Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss001-049

Internet Message Format | 1990-01-14 | 577KB

From [e-mail]  Mon Jan  2 20:58:38 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA11327; Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:58:38 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:30:54 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #1
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:30:54 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:

                        Excuses instead of info
                       "Hands On" Seminars, 1989
                        Re: DTMF vs. Touch-Tone
                       Trade Journals of Interest

[Welcome to the new year, and to a new volume of this journal. I hope
1989 will be a year of accomplishment and posterity for you.  P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: hp-sdd![e-mail] (Roger Haaheim)
Subject: Excuses instead of info
Date: 29 Dec 88 13:17:43 GMT



Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number,
hang up, and the dialing phone would ring;  some kind of
echo.  It was used by phonefolks who came to fix the phone,
to check to see if it was working.  They had no problem
telling the customer what that number was so the customer
could dial back to him/herself.  Why has that capability
become proprietary?  I know it's still done, but when I
ask...excuses, but no number.  How come?

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 04:20:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: telecom@bu-cs,bu.edu
Subject: "Hands On" Seminars, 1989


The American Institute, of Madison, NJ has announced the calendar of seminars
and training sessions for telecommunications related subjects for 1989. While
their programs seem to generally be good and very informative/educational,
they are not inexpensive. Typically the rates for the three day seminars range
from $900-$1300, not including your hotel room, etc.

The DataComm Group is a division of American Institute, and for many years it
has had an excellent reputation for its educational programs on technical
subjects. Of the four people I've known who attended these seminars in the
past, three praised them, while one was only mildly enthusiastic. You can get
more information, and/or register by calling or writing the American Institute,
DataComm Group --
                            American Institute
                            DataComm Group
                            55 Main Street
                            Madison, NJ 07940
                            201-377-7400


Seminar schedule -

Hands-On Data Communications   13 hands-on experiment sessions dealing with
============================   the data network; modems; voice/data integration
                               local area networks; and transmission media.

Detroit, MI          February 15-17, 1989
New Brunswick, NJ    February 22-24, 1989
Seattle, WA          March 1-3, 1989
Washington, DC       March 6-8, 1989
San Jose, CA         March 13-15, 1989
Chicago, IL          March 20-22, 1989
New York, NY         April 3-5, 1989
Morristown, NJ       April 10-12, 1989

Hands-On Local Area Networks   Learn latest LAN technologies including Ethernet
============================   and Token-Ring.

New York, NY         January 10-13, 1989     and   March 21-24, 1989
Washington, DC       February 21-24, 1989    and   May 2-5, 1989
Chicago, IL          January 24-27, 1989     and   April 4-7, 1989
Los Angeles, CA      March 7-10, 1989        and   May 9-12, 1989
San Jose, CA         February 7-10, 1989     and   April 25-28, 1989

Hands-On Troubleshooting LAN    Learn LAN network management; LAN problem
============================    detirmination; troubleshooting tools and
                                techniques.

Los Angeles, CA      January 18-20, 1989     and   March 29-31, 1989
New York, NY         February 1-3, 1989      and   April 26-28, 1989
Chicago, IL          February 15-17, 1989    and   April 19-21, 1989
Washington, DC       March 1-3, 1989         and   May 8-10, 1989
San Jose, CA         March 15-17, 1989       and   May 15-17, 1989

Hands-On X.25 OSI Packet Switching   Gain an in-depth understanding of ISDN,
==================================   MAP/TOP networks, OSI, GOSIP networks.
                                     to use Data Analyzers. Actual experiments
                                     with an in-place X.25 PAD.

San Jose, CA         March 1-3, 1989               (only one session here)
Los Angeles, CA      February 15-17, 1989    and   May 15-17, 1989
Chicago, IL          February 22-24, 1989    and   May 8-10, 1989
Washington, DC       March 20-22, 1989             (only one session here)
New York, NY         Apeil 10-12, 1989             (only one session here)


The DataComm Group courses listed above carry either 4 or 5 CEU's, and count
toward advanced level certification.

For more information on all courses and to register, call 201-377-7400.


Patrick Townson

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

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: DTMF vs. Touch-Tone
Date: 30 Dec 88 16:22:44 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Chuck Lukaszewski) writes:
> Actually, DTMF has always been generated by premises telephones.  The in-band
> signalling to which you refer was done with single MF tones which were on
> 200-Khz frequency multiples....

Actually, the inter-office signaling uses tone-pairs.  Each digit
(and a couple of "control characters") is represented as two of
five tones.  The individual frequencies are spaced at 200 Hz (not
kHz) intervals.

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 04:53:07 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Trade Journals of Interest


Four publications I've found to be useful for telecommunications people are
listed below. You may already subscribe to one or more of them.

TELECONNECT - A Monthly Telecommunications Magazine
This general news and features magazine is published monthly by Telecom
Library, Inc. A one year subscription (12 issues) is $15. Harry Newton is
the editor, and his writing is quite good. Telecom Library, Inc. is located
at 12 West 21st Street, New York, NY 10010. They prefer to receive mail and
editorial submissions on their free email system at 212-989-4675. (300/1200).

TPT Networking Management
This rather technical publication devoted its December, 1988 issues to
articles on 'Baby Bells look for a new image', 'Overview of X.25 Systems',
'Timing is Everything in Network Strategy', and 'Will FTS-2000 arrive by
the millennium?'. In this last article, columnist John Gantz talks about
the US Government's 'fumbling and bumbling in the telephone business'.
Published monthly, subscriptions are free to qualified recipients. It is
published by Penn-Well Publishing Company, 1421 South Sheridan, Tulsa, OK
74112. Editorial and production offices are in Westford, MA at 508-692-0700.

Telecom Gear
This is a sort of 'shopper newspaper' specializing in sometimes hard to find
telecom equipment and supplies. It is free, and published monthly, typically
with 150-200 pages of advertising from all sorts of mail order houses which
specialize in telecom stuff. If you subscribe to TELECONNET (see above)
then you automatically get TELECOM GEAR it seems. The best way to describe
this publication is to compare it to 'Computer Shopper'. It has many of the
same kinds of ads for buying/selling used equipment, etc. Their address is
Telecom Gear, 1265 Industrial Highway, Southampton, PA 18966.

U.S. Telecom Digest
No, this is NOT the 'print edition' of what you are reading now. It is a
rather expensive (at $109 for 23 issues per year, bi-weekly) newsletter which
seems to have good, thorough and accurate reports on a wide variety of
telecom-related issues. They provide very extensive coverage of telecom legal
matters; they report in great detail on pending legislation and FCC activities
relating to telecommunications. Their address is --
U.S. Telecom Digest, 1101 King St. Suite 444, Alexandria, VA 22314.

I read other telecom-related publications, but I would say the above four
are 'must-reads' for me. The others I get to as time permits each month.


Patrick Townson

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

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

From [e-mail]  Tue Jan  3 00:58:17 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA20278; Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:58:17 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:10:00 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #2
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:10:00 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:

                800 Service and OCN Translation Table

[Moderator's Note: This special issue of the Digest has been produced
from information provided by Scott Statton, and discusses how prefixes
in 'area code 800' are assigned, and the telcos associated with each.

DON'T FORGET that system 'xx.lcs.mit.edu' is no longer available to us.
If you mail to us there, we do NOT get the mail any longer. Use only
the bu-cs.bu.edu address.    P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:30:08 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Service



     As some readers of this list may not know, under Equal Access,
any long-distance company can carry 1-800 traffic.  Which carrier gets
the call is determined (at the moment) by the NNX of the number.  I.E.
1-800-528-1234 (The nation-wide number for making reservations at a
Best Western Motel) is carried by AT&T.  While 1-800-888-1800 is
carried by MCI.

    The carrier must have Feature Group D presence for originating
calls from the originating exchange (either direct, or through an
access tandem).

     In the future, when CCIS becomes wide-spread, a query will be
made in the database [Who gets 1-800-985-1234?] and the call will be
routed appropriately.  To clarify:  Now the carrier is determined by
the NNX.  In the future, the carrier will be determined by the entire
7 digits.

     A similar situation exists with 900 service.  Each carrier can
reserve NXX-s from BellCore (the people who among a zillion other
tasks are in charge of handing out prefixes and area codes).  They're
not cheap!  To get the actual number is free (there are qualifications
that I don't deal with), but to get it 'turned on' in a LATA costs you
money, depending on (1) How many prefixes you're getting, (2) whether
it's 800 or 900 service, (3) How many Tandems/End Offices are in the
LATA.  It requires a discrete amount of labor for EACH office, because
EACH routing table must be modified.

     Of the 800 possible NXX-s, 409 are currently assigned.  A
long-distance carrier can get one 800 and four 900 numbers just for
the paperwork.  But to get more than that, you have to show that
you're 70% full now, and demonstrate a real need for the capacity.

     I have included the entire 800-NXX to long-distance carrier
translation table.  Note that not every NXX is valid in every area.

Revised 800/OCN Translation Table
Effective 10 October 1988

221 ATX        222 ATX        223 ATX        224 LDL        225 ATX
226 MIC        227 ATX        228 ATX        229 TDX        230 NTK
231 ATX        232 ATX        233 ATX        234 MCI        235 ATX
236 SCH        237 ATX        238 ATX        239 DLT        240 SIR
241 ATX        242 ATX        243 ATX        244 ---        245 ATX
246 ---        247 ATX        248 ATX        249 ---        250 ---
251 ATX        252 ATX        253 ATX        254 TTU        255 ATX
256 LSI        257 ATX        258 ATX        259 ---        260 ---
261 SCH        262 ATX        263 CAN        264 ICT        265 CAN
266 CSY        267 CAN        268 CAN        269 FDG        270 ---
271 ---        272 ATX        273 ---        274 MCI        275 ITT
276 ONE        277 SNT        278 ---        279 MAL        280 ADG
281 ---        282 ATX        283 MCI        284 MCI        285 ---
286 ---        287 ---        288 MCI        289 MCI        290 ---
291 ---        292 ATX        293 PRO        294 ---        295 ---
296 ---        297 ARE        298 ---        299 CYT

