds after the 7th
digit to see if there will be an 8th.  If not, it puts through the
local call; otherwise it just keeps collecting digits.

    /JBL



UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin     USPS: BBN Communications Corporation
ARPA: [e-mail]                  50 Moulton Street
POTS: [phone]                 Cambridge, MA  02238

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Your call did not go through...
Date: 30 Apr 88 04:47:11 GMT
Reply-To: denwa![e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
>
>    I just called Sun's service center and got the usual "dial 1 for
[...]
>
>    1) What handles the "dial 1 for .." call redirection?  Is it done
>at the CO or by the customers own PBX equipment?

It is done by AT&T in Kansas City.  The call routing information is then sent
back to your local tandem office and a new call is set up.


>    2) What does the "212 4T" mean?  Is there some universal code for

212 is the area code.  4T is the number of the tandem switch.

>    3) Why is the "da Da DAH!" always so loud?

It has to be loud enough to be heard by the equipment (not your ears) that
it is meant for.

...Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]  or  [e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark D. Freeman)
Subject: Re: Is there a path from BITNET to Compuserve?
Date: 30 Apr 88 19:44:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mark D. Freeman)



In <734NU115247@NDSUVM1> [e-mail] writes:
>I would like to know if there is a path between BITNET and Compuserve??

According to some poeple at CompuServe whom I spoke with last week,
connecting CompuServe to non-commercial networks causes an interesting
problem.

If you send mail FROM CompuServe to another network, CompuServe can
bill the sender (who obviously has a CompuServe account).

If you send mail TO CompuServe, who do they bill for the resources to
process it?  You can't charge the RECEIVING CompuServe account, as the
mail might be unsolicited and/or something the CompuServe user doesn't
want to pay for.  They can't bill the non-commercial network, as there
is no central organization with the authority and/or responsibility for
such things.

Creating a link from CompuServe to other commercial networks poses much
less of a problem, in that they need a funny-money exchange agreement,
just like what most universities do for interdepartmental use of CIS
department computer time.

So, there is no link between CompuServe and BITNET.  It seems to me
like the problem keeping that link from being created is insoluble.  If
you have any ideas on ways around the billing problem, I'd like to hear
it.

* I don't work for or use CompuServe in any way.

--
Mark D. Freeman                          [phone]
                          [e-mail]
2440 Medary Avenue       ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mdf
Columbus, OH  43202-3014      Guest account at The Ohio State University

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

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 17:02:16 EDT
From: think![e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Your call did not go through...
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
>    I just called Sun's service center and got the usual "dial 1 for
>software assistance, dial 2 for hardware assistance" message.  I dialed 1
>and got a recording saying, "da Da DAH!  You call did not go through,
>please try again.  212 4T", which raises several questions.

This is an enhanced 800 service provided by AT&T.  You may have noticed that
it didn't ring before you got the announcement, because it's AT&T 800
exchanges talking to you.  It lets you dial through a tree (generally pretty
flat) to decide who actually to call.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, [phone]
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw

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

From: panda![e-mail] (Robert S. Wood)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT COCOTS!
Date: 1 May 88 03:26:07 GMT
Reply-To: panda![e-mail] (Robert S. Wood)



Today I went up to a pay-phone that I had used many times on an Air Force Base,
Hanscom Field, in Massachusetts.  It had turned into an AT&T PAY PHONE.  It
said dial the number and it would tell me how much money to put in.  I touched
the local number I was calling and it asked for 10 cents.  I put it in and the
phone grabbed a regular dial-tone and send tones out to dial my number.  My
dime clicked down.  The phone rang 12 times and I gave up and hung up.  You
guessed it, NO REFUND!

The phone said to dial 00 for Coin Refunds.  I did.  The operator told me I
should call NET, I said no, it was AT&T phone.  She said it was showing as
a customer phone she had no way of refunding.  I asked for a free call to
another number, she said AT&T can not put thru local station calls.  I asked
for a supervisor.  I repeated the same story to the supervisor.  She put me
on hold.  (It has now been 7 minutes).  I was then connected to a person who
answered "AT&T Refunds" and told him the whole story.  He said he had no way
to connect me, did I want the money sent back.  I said "YES"!  He soiled his
pants.  He asked me if I was kidding.  He said was it worth a dime?  I said the
only way AT&T was going to learn to do things right was if ALL of us demanded
our dimes back.  He took my name and address.  He did not understand why I did
not have a Military Rank, and what was a civilian doing on the base anyway?
He ended the whole conversation saying OK, Mr, Civilian Wood, your WHOLE dime
will be mailed to you.

(I think the U.S.Govt has made a "deal" with AT&T).

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 2 May 88 16:03
Subject: re: ISDN standards

In TELECOM V8I68, Robert C. White Jr. claims that he has an idea that
will fix one of ISDN's problems, namely that of terminal compatibility.
He wonders where to bring it -- AT&T didn't seem to listen!

ISDN standards will be included in the 1988 CCITT Blue Books, whose
final technical input will be in very soon.  In the US, ANSI T1S1 is
a) preparing input to CCITT, by means of the State Department's Joint
Working Party; and b) writing the American National Standard for ISDN.
I sit on T1S1.

Standards input comes from member contributions.  There are maybe a
hundred or so members of T1S1 (successor to T1D1, kinda), each of which
sends as many warm bodies to a meeting as they feel like funding.
There are parallel meetings on various topics.  Pretty much all work
is based on written contributions brought in to the meetings.  I bring
home a 4-6 inch stack of paper from each meeting, and that's after
I filter out stuff I'm not interested in.

Now, the mentality of T1S1 is definitely not mainframe to mainframe!
It's primarily telephony, since ISDN is the digital rationalization of
the telephone network, incidentally supporting data.  Since different
types of terminals share the network, compatibility is an issue;
there is a group of people who get together at each ISDN meeting and
hash out specific issues around terminal compatibility and identification.
This is not an area where all sides are equally comfy:  Certain European
administrations (no names, but you might guess) are leery of letting
_too much_ information pass between users before the call is connected,
since that might allow "free" exchange of info.  Remember, "Collect
Call from Joe Shmoishome", "Sorry, I' won't take it"?

If it's an ISDN issue, we've probably beaten it to death at T1S1.
New ideas should be directed at your organization's rep.  (What, you
don't have one?)
        fred

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

Date:     Mon, 2 May 88 17:14:34 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  foreign exchange in a shopping mall

I was in Security Square Mall, in a western suburb of Baltimore, Maryland,
yesterday.  I noticed, on a row of pay phones, 2 phones with a foreign
exchange (301-448, occurring in a nearby part of Baltimore city) next to
about 6 or 7 phones on 301-944 Woodlawn, a "correct" prefix for that area.
Why a neighboring prefix?  Both have Baltimore metro local service, and
the difference is only in the outer fringes (such as 301-877 in Fallston,
Harford County, way to the east of Baltimore city).  Also, since Baltimore
is big enough to have city as opposed to suburban prefixes, 911 would have
different meaning (Baltimore city is not a part of Baltimore county, which
includes Woodlawn area).
The only other cases I know of where a foreign exchange appears on a pay
phone both involve DC metro service from airports: 301-621 Laurel (Bowie-
Glenn Dale service) at BWI and 703-471 Herndon (Vienna service) at Dulles.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************