321 ATX        322 ATX        323 ATX        324 HNI        325 ATX
326 UTC        327 ATX        328 ATX        329 TET        330 TET
331 ATX        332 ATX        333 MCI        334 ATX        335 SCH
336 ATX        337 FST        338 ATX        339 ---        340 ---
341 ATX        342 ATX        343 ATX        344 ATX        345 ATX
346 ATX        347 UTC        348 ATX        349 DCT        350 CSY
351 ATX        352 ATX        353 ---        354 ---        355 ---
356 ATX        357 ---        358 ATX        359 UTC        360 ---
361 CAN        362 ATX        363 CAN        364 HNI        365 MCI
366 UTC        367 ATX        368 ATX        369 TDD        370 TDD
371 ---        372 ATX        373 TDD        374 ---        375 TNO
376 ---        377 GTS        378 ---        379 ---        380 ---
381 ---        382 ATX        383 TDD        384 FDT        385 CAB
386 TBQ        387 CAN        388 ---        389 ---        390 ---
391 ---        392 ATX        393 EXF        394 ---        395 ---
396 ---        397 TDD        398 ---        399 ARZ

421 ATX        422 ATX        423 ATX        424 ATX        425 TTH
426 ATX        427 ---        428 ATX        429 ---        430 ---
431 ATX        432 ATX        433 ATX        434 AGN        435 ATX
436 IDN        437 ATX        438 ATX        439 ---        440 TXN
441 ATX        442 ATX        443 ATX        444 MCI        445 ATX
446 ATX        447 ATX        448 ATX        449 ---        450 USL
451 ATX        452 ATX        453 ATX        454 ALN        455 ---
456 MCI        457 ATX        458 ATX        459 ---        460 ---
461 CAN        462 ATX        463 CAN        464 --        465 CAN
466 ALN        467 ICT        468 ATX        469 ---        470 ---
471 ALN        472 ATX        473 ---        474 ---        475 TDD
476 TDD        477 ---        478 AAM        479 ---        480 ---
481 ---        482 ATX        483 ---        484 TDD        485 TDD
486 TDX        487 ---        488 ---        489 TOM        490 ---
491 ---        492 ATX        493 ---        494 ---        495 ---
496 ---        497 ---        498 ---        499 ---

521 ATX        522 ATX        523 ATX        524 ATX        525 ATX
526 ATX        527 ATX        528 ATX        529 MIT        530 ---
531 ATX        532 ATX        533 ATX        534 ---        535 ATX
536 ALN        537 ATX        538 ATX        539 ---        540 ---
541 ATX        542 ATX        543 ATX        544 ATX        545 ATX
546 UTC        547 ATX        548 ATX        549 ---        550 CMA
551 ATX        552 ATX        553 ATX        554 ATX        555 ATX
556 ATX        557 ALN        558 ATX        559 ---        560 ---
561 CAN        562 ATX        563 CAN        564 ---        565 CAN
566 ALN        567 CAN        568 ---        569 ---        570 ---
571 ---        572 ATX        573 ---        574 AMM        575 ---
576 ---        577 GTS        578 ---        579 LNS        580 WES
581 ---        582 ATX        583 TDD        584 TDD        585 ---
586 ATC        587 LTQ        588 ATC        589 LGT        590 ---
591 ---        592 ATX        593 TDD        594 TDD        595 ---
596 ---        597 ---        598 ---        599 ---

621 ATX        622 ATX        623 ---        624 ATX        625 NLD
626 ATX        627 MCI        628 ATX        629 ---        630 ---
631 ATX        632 ATX        633 ATX        634 ATX        635 ATX
636 CQU        637 ATX        638 ATX        639 BUR        640 ---
641 ATX        642 ATX        643 ATX        644 CMA        645 ATX
646 ---        647 ATX        648 ATX        649 ---        650 ---
651 ---        652 ATX        653 ---        654 ATX        655 ---
656 ---        657 TDD        658 TDD        659 ---        660 ---
661 CAN        662 ATX        663 CAN        664 UTC        665 CAN
666 MCI        667 CAN        668 CAN        669 UTC        670 ---
671 ---        672 ATX        673 TDD        674 TDD        675 ---
676 ---        677 ---        678 MCI        679 ---        680 ---
681 ---        682 ATX        683 MTD        684 ---        685 ---
686 LGT        687 NTS        688 ---        689 ---        690 ---
691 ---        692 ATX        693 ---        694 ---        695 ---
696 ---        697 ---        698 NYC        699 PLG

720 TGN
721 ---        722 ATX        723 ---        724 RTC        725 SAN
726 UTC        727 MCI        728 TDD        729 UTC        730 ---
731 ---        732 ATX        733 UTC        734 ---        735 UTC
736 UTC        737 MEC        738 MEC        739 ---        740 ---
741 MIC        742 ATX        743 EDS        744 ---        745 ---
746 ---        747 TDD        748 TDD        749 TDD        750 ---
751 ---        752 ATX        753 ---        754 TSH        755 ---
756 ---        757 TID        758 ---        759 MCI        760 ---
761 ---        762 ATX        763 ---        764 AAM        765 ---
766 ---        767 UTC        768 SNT        769 ---        770 GCN
771 SNT        772 ATX        773 CUX        774 ---        775 ---
776 UTC        777 MCI        778 UTC        779 TDD        780 TDD
781 ---        782 ATX        783 ALN        784 ALG        785 SNH
786 *1        787 ---        788 ---        789 TMU        790 ---
791 ---        792 ATX        793 ---        794 ---        795 ---
796 ---        797 TID        798 TDD        799 --

821 ATX        822 ATX        823 THA        824 ATX        825 MCI
826 ATX        827 UTC        828 ATX        829 UTC        830 ---
831 ATX        832 ATX        833 ATX        834 ---        835 ATX
836 TDD        837 TDD        838 ---        839 VST        840 ---
841 ATX        842 ATX        843 ATX        844 LDD        845 ATX
846 ---        847 ATX        848 ATX        849 ---        850 TKC
851 ATX        852 ATX        853 ---        854 ATX        855 ATX
856 ---        857 TLS        858 ATX        859 ---        860 ---
861 ---        862 ATX        863 ALN        864 TEN        865 ---
866 ---        867 ---        868 SNT        869 UTC        870 ---
871 ---        872 ATX        873 MCI        874 ATX        875 ALN
876 MCI        877 UTC        878 ALN        879 ---        880 NAS
881 NAS        882 ATX        883 ---        884 ---        885 ATX
886 ALN        887 ETS        888 MCI        889 ---        890 ---
891 ---        892 ATX        893 ---        894 ---        895 ---
896 TXN        897 ---        898 CGI        899 TDX

921 ---        922 ATX        923 ALN        924 ---        925 ---
926 ---        927 ---        928 CIS        929 ---        930 ---
931 ---        932 ATX        933 ---        934 ---        935 ---
936 RBW        937 MCI        938 ---        939 ---        940 TSF
941 ---        942 ATX        943 ---        944 ---        945 ---
946 ---        947 ---        948 ---        949 ---        950 MCI
951 BML        952 ATX        953 ---        954 ---        955 MCI
956 ---        957 ---        958 *2        959 *2        960 CNO
961 ---        962 ATX        963 SOC        964 ---        965 ---
966 TDX        967 ---        968 TED        969 TDX        970 ---
971 ---        972 ATX        973 ---        974 ---        975 ---
976 ---        977 ---        978 ---        979 ---        980 ---
981 ---        982 ATX        983 WUT        984 ---        985 ---
986 WUT        987 ---        988 WUT        989 TDX        990 ---
991 ---        992 ATX        993 ---        994 ---        995 ---
996 VOA        997 ---        998 ---        999 MCI

NOTES:
*1 -- RELEASED FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENT
*2 -- These NXX codes are generally reserved for test applications; They
      may be reserved for Acess Tandem testing from an End Office.

Note also:  The following NXX are dedicated for RCCP (Radio Common Carrier
Paging) under the discretion of the local exchange carrier:

202, 212, 302, 312, 402, 412, 502, 512, 602, 612, 702, 712, 802, 812, 902,
and 912.

OCN Reference List:

ADG - Advantage Network, Inc.        AGN - AMRIGON
ALG - Allnet Communication Services     AMM - Access Long Distance
AAM - ALASCOM                ARE - American Express TRS
ARZ - AmeriCall Corporation (Calif.)    ATC - Action Telecom Co.
ATX - AT&T                BML - Phone America
BUR - Burlington Tel.              CAB - Hedges Communications
CAN - Telcom Canada            CNO - COMTEL of New Orleans
CQU - ConQuest Comm. Corp        CSY - COM Systems
CUX - Compu-Tel Inc.             CYT - ClayDesta Communications
DCT - Direct Communications, Inc.    DLT - Delta Communications, Inc.
EDS - Electronic Data Systems Corp.     ETS - Eastern Telephone Systems, Inc.
EXF - Execulines of Florida, Inc.    FDG - First Digital Network
FDN - Florida Digital Network        FDT - Friend Technologies
FST - First Data Resources        GCN - General Communications, Inc.
GTS - Telenet Comm. Corp.        HNI - Houston Network, Inc.
ITT - United States Transmission System    LDD - LDDS-II, Inc.
LDL - Long Distance for Less        LGT - LITEL
LNS - Lintel Systems            LSI - Long Distance Savers
LTQ - Long Distance for Less         MAL - MIDAMERICAN
MCI - MCI Telecommunications Corp.    MDE - Meade Associates
MEC - Mercury, Inc.            MIC - Microtel, Inc.
MIT - Midco Communications        MTD - Metromedia Long Distance
NLD - National Data Corp.        NTK - Network Telemanagement Svcs.
NTS - NTS Communications        ONC - OMNICALL, Inc.
ONE - One Call Communications, Inc.    PHE - Phone Mail, Inc.
PLG - Pilgrim Telephone Co.        PRO - PROTO-COL
RBW - R-Comm                RTC - RCI Corporation
SAN - Satelco                SCH - Schneider Communications
SDY - TELVUE Corp.            SIR - Southern Interexchange Services
SLS - Southland Systems, Inc.        SNH - Sunshine Telephone Co.
SNT - SouthernNet, Inc.            SOC - State of California
TBQ - Telecable Corp.            TDD - Teleconnect
TDX - Cable & Wireless Comm.        TED - TeleDial America
TEM - Telesystems, Inc.            TEN - Telesphere Network, Inc.
TET - Teltec Savings Communications Co.    TGN - Telemanagement Consult't Corp.
THA - Touch America            TID - TMC South Central Indiana
TKC - TK Communications, Inc.        TLS - TELE-SAV
TMU - Tel-America, Inc.            TNO - ATC Cignal Communications
TOM - TMC of Montgomery            TOR - TMC of Orlando
TSF - SOUTH-TEL                TSH - Tel-Share
TTH - Tele Tech, Inc.            TTU - Total-Tel USA
TXN - Tex-Net                USL - U.S. Link Long Distance
UTC - U.S. Telcom, Inc. (U.S. Sprint)    VOA - Valu-Line
VST - STAR-LINE                WES - Westel
WUT - Western Union Telegraph Co.

NOTE: Where local telcos, such as Illinois Bell offer 800 service, they
purchase blocks of numbers from AT&T on prefixes assigned to AT&T. They
are free to purhcase blocks of numbers from any carrier of their choice
however.


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

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan  4 01:13:02 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA16740; Wed, 4 Jan 89 01:13:02 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89  0:44:59 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #3
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 4 Jan 89  0:44:59 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:

                            Re: A Tiny Tim
                            Re: A Tiny Tim
                    Re: Touch-Tone around the world
                          TouchTone in the UK
                       Re: Excuses but No Number
                      Hands-on Telecom Curricula
              Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
                           Time marches on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 08:21:50 PST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim
Cc: gmeeca![e-mail]


According to my wife, California State University at Northridge just had a
conference on computer aids for the handicapped.  One of their gizmos that
made the local TV news was an interface that allowed an ALS patient to
communicate by focusing on words on a gridded CRT screen.  Said patient had
control over only his eye muscles.  You might want to contact folk over there
for more details (they have a lab that specializes in custom-fit computer aids
for the handicapped).

Daniel

--
Work : The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149
Home : 8333 Columbus Avenue #17  * Sepulveda CA 91343            * 818/892-8555
Internet : [e-mail]  +----------------------------------------
Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box# 3149     |  Take what you like, and leave the rest

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

Date: 3 Jan 89 08:01:55 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],



Re: "... hooking an automobile accident to a computer ..."

I just noticed the following item in "Online Today", the monthly magazine
of Compuserve:

Apple "Pickings" for the Disabled:

A packet of information on Apple computer resources for the handicapped is
available from Access Unlimited Speech Enterprises, a charitable,
non-profit, special technology corporation.

The package includes titles, descriptions and prices of talking and larger
print Apple software, accessories, peripherals and special hardware, such
as alternatives to the standard keyboard.

The products described in the packet are being used by the blind,
low-visioned, multiple-handicapped, mute, reading- or learning-disabled,
mentally retarded and hearing impaired.  Some are designed for users with
special needs, while others are general-market products that are
recommended additions to the Apple computer system used by a handicapped
child or adult.

When requesting a free information packet, include your name, organization,
address and telephone number, the nature of the disability being addressed,
computer of interest, and age or developmental level.  Information tailored
to your needs will be sent.  Mention that you heard of the packet in
"Online Today."  To order, call 800/531-5314 (nationwide) or 800/292-5619
(in Texas).

The organization also is selling a 10-minute VHS videotape of severely
handicapped children and young adults using Apple computers to demonstrate
the versatility of the machines.  The tape costs $45 plus $3.50 shipping
and handling.  To order, call 713/461-0006.

For information, contact Access Unlimited Speech Enterprises, 99039 Katy
Freeway, Suite 414, Houston TX 77024.

Information on computers and the handicapped is available in the
Disabilities Forum [on Compuserve] (GO DISABILITIES).

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone around the world
Date: 3 Jan 89 21:31:34 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> mcvax!santra.hut.fi![e-mail] writes:
>
>As a side show, I've also had problems on long-distance connections in
>Finland, and they sound a lot like the slippage problems that were described
>here.  When I call Helsinki from Jyvaskyla, I keep getting these {'s almost
>every five seconds !  The problem is, there are three (!) companies involved
>in the mess: the local telco for Jyvaskyla area, the PTT (as the long-distance
>carrier) and the Helsinki local telco.  The problem would seem to in the
>PTT/Helsinki telco connection.  A lot on it I can do to it from here...
>
If (1) the '{'s appear regularly, rather than sporadically, (2) they
appear more often on more expensive calls, and (3) you don't have
itemized long distance billing in your area, you may be suffering from
metering pulses.  I know they used them recently in Sweden, but I
don't know whether other countries have used this billing method. The
idea is that the long-distance office sends these tone pulses (at
10-20kHz) at intervals representing some monetary unit worth of
service, and something remarkably like a gas meter records them at the
local office.

Some modems are immune to these pulses. With others, if this is indeed
the problem, you might be able to improvise a low-pass filter (or get
one from the PTT? sounds to practical to be true.) Of course, it could
be slips or bad noise, too.

                Peter Desnoyers

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

Date: 3 Jan 89 06:39:43 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: TouchTone in the UK
From: "hugh_davies.WGC1RX"@Xerox.COM
To: [e-mail]


I rang the local British Telecom telephone sales office to enquire if the
new exchange (a TXE4A, I believe - judging by its inability to provide
dialtone on offhook in about 50% of occasions) in the St.Albans (where I
live) supported TouchTone dialling. The person I spoke to said, and I
quote, "What's TouchTone dialling?". Sigh.

Hugh.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:47:56 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Grant)
To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Excuses but No Number


The phone companies are far less willing to let other people know the
internal test numbers these days since there are independent telephone
repair people (who do not work for the telephone company) who would
use them.

-Mike

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 23:17:24 mst
From: harvard!arizona.edu!naucse.UUCP!rrw (Robert Wier)
To: arizona!noao!ncar!husc6!harvard!bu-cs![e-mail]
Subject: Hands-on Telecom Curricula
Cc: naucse![e-mail]


 Patrick -
 I am teaching a data networks/data communications class for senior level
 undergrads this semester (consisting of both cs and ee types).  I'd like
 to have some "hands-on" lab assignments.  I got to thinking about this
 from your recent posting of classes from the American Institute.  I wonder
 if you might have any suggestions on sources or suggestions for lab type
 projects along these lines?  I have been in contact with a few people and
 have a couple of ideas, but could use a few more.

 Feel free to post this to the net if you think it worthwhile.

 Thanks -

 -Bob Wier at Flagstaff, Arizona         Northern Arizona University
  ...arizona!naucse!rrw |  BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers*

[Readers: what can you suggest for Mr. Wier's lesson preparations?  PT]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: "Norman S. Soley" <ontenv!soley>
Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
Date:     Mon, 2 Jan 89 17:48:56 EST



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black) writes:
: I just read a short review in PC Week about a  $400  gizmo  which
: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the
: caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person
: press  the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice
: phone, which rings as usual.  If '3' is not  pressed,  the  gizmo
: box  assumes  that  a  fax  or  modem  is  calling, and your data
: equipment receives the incoming call.  Seems like a good  way  to
: get double use of one line.
:
: The $400 seems overpriced for what  you  get

I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in
addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with
voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable)
considering this the price is quite reasonable.

--
Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
UUCP:    uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley    VOICE:    [phone]
OR:     [e-mail]
  " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"


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

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 09:31:08 PST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Time marches on...


I walked by a shop yesterday that specializes in antique stuff
for movie sets (you know, 1959 licence plates and the like) and
one of the things they had in the window was a telephone that had
a dial on it. Kinda makes you think...

laura halliday
University of B.C.

[Moderator's note: Yep. And people with touch tone phones are still a
*minority* in the United States, let alone other countries. Did you know
that? For all the to-do which is made of touch tone phones in this country,
there are still millions of subscribers with rotary dial service and POTS,
which means 'plain old telephone service'. I've had touch tone since around
1967; long before anyone I know had it. Likewise with modems: Maybe five
to ten percent of all phone subscribers have one. Another thirty to forty
percent have probably never even heard of them, or only know vaguely what
they do. Yet we look at an 'antique' rotary dial phone and say how quaint
it is. In my collection of old phones here, I have a 'french-style' unit
with the fat base, the skinny, short neck, and the four fingers which hold
the receiver in place. Best of all, it is a phone without a dial at all,
with a brown *cloth* straight cord from the handset to the base and the jack.
The bottom of the instrument says it was manufactured by the Western Electric
Company, Hawthorne Works, 1930. It still works fine.   Patrick Townson]



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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Jan  5 00:38:03 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA12710; Thu, 5 Jan 89 00:38:03 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89  0:21:23 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #4
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Jan 89  0:21:23 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:

                          Old Princess phones
                   Network Management Meeting in DC
                  Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation
                      Re: Excuses instead of info
                     Illinois Bell Rate Reduction
                            Re: A Tiny Tim
                            Re: A Tiny Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Old Princess phones
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 89 09:39:47 PST
From: [e-mail]


I have in my (remote) possession two older TouchTone Princess phones.
With problems, of course. What I don't have is a schematic.

The phone were manufactured in 2/71 and 3/75. Both have the code
"2702B" stamped on the bottom. Neither one rings -- this seems more
likely to be a configuration problem than anything else, because they
both have ringers (unlike much older Princess phones which needed a
separate one). I just don't know what jumper to move to which terminal.

One phone (the older one) is considerably stranger. It receives calls
just fine, but can't place them. When you dial, it produces tones, but
they don't break dial tone. My ear tells me that the tones aren't quite
right -- one of the pair sounds right, but the second tone sounds
consistently too high pitched. Strikes me as pretty weird.

Can anyone help?

chris

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

Date: 4 Jan 89 17:25:00 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Network Management Meeting in DC
To: "telecom" <[e-mail]>



NETWORK MANAGEMENT ROUNDTABLE
Association for Computing Machinery
Washington, DC Chapter
Special Interest Group on Data Communications
February 9, 1989, 1 to 5 P.M.

SPEAKERS:  John Geraghty, IBM, on Netview product
           Keith Young, AT&T, on Unified Network Management
           Local standards organizations on NM standards

ABSTRACT:

For a long time, network management was the forgotten part of network design,
added as an afterthought to a design if at all.  This has changed, and now
network design protocols and standards are developed or being developed.  The
major products for network management today are IBM's Netview and AT&T's
Unified Network Management.  Both of these products and a host of others are
committed to move in the same direction as the developing OSI Network
Management standards.

John Geraghty of IBM and Keith Young of AT&T will discuss approaches to
network management.  This will include views of the history of network
management and some future directions.  The Netview and Unified Network
Management products will be used as concrete examples of currently available
network management products.  Other speakers will discuss the current state of
OSI standards for network management.

PLACE:

Naval Research Laboratories, Building 222 Auditorium.  From the Beltway on the
Maryland side of the Wilson Bridge, take I-295 one mile north to NRL exit
(Exit 1).  Make right at light onto Overlook Avenue then left onto Chesapeake
Street.  Stop at outer guardhouse,and state where you are going. Stop at inner
guardhouse and identify yourself.  Carpooling advised as parking is difficult.

ROUNDTABLE:

Roundtables are intended to provide for a sharing of ideas between developers
using a particular technology, and thus normally provide ample opportunity for
questions and discussions.  They are free and open to the general public;
however, reservations are necessary.  Please contact Bill DeKeyser at Comtek,
301-681-0825 with your full name and citizenship by noon, February 7.




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

Date: 4 JAN 89 20:13-
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation


Is there a relatively inexpensive device I could buy to attach to a standard
RJ11 telephone line which has both 3-way, and telco call forwarding as well as
the fact that there is another line in the house which would allow me to
remotely control call forwarding.  I would want to be able to activate,
deactivate, and change the number it forwards to, but of course security is
important.  Does such an inexpensive beast exist???

Thanks,

Daniel
____________________________________________________________________________
US MAIL    : CPU #1026  25 Andrews Memorial Dr.  Rochester, NY  14623      |
BITNET     : DMG4449@RITVAX | AppleLink : DanielGr                         |
INTERNET   : [e-mail]                |
UUCP       : {psuvax1,mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!dmg4449                         |
Compuserve : 71641,1311     | GEnie : D.GREENBERG2 | PHONE : [716] 475-4295|

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Dan Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 4 Jan 89 09:46:57 GMT

>Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number,
>hang up, and the dialing phone would ring;  some kind of

Here in Evanston, IL, beginning a few years ago you had to put a "1"
in front of the test sequence that you used to use.

In Evanston, depending on your prefix, 475, 328, ...
you have to use one of 571...576, I'm not sure how they map.
Other cities should also use the same 571...576 set.

My house, say 475-9999, uses:
dial 1-572-9999, hear funny tone, click phone, hear tone, hang up, it rings.
You can loop here^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^

I have my phone bell hooked up (via a Fone-Flasher (Radio Shack)) to a
circle of christmas lights around my room.  When the phone rings it's
a "ring of fire," especially when just waking up.  So that test number
is great for entertaining guests.
--
Dan Jacobson, [e-mail], {oddjob,gargoyle,att,...}!nucsrl!jacobson

[Moderator's Note: Evanston and Chicago are the same difference, telephonically
speaking. Dan is a few blocks up the street from my house. We in Chicago use
1-571-your last four digits through 1-577-last four. Whether the key is 571,
572,573,574,575,576 or 577 is an arbitrary decision in the CO.]


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

Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 20:55:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Illinois Bell Rate Reduction



For the past nearly two years, Illinois Bell has given a one third discount
on unit charges for local calls made between the hours of 9 PM and 8 AM the
next morning.  This is done obviously to encourage use of the telephone at
times when the network is least busy.

Effective on January 1, the discount period has been expanded to include all
day Sunday -- actually from 9 PM Saturday straight through until 8 AM Monday.

The way this is calculated is on the number of units used to place a call; not
the cost of the units themselves. A call within your local calling area here
costs one unit during the day, and .6667 of a unit during the overnight (and
now Sunday as well) hours. A call that costs 6 units during the day costs
2 units at night or on Sunday, etc.  After a given number of units are used,
there is a further reduction in the price of the units themselves. Units
range in price from 3.5 cents each to 5.5 cents each, depending on the number
used in a month. Obviously during discount periods you use fewer units and
it takes longer to cross the threshold where the cost of the units go down.


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

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 23:33:30 EST
From: kodak![e-mail] (barry ornitz)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim

I remember seeing a device in _QST_ magazine many years ago that might help.
(QST is an amateur radio magazine published by the American Radio Relay League
of Newington, CT.)  This device enabled a quadraplegic to operate a ham radio
by using a collection of plastic soda straws for the individual to puff into.
The straws connected to sensitive pressure switches that did the actual control
of the radio.  These switches are quite inexpensive and are available on the
surplus market.  The solid-state pressure transducers would also work if an
analog output were needed, or they could feed a comparator circuit.  These
switches could be wired in parallel with the cursor keys (with repeat) to give
a mouse-like functionality.  A pressure sensitivity on the order of ten to
twenty inches of water should be satisfactory.

Back in college, I helped make a number of modifications to radio equipment for
a friend who was a semi-quadraplegic - he could move his arms but not wrists
or fingers.  Amateur radio opened up a new world to my friend, and I am glad
to have been able to help.  If the idea of using pressure switches looks
promising in this application, I'll see what I can find for pressure sensors.
                                                      Barry
 -----------------
|  ___  ________  |
| |  / /        | |  Dr. Barry L. Ornitz  UUCP:..rutgers!rochester!kodak!ornitz
| | / /         | |  Eastman Kodak Company
| |< < K O D A K| |  Eastman Chemicals Division Research Laboratories
| | \ \         | |  P. O. Box 1972
| |__\ \________| |  Kingsport, TN  37662       615/229-4904
|                 |
 -----------------


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Rick Thomas)
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim
Date: 5 Jan 89 00:00:00 GMT



An idea that I have often wondered about in this area involves some of
the results from the "bio-feedback" experiments that were done in the
60s and 70s.  It turns out that you can easily learn to consciously
control individual muscle fibers, as long as something is hooked to
them that can feed-back to you the information that they have twitched
or not.  This extends also to brain waves.  You can learn to enhance or
diminish the intensity of your own alpha and theta waves (The alpha
waves are indicators of a "meditative" brain state and the thetas are
indicative of a "concentrating-alert" brain state.  Learning to control
them can influence the degree of attentiveness you can muster to a
basically boring task, such as air-traffic control, but that is a
different story.)  I don't know for a fact -- but surmise -- that other
aspects of brain activity can be controlled consciously as well.  This
means that a person need have no motor control at all and can still
produce consciously controlled alterations in a measurable variable.
With appropriate computer support, this could be turned into a
communications channel.  There is even a company that markets a card
and software for IBM PC's and a head-band that measures brain activity
-- for use by "bio-feedback" hobbyists.  I believe they advertise in
BYTE -- I don't have the details handy though -- My BYTEs are at home
and I am at work.  With a PC, that card, and some home-brew software,
one could easily have a brain-driven word processor.  With some
(relatively) cheap hobbyist robotics hardware and some home-brew
software, it could become a manipulative prosthesis.  The possibilities
are endless.
--

Rick Thomas
uucp: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!caip.rutgers.edu!rbthomas
arpa: [e-mail]

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

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


From [e-mail]  Fri Jan  6 00:44:12 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA27340; Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:44:12 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:05:58 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #5
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:05:58 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:

                TENCON - IEEE conference in India 1989
                            Re: A Tiny Tim
                            Re: A Tiny Tim
                 How To Detirmine Your Ringback Number
              Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
                        Re: Old Princess phones
                         Re: Time marches on...

[This is a re-transmission of V9 #5. For reasons unknown, the first
mailing got mangled; about half of you got only a partial copy.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hou2d![e-mail]
To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde
Subject: TENCON - IEEE conference in India 1989
Date: 5 Jan 89 05:37:52 GMT


************************************************************************
                     TENCON 1989 IN INDIA
************************************************************************
             IEEE Region 10 Conference

    Theme : Information Technologies for the 90's

    Dates : 22, 23, 24 Nov 1989
    Place : Bombay, India

    Major Topics :    Networks
            Communication Systems
            Signal Processing
            Computers & Applications
            Circuits & Devices
            Energy
            Socio-Economic Issues

People interested in
            submitting papers
            organizing sessions
            panel discussions


Please send me your session proposal and / or paper by e-mail first. Please
include the following:

Title of the session
Summary of the session
Sub-topics of the session
Potential / actual papers (title, author, estimated number of pages
                           abstract, if any)
Details of the session organizer(s) / chair(s)
(address, phone(s), fax, e-mail address bio, IEEE experience,
 session experience)

For a paper please include:

Title of the paper
Author's details (address, phone, fax, e-mail address)
Abstract
Estimated number of pages
You have to send a hard copy of your submittal later.

Thank you, again.

With warm regards,

K.R.S. Murthy
AT&T Bell Labs
Room 1G-306
480 Red Hill Road
Middletown
NJ 07748
(201)-615-4629
E-mail ..!att!hou2d!krsm


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

Date:  6 Jan 89 10:18:57 +1100 (Fri)
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Rowan Munchenberg)
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim
Organization: OTC Development Unit, Australia


At the University of Adelaide (Australia) one of the Researchers has developed
a device called "CEDRIC" which determines where on a screen a users eye is
directed. This is used to enable severly handicapped to interface to a computer
and possibly voice synthesis software. The user selects words from screen menus,
or letters if the word is not available, to form sentences or instructions to
the computer.

This summary is of the work about 12 months previous. If there is interest I
can contract the person involved, Andrew Downing, for more details. To my
knowledge this is a product that is already marketed but I am not certain of
this.

e-mail to me for further information if required.

Rowan Munchenberg
Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Australia
SNAIL: GPO Box 7000 Sydney Australia 2001
E-MAIL: uunet!munnari!otc!rowan
    uunet!munnari![e-mail]


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

To: att!ptsfa!ames![e-mail]
From: nesac2![e-mail] (John Carter ATLN SADM)
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim
Date: 6 Jan 89 01:31:30 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, gmeeca![e-mail] writes:
> My father is in need of information about hooking an automobile accident
> victim to a computer (hopefully to give her speech).  Regretably, there is
> not too much to work with, as she is brain damaged enough to make all motion
> most complex.  Are there joy sticks that can be operated by tongue?  Is there
> someone who has equipment that can read eye position so that she can look up
> words on a screen.  It appears that most of the "smarts" are still intact,
> but none of the wiring is hooked to a voluntary controller.

Many requests for interfaces for handicapped people are posted on Usenet, but
I don't remember seeing anyone pointed to the handicap forum on Compu$erve.

The time it would take to make a request for this type information would be
very inexpensive (even at $12+/hour), and the responses would be from people
who are involved with (or are themselves) handicapped persons.

I haven't been on the handicap forum, so I don't know the absolute level of
expertise there, but if some of the other 'hardware' related forums are any
example, this would be an excellent place to look.

If the original poster will contact me, I'll try to retrieve data related
to the specifics of the handicapped person's abilities.
--
USnail: John Carter, AT&T, 401 W. Peachtree, FLOC 2932-6, Atlanta GA 30308
Video:    ...att!nesac2!jec    Voice: 404+581-6239
The machine belongs to the company.  The opinions are mine.



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

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 03:15:58 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subj: How To Locate Ringback Number

Roger Haaheim asks about how to find the ringback number for your switch
withot the phone company's help.

On most ESS systems, if you set up a reasonably intelligent modem to dial
each possible exchange followed by the last 4 digits of your phone number
(for instance, if your phone number was 552-4563, then you would write a
program to dial 220-4563, 221-4563, etc...) until it hits a dial tone.
For instance, for my number, the ringback exchange is 952.  If I dial 952
and the last 4 digits of my phone number, I get a dial tone.  Then I can
hang up for a half second, pick it up, and hang it up again.  About 3
seconds later, it will ring.  What fun.

I think I explained this before (and in just a befuddling fashion), but
each physical switch handles one or more logical exchanges.  For instance,
in Ann Arbor, one switch handles numbers with the prefixes 662, 663, 665,
668, and 930.  The "phantom" ringback exchanges generally used by Michigan
Bell start at 951.  Therefore, for my switch, 662 phone numbers use 951,
663 phone numbers use 952, and so on.  Another switch in town handles
994, 995, 996, 761, and 769.  994 numbers use 951 for ringback, 995
numbers use 952, and so on.

If you dial your ringback prefix and the last 4 digits of someone else's
phone number, you will get a busy signal.  Note that there is no guarantee
that your BOC will use 95x's for ringback.  In fact, there is no real
guarantee that your system will be anything like I described.  But as
far as I know most are.

Some older systems have a 2 or 3 digit sequence which you follow by a ring
code and hang up to have your phone ring back.  Some of the sequences I
have seen are 419 and 79.  Ring codes are 2 digits, neither of which is
a 9 or 0.  11 generates a normal ring, others (23, 46, etc., generate
various combinations of short and long rings, apparently for testing
party lines).  So, in one of these areas you might have to dial 7911
or 41911 then hang up, in order to make your phone ring.

[Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach
is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* This is
just a variation on the programs which search for carrier by dialing
everyone else in the community without regard to their desire to be left
alone. I do not like 'demon-dialer' software. It causes an invasion of
privacy of others.     P.Townson]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: Dan Chaney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
Date: 5 Jan 89 10:13:13 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> soley@ontenv writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 3, message 7
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black) writes:
>: I just read a short review in PC Week about a  $400  gizmo  which
>: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the
>....

-- Is there a way to differentiate between FAX and regular modem-logins?
   I understand that there are el-cheapo FAX programs that, using your
   modem, act as a document-based fax machine.  These programs are much
   cheaper, on the order of $50-$100.

   What I would like to be able to do is have the computer pick up
   the phone and run either the FAX program if this is a fax call or
   go ahead and run a login to Unix.  I can also for see DOS people
   wanting to choose between FAX, UUCP and possibly a third BBS package.
   Am I dreaming or is this at all possible?  I do not have any specs
   on FAX protocol but would be interested if anyone has such data.



>: equipment receives the incoming call.  Seems like a good  way  to
>: get double use of one line.
       ^In this case, possible even triple or quadruple.  Assuming that
        the other end will give you a carrier long enough to decide between
       human, FAX, UUCP or just a recording from Sears telling you that
        your Christmas order has finally arrived.
>:
>: The $400 seems overpriced for what  you  get
>


--
Dan Chaney
{uunet and the like}!ukma!chaney  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
If a 100-year old Roman Catholic offers you | "Life is but a state of mind"
a clever quote, don't take his word at it.  |            - Ben Rand

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 89 09:58:38 EST
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Old Princess phones
Cc: [e-mail]


Touch-Tone phones often suffer from problems where one one row or column
doesn't make contact, so you only get a single tone generated.  The
trouble is almost always dirty contacts.  Take apart the phone, remove
the plastic covering the keypad internals, and gently clean all of the
switch contacts -- you can see them move when you press the buttons.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 09:11:00 PST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Time marches on...


[Moderator's Note: We did not get the original message to which Laura is
responding. Apparently someone wrote direct.]

> Somewhere I once saw a sheet intitled "Instructions for Use".  It went into
> some detail on how to use a dial-phone.  'Place finger in slot over the
> desired number and rotate the dial clockwise until the stop is encountered.
> Lift your finger, releasing the dial.  Once the dial has returned ....'
>
> If anyone has a copy of this, be it serious and wholly tongue-in-cheek, I
> would like a copy and I suspect others would as well.

I've seen such things in phone books. Try the London (England)
white pages - probably the A-D volume. I'll check with the public
library here in Vancouver and see what I can find...

cheers,
laura

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Jan  7 16:51:55 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA06970; Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:51:55 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:20:58 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #6
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:20:58 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:

         Special Issue - IEEE Network Magazine - Provisioning
                    Will my Sony IT-a600 work in oz?
                              Switched56 DSU
                              Video Phones
                         ATT Merlin II System
                       Area code and NNX pairs?
                       Re: Switched 56k information
                        377 prefix in Raphine, Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hou2d![e-mail]
To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde
Subject: Special Issue - IEEE Network Magazine - Provisioning
Date: 6 Jan 89 05:58:45 GMT



A special issue of IEEE NETWORK MAGAZINE on PROVISIONING FOR THE FUTURE
NETWORK is planned for January 1990.  Provisioning refers to the process of
providing network services to the users, as well as providing resources to
the network.

Provisioning acvities, which account for a large portion of the cost of
network operation, are responsible for managing the selection of network
resources to provide the capabilities and performance required by the users of
information networks in a timely and cost-effective way.  They involve the
design and deployment of network resources and the specification of their
interconnections to meet the users' need for data, voice, and other
communication services and applications.

The ability to provision new services and evolving technologies in a unified
way is a major driving force in the evolution of information networks.  The
planned special issue is intended to provide increased awareness of
significant recent advances in automated provisioning methods for large,
complex multiservice networks. The provisioning methods and tools must take
advantage of various technological disciplines to maintain a competitive edge
for the network/service provider, and to provide increased customer control
of the information network.

The special issue will focus on provisioning of intelligent and diverse
networks, particularly as applied to integrated services communications.  The
objective is to address the research and development in provisioning systems,
services, procedures and applications, with attention given to trials and
experiences, and new directions.  The special issue will include tutorials,
technicals as well as state-of-the-art articles, and practical examples.

Schedule:
Complete manuscript due: April 30, 1989
Acceptance notification: July 30, 1989
Final paper due: October 1, 1989

Papers should be limited to twenty double-spaced typewritten pages including
figures.  A title page should contain the author(s)' name(s), affiliation,
complete address, telephone and telefax numbers, and a 200-word abstract.
Six copies in English should be sent to one of the guest editors listed below.
All papers will be reviewed for technical content and depth, quality,
relevance, and originality.

                             GUEST EDITORS

    Manu Malek                             Shervin Erfani
    AT&T Bell Laboratories, Rm. 2C-218     AT&T Bell Laboratories, Rm. 2C-205
    480 Red Hill Road                      480 Red Hill Road
    Middletown, NJ 07748                   Middletown, NJ 07748
    [phone]                         [phone]
    hou2d!speedy![e-mail]            hou2d!speedy![e-mail]



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

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:40:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Will my Sony IT-a600 work in Oz?


i have reason to believe i may spend some time down under soon,
and i'd (naturally) like to take my favorite phone/dialer/ansaphone.
of course, i have no clue as to whether or not it is legal to
connect devices to the australian phone network, and (if so),
whether us-type phones will work.

please send your clues, etc., to:

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

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

From: erc3bc![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Switched56 DSU
Date: 6 Jan 89 13:47:30 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>*** How do you send the destination telephone number from
>*** the host to the switched-DSU, and from the DSU to the
>*** CO?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]  BITNET gould@jvncc  -
>-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould  Telephone [phone] -
>------------------------------------------------------------------------s

Which switched56-DSU are you using?
I know that in most cases one may write a script to do the dialing from
the attached host.

In addition,
I've heard that there are DSUs that do the pulse dialing automatically.
I believe that one of these DSUs is from General Datacomm -
sorry, I've never used it and I may ask someone to get the
model number if you need it)


-tmk        ARPA:    bentley![e-mail]
        UUCP:    [e-mail]



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

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:26:23 GMT
From: Mad Nige <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Video Phones


In the December issue of Gentlemen's Quarterly, (the US edition) there
is and ad from Panasonic for a few of their pieces of gear. The one
that struck me as most interesting was the Video Phone, which according
to the blurb transmits a still picture every 6.5 seconds.

To the best of my knowledge, things like that are not available here in
the UK. Can anyone give an outline of how it works?

Nigel Whitfield.

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

Date: 6 JAN 89 10:43-
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: ATT Merlin II System

Greetings,

        Can anyone who has experience or knowledge about AT&T's Merlin II
Telephone System?  I am investigating the possibility of this system but
would like information from you, if possible.  Upon request, I will summarize
for the digest.  Thank you!

                Curtis Reid
                [e-mail] (Internet)
                [e-mail]                 (Bitnet)


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Dave Shaver)
Subject: Area code and NNX pairs?
Date: 6 Jan 89 23:23:25 GMT



This maybe a silly question, but here goes anyway:  I'm looking for
Area Code/NNX pairs.  BSD UNIX(tm) (probably other versions, too) comes
with an Area Codes database as part of the quiz(6) program.  I use the
csh alias:

    alias whereac "grep </usr/games/lib/quiz.k/areas"

to return information on Area Codes.  So, it works like this:

% whereac 515
515:central iowa|IA:des moines
% whereac 503
503:oregon|OR:

What I'd like is a listing that has the NNX's listed.  So I can say
that 515/255 is Des Moines, while 515/964 is Ankeny and 503/645 is
Beaverton, OR, etc.

Does anyone have an Area Code and NNX list?

/\  Dave Shaver  -=*=-  CS Systems Support Group, Iowa State University
\\  UUCP:  hplabs!hp-lsd!atanasoff!shaver
\/  Internet: [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Such a list, if it exists, would be hopelessly out of
date in a short time. New prefixes are constantly being opened up. Rather
than try to maintain such a list for myself, when I want to know the name
of a town associated with a certain prefix, I use AT&T's 'name place'
service. Just call any AT&T operator (10288-0) and ask, "Give me the
name place for ACC-XYZ". She will ring the rate/route bureau in Morris, IL
(815-181 in case you are interested) and will ask them. It will take all
of thirty seconds or so. And it is totally free.   P. Townson]

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

Date: 6 Jan 89 14:05:46 GMT
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Carlson)
Subject: Re: Switched 56k information


I have some questions about switched 56kbps services and I need a POC
from some (any!) phone company who can provide some fairly simple
information.  I tried AT&T and after being transferred through about
6 different people I finally left a message with one of them, but
was never called back with any info.

My Questions: (for AT&T or any other switched 56kbps provider)

1. In which cities can I get this service?

2. What is the approximate installation cost (govt rates)?

3. What are the approximate recurring costs (govt rates)?

4. What equipment does the user have to have to connect to the line and where
does he/she get this equipment (lease/buy/etc)?

5. How does the user initiate a call?

The purpose of these 56kbps lines would be to provide additional trunking
between packet switching nodes during peak traffic periods.  I am trying to
get a rough estimate of whether this would be feasible and cost effective.

Bruce Carlson
MITRE Corporation
703-883-7644
[e-mail]




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

Date:     Fri, 6 Jan 89 12:33:54 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  377 prefix in Raphine, Va.


Was the subject prefix (377 in Raphine, Va.) moved from 804 back to 703?
The geographic area involved hits U.S. 11 and I-81 between Staunton and
Lexington.  I have some notes showing it in 804, but I used a phone in
that area very recently and I am sure it was in 703.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Jan  8 00:22:18 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA06068; Sun, 8 Jan 89 00:22:18 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 89  0:12:42 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #7
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Jan 89  0:12:42 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:

                Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines
              Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
                      Re: Excuses instead of info
                      Re: Excuses instead of info
                     Re: finding ringback numbers
            Re: For Callback Security Use a Different Line
                        Re: Time marches on...
                         OUT OF CHANGE? message
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
Date: 6 Jan 89 11:20:30 CST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Paul Guthrie)
Subject: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines

In article <[e-mail]> soley@ontenv writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black) writes:
>: I just read a short review in PC Week about a  $400  gizmo  which
>: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the
>: caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person
>: press  the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice
>: phone, which rings as usual.  If '3' is not  pressed,  the  gizmo
>: box  assumes  that  a  fax  or  modem  is  calling, and your data
>: equipment receives the incoming call.  Seems like a good  way  to
>: get double use of one line.
>I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in
>addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with
>voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable)
>considering this the price is quite reasonable.

Yes, the watson can do this, as can other similar devices such as
bigmouth and Dialogic boards.  They range in price from $189 or so
for Watson, to $2000 for dialogics (but they can handle 8 lines with
conferencing and call progression sensing etc).  I have also seen a
dedicated specific device like the original poster mentioned for
about the $300 price.  All of these take software support, and
forget it if you don't have a IBM compatible running MessyDos.

The best way to go, though, is to call KISS engineering at
1 [phone] and order `The one ring thing'.  What it does is
let you call in, let the phone ring once and you hang up.  The next time
you call (for one minute), it will have switched to the second line.
Therefor this works if you have both an answering machine and a
modem.  I don't recall the price, but its less than $50.


By the way, if anybody is interested I have a Unix device driver for
Dialogic boards (in beta test).
Also, dialogic has a nice new board that lets you bring a T-Span
into a PC.  You can then link it with another board they sell to do
the conferencing, A/D APCM conversion etc.  Useful now for big
telemarketing people, but will be great for gateways if they
eventually provide ISDN PRI user side support.
--
Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul



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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: van-bc![e-mail] (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
Date: 7 Jan 89 09:09:12 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Chaney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> soley@ontenv writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black) writes:
>>: I just read a short review in PC Week about a  $400  gizmo  which
>>: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the
>>....
>
>-- Is there a way to differentiate between FAX and regular modem-logins?
>   I understand that there are el-cheapo FAX programs that, using your
>   modem, act as a document-based fax machine.  These programs are much
>   cheaper, on the order of $50-$100.

No, there is no way to use a normal (Hayes 1200/2400) type modem for Fax.

>   What I would like to be able to do is have the computer pick up
>   the phone and run either the FAX program if this is a fax call or
>   go ahead and run a login to Unix.  I can also for see DOS people
>   wanting to choose between FAX, UUCP and possibly a third BBS package.
>   Am I dreaming or is this at all possible?  I do not have any specs
>   on FAX protocol but would be interested if anyone has such data.
>

I heard a rumour yesterday about a Fax Modem with a built in Hayes 2400
compatible modem that can offer a dial tone to incoming calls. The caller
then can send another touch tone digit to activate the service he requires.

So you could tell your uucp users to dial:

    atdt555-1212W1

And your fax users to dial:

    atdt555-1212W2

Assuming W stands for "wait for tone". Of course if the fax person is really
calling from a fax machine he may have to use other modifiers for the dial
strings, but this is the equivalent to getting through a PBX which most
machines seem to be capable of.

On the computer side it would see some messages from the modem along the
lines of "DIGIT 1" or "DIGIT 2".

Sounds like just the thing for small systems where you don't really want to
dedicate a line to both uucp *AND* fax.  You just need software that can
watch the modem and give a normal login for some connects, and go direct to
a fax receive program for others.

Of even more interest the person I talked to claimed that this would be in
an external box that you can talk to over a serial port! So it's not tied to
the PC architecture.

I'll forward more details when I confirm all this.

--
[e-mail] {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532

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

To: tikal!uw-beaver![e-mail]
From: mcgp1![e-mail] (Donn Pedro)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 6 Jan 89 16:23:12 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, hp-sdd![e-mail] (Roger Haaheim) writes:
> Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number,
> hang up, and the dialing phone would ring;  some kind of
> echo.  It was used by phonefolks who came to fix the phone,
> to check to see if it was working.  They had no problem
> telling the customer what that number was so the customer
> could dial back to him/herself.  Why has that capability
> become proprietary?  I know it's still done, but when I
> ask...excuses, but no number.  How come?

Because while i worked for Pacific Bell in California those
numbers were limited to a very few per central office. If
I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would
not be available for our use for testing. People used it to
busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed.

How convenient! They did not want to disconnect their phone
so it would ring like they were not home.

So thats why you werent privvy to that info. Its proprietary
information necessary to the function of the repair tech and gets
abused by the general public when it gets out.


Former phone man,

    Donn F Pedro  {the known world}!uw-beaver!tikal!mcgp1!donn
       --------------------------------------------------------------
                 "You talk the talk. Do you walk the walk?"



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

To: [e-mail]
From: zorac!dretor.dciem.dnd.ca![e-mail] (C. Harald Koch)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 6 Jan 89 19:58:53 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Jacobson) writes:

>My house, say 475-9999, uses:
>dial 1-572-9999, hear funny tone, click phone, hear tone, hang up, it rings.
>You can loop here^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^

Here in Toronto, you can use 57x-xxxx, where x-xxxx are the last five digits
of your phone number. This only works on touch-tone phone lines though.
(If the exchange supports touch-tone, but you haven't suscribed, it doesn't
work).

--
C. Harald Koch        NTT Systems, Inc., Toronto, Ontario
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
"I give you my phone number. If you worry, call me. I'll make you happy."

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:02:56 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: finding ringback numbers


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>On most ESS systems, if you set up a reasonably intelligent modem to dial
>each possible exchange followed by the last 4 digits of your phone number ...
>
>[Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach
>is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* ...

Clearly the ringback prefix can't be the same as a valid exchange or you
couldn't call anybody in that exchange.  Program your modem to call only
the unassigned prefixes to avoid pestering people.  Most local phone books
have a list of assigned prefixes in the local NPA.

I also note that telcos often use a range of prefixes, e.g. in New Jersey
they use 550 to 559 excepting 555.  If you look at the assigned prefixes
and see ten in a row that are unused, that's probably it.
--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
{ bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
You're never too old to have a happy childhood.

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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: visdc![e-mail] (John E Van Deusen III)
Subject: Re: For Callback Security Use a Different Line
Date: 7 Jan 89 00:28:09 GMT



The problem of verifying that a penetrator is not hanging on the line
could be solved by first dialing your own system and doing some secret
handshaking.  This method does not require extra lines, (unless the
call mix is 100% call-back of incoming calls), or optional services.
Some programming is required, and the penetrator will see the login
sequence used to do the verification.  It would be, therefore, one of
those single-command logins with no password.

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Re: Time marches on...
Date: 7 Jan 89 18:41:14 GMT


     The John Crerar Library at IIT in Chicago had, and probably still has,
a number of classic pamphlets and books on early telephony.  I don't have
the titles, but they included a pamphlet for the public describing, in
great detail, with pictures, what happens when various types of calls are
placed in a large metropolitan area with strictly manual boards.  The level
of detail is amazing; the functions of A, B and toll boards are covered,
and in one scenario, a line is down, and its use blows a grasshopper fuse,
triggering a minor alarm and sending craftsmen into the frames to fix the
problem.

     There's also a large-format book on step-by-step switching, describing
in excruciating detail, over many pages, the Strowgear system of step-by-step
switching.  The author wanted a full diagram of the switch on each facing
page, opposite the text explaining the function being discussed, and this
led to much extra space, which he filled with religious homilies.

     Are these gems still there?  Somebody in Chicago might check.

                    John Nagle

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

Date:     Fri, 6 Jan 89 17:48:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  OUT OF CHANGE? message


About a year ago, I said that 804 and 703-area C&P pay phones have
the same OUT OF CHANGE? message.  They do differ in the instruction
for 0+ local calls:  0+number and 0+areacode+number respectively.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Mon Jan  9 00:32:16 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA23925; Mon, 9 Jan 89 00:32:16 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89  0:08:54 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #8
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Jan 89  0:08:54 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:

                               900 list
                         AT&T alleges dumping
                 Another lesson on 700/800/900 service

[Moderator's Note: Scott Statton has provided more information on the
special services available for telephone users. I had another letter I
was going to include today but unfortunatly it got trashed before I got
it in here. The person asked a simple question: "Who/where do I contact
at AT&T to install 900 service?" If any of you know what department or
bureau at AT&T handles this, and where they are located, please post a
message to me. I promise not to lose it!      Patrick Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 2 Jan 89 23:49:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 900 list



900 Series Prefix to OCN translation table

Please note that this differs from the 800 table, because much
fewer of the 900 NXXs are assigned.

NXX OCN        NXX OCN        NXX OCN        NXX OCN        NXX OCN
200 ATX        202 Ameritech    210 ATX        220 ATX        221 TDX
222 ONC        223 TDX        225 Pac. Bell    226 MCI        233 TDX
234 TEN        240 U.S. West    248 Ameritech    250 ATX        258 TEN
254 TTU        255 SNT        260 ATX        264 ADG        266 CSY
272 Bell Atl.    273 CAN        275 ITT        280 Ameritech    282 LGT
283 Pac. Bell    288 GTE N.west  297 CAN        300 ATX        301 Ameritech
302 Ameritech    303 Pac. Bell    321 TEN        322 TDX        327 ETS
328 ATX        331 TET        332 PLG        333 U.S. West    335 Bell Atl.
342 ATX        344 ATX        345 ALN        346 United Tel. 350 ATX
364 GTE N.west  366 ONC        369 TEN        370 ATX        377 GTS
386 United Tel.    388 SNT        399 ARZ        400 ATX        407 ATX
410 ATX        420 ATX        422 ALN        426 PLG        428 Ameritech
430 U.S. West    444 ONC        445 PHE        446 MCI        450 Ameritech
451 CAN        456 TEN        463 United Tel.    478 AAM        479 ARZ
480 ATX        483 GTE Midwest    488 ONC        490 U.S. West    500 ATX
505 Pac. Bell    520 ATX        529 MIT        536 BUR        540 ALN
543 ALN        545 GTE Calif.    550 ALN        555 ATX        567 ALN
580 U.S. West     590 ATX        595 CAN        600 ATX        620 Ameritech
624 Pac. Bell    626 CSY        628 Ameritech    630 CAN        633 MIT
639 PLG        643 CAN        645 CAN        650 ATX        654 TEN
656 SNT        660 ATX        661 United Tel.    663 MDE        665 ALN
666 ONC        670 CAN        677 CAN        678 MCI        680 ATX
686 LTG        690 CAN        698 NY Tel.    699 PLG        701 Bell Atl.
710 TGN        720 ATX        722 Pac. Bell    724 RTC        725 SNT
727 GTE Calif.    730 ATX        739 CSY        740 ATX        741 TEN
746 ITT        750 CAN        753 ALN        765 ALN        773 ATX
777 Pac. Bell    778 Ameritech    780 Ameritech    786 ATX        790 CAN
792 CAN        801 Bell Atl.    820 ATX        830 CAN        843 Pac. Bell
844 Pac. Bell    847 United Tel.    850 ATX        860 ATX        866 AAM
870 CAN        872 TEN        887 ETS        888 CIS        900 TDX
901 Bell Atl.    903 ATX        909 ATX        924 Ameritech    932 ATX
948 ARZ        949 MIC        963 TEN        970 MIC        971 MIC
972 MIC        973 MIC        974 ALN        975 ALN        976 ATX
988 MCI        990 MCI        991 ALG        993 SNT        999 TEN

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T alleges dumping
Date: 8 Jan 89 00:17:40 PST (Sun)
From: bovine![e-mail] (John Higdon)



Now that AT&T has entered the real world of competition, it has also
adopted the good ole American way of dealing with it. Having discovered
that its high-priced do-nothing crap they call equipment isn't selling all
that well, they focused their attention on (who else) the Japanese.
With the CWA and IBEW joining in the chorus, they are accusing Japanese
manufacturers of "dumping" cheap (but nevertheless full-featured)
electronic key equipment on the US market and are seeking relief from
the US government in the form of sanctions.

They may be right. What sane person (other than some corporate
mentality type) would by a Merlin over a Panasonic 1232? But just maybe
they ought to consider how they might improve their product and lower
the price. But then that wouldn't be the American way. Just ask the
auto manufacturers.

--
John Higdon
john@bovine   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john

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

Date:  Tue, 3 Jan 89 01:57:48 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Another lesson on 700/800/900 service



I have compiled some more information about the SACs for your
edification.

These include 700, 800, and 900.

Most telephone users from the United States are quite familiar with
800 service.  A number that they dial and incur NO charge (not even
message units in most [all?] areas).

Then there is 900 service, which is most people perceive as 'value
added', i.e. you pay more for the information than for the transport
of the call.  These vary typically from 35 cents to a few dollars for
either a timed service, or a 'as long as you like' duration-sensitive
service.  There are two sub-species of 900 service, AT&T and
"everybody else".

Finally there is 700 service, which many people remember as Alliance
Teleconferencing.  This is the third "canonical" SAC.  With few
limitations, this SAC is given over to the IEC entirely.

Let's look at these in more detail:

800 service is offered by various IECs.  Each NXX in the 800 SAC is
assigned to a given carrier, who is responsible for assigning numbers
from that block to customers, and providing 10 digit translation.
When you as Joe Customer dial 1-800-222-1234 (made up number, please
don't bother them) it will initiate the following sequence:

1.  If you are in an Electronic Office (DMS-100, DMS-200, 1A ESS, #5
ESS) the 800-222 will be translated to "AT&T" and search for an
opening in a trunk group marked for 800 origination.  Should none be
found, bump to step 3

2.  If you are in a non-electronic office (SXS, XB, and some flavors
of ESS), it will go to the access tandem that you're office 'homes'
on, where 800-222 will be translated to "AT&T"

 [note that if at this point, the number doesn't have a translation,
you will get a "lose" recording from the CO]

3.  Find a trunk in a trunk group marked for 800 origination.  Should
none be found, give the customer a recording "Due to network
congestion, your 800 call could not be completed" or die, or whatever.
(Depends on phase of moon, etc.)

4.  The end office will the send the following pulse-strea (in MF):

    KP + II + 3/10D + ST + KP + 800 222 1234 + ST

 (note that this is a simplification, there are some fine points of
ANI spills that are beyond the scope of this article)

    II = 2 information digits ... typical values are:
        00  normal ANI .. 10 digits follow
        01  ONI line ... NPA follows
        02  ANI failure ... NPA follows
    3/10D = 3 or 10 digits.  Either the NPA, or the entire 10
    digit number.
    KP and ST are control tones

5.  The carrier receives all of this (and probably throws the ANI into
the bit bucket) and translates the 800 number to what's called a PTN,
or Plant Test Number.  For Example, 617-555-9111.  Then, the call is
routed AS IF the customer had dialed that 10 digit number.  Of course,
the billing data is marked as an 800 call, so the subscriber receiving
th call pays the appropriate amount.


900 Service.  As I mentioned earlier there are two flavors of 900
service, AT&T, and "Everybody Else".  Everybody else is handled
exactly as 800 service above, except the IEC will probably use the ANI
information to send you a bill.  (Either directly, or through your
BOC, each situation governed by applicable tarrifs and contractual
arrangements between the IEC and the BOC)

AT&T 900 is a curious monster indeed.  It was designed as a "mass
termination" service.  When you dial a 900 # by AT&T (such as the
"hear space shuttle mission audio" number) you get routed to one of
twelve "nodes" strewn throughout the country.  These nodes are each
capable of terminating 9,000 calls >PER SECOND<.  There are several
options available, where the customer and/or the IP pay for all/part
of the call.  The big difference between 800 and AT&T 900 is >NOT<
"who pays for the call" (there are free 900 numbers) but "how many
people can it handle at once".  The IP is responsible for providing
program audio.  AT&T is prohibited from providing audio-program
services (i.e. tape recorded messages) [As with any rule, there are
exceptions to these as well]

The last SAC we'll deal with is 700.  I've seen ads on late-nite
television for Group Access Bridging service (GAB) under 700 numbers,
with a elephantine dialing sequence.  The one that comes to mind is
10041-1-700-777-7777.  [I make no guarantee about the quality or
availability of this service.  I don't even know if it still exists.]
If you were to dial 1-700-555-4141 you will hear a recording
announcing your Equal-Access carrier.  (Some carriers ignore the last
four digits, and any 700-555 number will give the announcement).

This is signalled the same as 800 service, and may or may not be
billed ENTIRELY at the discretion of the IEC.  In New York, under PSC
tarrif you can order 900 and/or 700 blocking as well as 976, 970, 550,
and 540 blocking in various (but not entirely orthoganal)
combinations.

What in ONE carrier might be a customer service hotline (Dial 1-700-I
AM LOST) might for another be a revenue product.  There is LITTLE
standardization of 700 usage from IEC to IEC.

The one last dialing pattern that is worth mentioning is what's
called, "cut through dialing".  Try dialing 10220#.  If Western Union
comes to your town, you'll get a FG-A style dial tone.  Presumably if
you had a Western Union "Calling Card" [I don't know their term for
it] you could dial a call.  (If someone DOES have WU service, could
they please check this out for me?)

Glossary:

ANI - Automatic Number Identification.  An MF sequence that identifies
your line for toll billing information.  Often confused with ANAC
(Automatic Number Announcemnt Circuit) which reads your number back in
a synthesised voice.

BOC - Bell Operating Company.  A often misused term (even in this very
article :-) that in general usage means, "Your local exchange
carrier."  Since most of the telephones in the country are served by
what used to be the Bell system, we tend to use the term.  The proper
term in this case, however IS "Exchange Carrier [EC]"  They provide
service within your LATA.

FG-A - Feature Group A.  Line Side termination for Long Distance
carriers.  The old 555-1234 for Widget Telephone Company then dial an
access code and the number style dialing is called FG-A.

FG-B - Feature Group B.  Trunk Side termination for Long Distance
carriers.  (aka ENFIA B).  950 service.  This is LATA wide service,
and doesn't cost the customer message units.  ANI is only provided
when the trunks terinate in the End Office (as opposed to an access
tandem).

FG-D - Feature Group D.  Trunk Side termination.  Provides 10xxx
dialing, 1+ pre-subscription dialing, and Equal Access 800/900
service.  Only available in electronic offices and some 5XB offices
(through a beastie called an Adjunct Frame.)

GAB - Group Audio Bridging.  Where several people call the same
number, to talk to other people calling the same number.  "Party" or
"Chat" lines.

IEC - Inter-Exchange Carrier.  Someone who actually carries calls from
place to place.  AT&T, Sprint, MCI are all IECs.

IP - Information Provider.  Someone who sells a value-added service
over the telephone.  Where you pay for the INFORMATION you're
receiving, as well as the cost of TRANSPORT of the call.

NXX - Notation convention for what used to be called a "prefix".  N
represents the digits 2 through 9, and X represents the digits 0
through 9.  There are 800 valid NXX combinations, but some are
reserved for local use.  (411 for Directory, 611 for Repair Bureau,
911 for emergency, etc.)

ONI - Operator Number Identification.  In areas with some styles of
party-line service, the CO cannot tell who you are, and the operator
will come on and say, "What number are you calling from?".  You can
lie, they have to trust you.  They MAY know which PREFIX you're coming
from, though.

PTN - Plant Test Number.  A regular 10 digit number assigned with your
inward WATS line.  This may NOT be a 'dialable' number from the local
CO.  (A friend has a WATS line in Amherst, MA [413-549, #5 ESS] and
you cannot dial the PTN locally, but you can if you come in on a toll
trunk.)

SAC - Special Area Code.  Bellcore speak for area codes that aren't
really places, but classes of service.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Tue Jan 10 01:14:12 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA08846; Tue, 10 Jan 89 01:14:12 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89  0:41:51 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #9
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Jan 89  0:41:51 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:

                Re: AT&T alleges dumping (David Kurtiak)
          Re: AT&T alleges dumping (Higdon replies to Kurtiak)
                 Re: AT&T alleges dumping (John Shelton)
                        New way to donate money
                     Re: Switched 56k information
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 10:34:10 EST
From: David M. Kurtiak <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping


In John Higdon's(bovine![e-mail]) posting to comp.dcom.telecom he writes:

>Subject: AT&T alleges dumping
>Date: 8 Jan 89 00:17:40 PST (Sun)
>
>Now that AT&T has entered the real world of competition, it has also
>adopted the good ole American way of dealing with it. Having discovered
>that its high-priced do-nothing crap they call equipment isn't selling all
>that well, they focused their attention on (who else) the Japanese.

W-R-O-N-G: not specifically the Japanese, but a handful of foreign
manufacturers that have been proven to engage in dumping activities.

>With the CWA and IBEW joining in the chorus, they are accusing Japanese
>manufacturers of "dumping" cheap (but nevertheless full-featured)
>electronic key equipment on the US market and are seeking relief from
>the US government in the form of sanctions.
>
>They may be right. What sane person (other than some corporate
>mentality type) would by a Merlin over a Panasonic 1232? But just maybe
>they ought to consider how they might improve their product and lower
>the price. But then that wouldn't be the American way. Just ask the
>auto manufacturers.

I was originally going to just ignore this rubbish, but felt that such
ignorance cannot be let passed without some sort of rebuttal.

The dumping accusations stem from real-world unfair trade practices that
as I will point out, are a breach of open-trade agreements between the
U.S. and it's trade partners.  This is a perfectly legitimate gripe for
*MANY* U.S. maufacturers.  Without getting into a lecture on World Economics
101, read the actual press release(s) before making such radical conclusions
and criticising specific companies, namely AT&T in your example.

Scenario: U.S. based Company "A" sells small-business telephone systems
for a nominal price of $1000 per unit.  Company "B", which is foreign
based, has a similar product, with or without better features that they
sell IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY for $1000.  Company "B" enters the U.S. market
selling that same exact prioduct for $200.  Keeping in mind that foreign
governments often SUBSIDIZE industry, how can a U.S. manufacture even
come close to competing???  Co. "B" is selling that product *BELOW* the
actual costs of producing it, but because of the gov't subsidies they
receive, Co. B still makes money hand-over-fist and captures a significant
market share.  Do U.S. mfgrs. receive government subsidies??  NO, generally
not.  This practice of selling below costs in a market other than the home
country is known as DUMPING, and is indeed an unfair trade practice by
definition of the enacted laws.

I personally cannot see how any American, working for an American company
in the United States can view this as fair competition.  If the foreign
competitors who wish to trade here played by the same rules, there would
be no problem.  But heaven help the U.S. manufacturer who attempts to dump
their products in someone else's market.  Trade wars, and accusations galore!

You may not like American cars, telephones, or even Apple pie -- but be glad
that at least you have that choice.  In other countries you may not have
such liberties.

I'm not pro-protectionism, but just wish to see trade that is indeed FAIR
to everyone involved.

This probably isn't the appropriate group to discuss politics/trade policy,
etc., but had to put in my two cents...

HOP, *CLICK*, JUMP...  I get off of my soapbox.
---
David M. Kurtiak
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: [e-mail]
UUCP: [e-mail]  (rutgers,gatech)!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Cc: [e-mail]
Date: 9 Jan 89 11:23:07 PST (Mon)
From: bovine![e-mail] (John Higdon)


Mr. Kurtiak:

I was somewhat surprised by your instant reply to my posting. Unfortunately
I feel that your response was typical of the knee-jerk attitude that
pervades the US manufacturing community.

Having owned an equipment vending company for over five years (no longer;
the market's too hoary) I can speak with some authority concerning the
wares. Most US makers have been well behind the times in their technology.
While AT&T was still trying to push the Dimension, ITT was selling their
3100 (great hardware, lousy software), Rolm was selling 1976 equipment in
1986, and Mitel was pushing their highly touted ANALOG SX series.

Last night, Sony's chairman of the board on 60 Minutes said the that US
firms would be better off to concern themselves with their product than
with what goes on in the board rooms and take-overs. I couldn't agree more.
"Dumping" is a convenient smoke screen that may be true to a small degree,
but it has been proven over and over again that the American people will
pay MORE for what they really want. Japanese cars cost more than their
American counterparts and yet they still enjoy brisk sales. The same
applies to telephone equipment.

I have no axes to grind in this area. My truck is American (it filled my
needs at the right price). My computer is an AT&T built right here in my
home town. When it was first introduced the price tag was $7,000. When they
finally lowered the price to $1,600, then it became competitive. Did they
loose money at this price? I doubt it.

Another aspect concerns quality of workmanship. You may have heard recently
about the difficulties Seagate has been having financially. In the press it
was revealed that 20% of the work force was let go. Seagate blamed, among
other things, foreign competition for their declining market performance. I
can tell you first hand what their trouble is. Out of 20 Seagate drives
under my control in 1988, seven (7) of them failed. No further comment
necessary.

US manufacturers have the capability to technologically cream the world
competition. It's the free thinking in the United States that has
historically led to our once technical superiority. If we could return to
that mentality rather than playing legal and board room games, we would
once again control the market place. The other countries are well aware of
this and are hoping we never wake up.

--
John Higdon
john@bovine   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john

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

To: ames![e-mail]
From: zodiac![e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Date: 9 Jan 89 19:24:44 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> bovine![e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

.......[portion deleted]
->They may be right. What sane person (other than some corporate
->mentality type) would by a Merlin over a Panasonic 1232? But just maybe
->they ought to consider how they might improve their product and lower
->the price. But then that wouldn't be the American way. Just ask the
->auto manufacturers.
->
->--
->John Higdon
->john@bovine   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john

I'll claim to be sane.  For home use, I selected a merlin plus over
20+ other sytems, all but one of which was made overseas.
(Teleconnect was the other US manufactured unit.)  I picked AT&T for
an electronic key system for a lot of reasons:

1.  Best documentation
2.  More features (that I wanted) than any other system)
3.  4/10 (line/station) configuration instead of 2/6 or 3/8
4.  Wide range of instruments available, including standard phones
5.  Printer option for logging system calls, dumping configuration.
6.  Rugged design
7.  800 number for assistance
8.  I know I can get spare parts, repair, etc in 1 yr, 3 yr, 5 yr.
9.  I'll be able to upgrade software later.
10.  The phones don't look like crap; I like having good styling.
11.  When I get a bigger house ( ;-)  )  I can upgrade to an 8/20
    or 30/100 system

I didn't realize that other companies were dumping, but it didn't
make a difference to me; the AT&T product (in this case) was vastly
superior.

=John=

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

To: uw-beaver![e-mail]
From: ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Subject: New way to donate money
Date: 9 Jan 89 17:49:59 GMT



First off, I hope that everyone is having a great 1989...

As many of may have heard/read, there was a bad oil spill recently
off the Washington state coast. As a result, there is much cleanup
work going on both at the beaches and at emergency wildlife shelters.
I was watching a story on all this during the evening news here in
Seattle the other night. I was surprised when they ended the story by
stating that one could donate to the cleanup fund, (didn't catch if
this was the state fund or a private fund), by just dialing a phone
number. Here is how it worked:

    dial  1-440-xxxx   = $5  to the cleanup
    dial  1-440-yyyy   = $10 to the cleanup

The donation would be automatically charged to caller's phone bill.

This is the first time that I have seen this done locally. I assume
that it is going on elsewhere in the country as well.

     Roger C. Swan
     uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark       voice:  206/657-5810

[Moderator's Note: What is the area code to call? Can this number be called
from outside the local phone company's area? I have not seen it done around
Chicago, but I think it is an excellent idea. We are billed by the phone
company for the various information services; we are billed $2 or more for
the various sexual gratification services we call on 900-xxx-xxxx; why not
something very worthwhile like Mr. Swan is describing? It might be worth a
letter to your local telco, or your state regulators, asking that such a
group of numbers be made available in your community, with the phone company
donating its services as collection agent for charitable groups.  P. Townson]
------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Brian Jay Gould)
Subject: Re: Switched 56k information
Date: 9 Jan 89 15:26:33 GMT



In response...  MidAmerican Long Distance located in Omaha, Nebraska,
offers switched 56kbps services in most of the US.  I have used
the service for TCP/IP load levelling during peak usage and have
found it to be very effective (and reliable).

THe service actually costs LESS than a voice call in most cases.  Why
not?  It costs them less to handle the call.

Contact Jack Watson at MidAmerican.  The main number is [phone].
Tell them that I sent you.


-->  Any disclaimers, made by me or by anyone on my behalf, may or may not
accurately represent my representation of myself or others.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]  BITNET gould@jvncc  -
-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould  Telephone [phone] -
------------------------------------------------------------------------s

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan 11 01:15:03 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA14077; Wed, 11 Jan 89 01:15:03 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89  0:59:57 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #10
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jan 89  0:59:57 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:

                           CLASS(sm) Service
                      Re: NJ Bell CLASS Services
                       Race conditions in a PBX
                     Re: finding ringback numbers
                           Re: Video Phones
               Re: Another lesson on 700/800/900 service
                Re: Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation
                         TouchTone in Hong Kong

[Moderator's Note: We have an overflow of mail in the past two days. I
have a dozen messages backlogged, so please be patient. Your submission
will appear within a day or two. And thanks for all the mail! P Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: CLASS(sm) Service
Date: 7 Jan 89 22:26:24 GMT



New Jersey Bell has begun offering ISDN-based custom-calling
services, under the service mark CLASS.  One of these is called
Caller*ID service.  It displays the calling number while your phone
is ringing. To use it, you buy (from the telephone company,
or from others) a device that is bridged on to your standard
tip/ring line and has a display on it.

Does anybody know the signalling method between the CO and the
caller-id display box?  I have determined that it is in-band analog,
and sounds like a modem.  After the first ring, there is a burst of
carrier, then some modulation, then more carrier, and then the next
ring.  The data-burst occurs only once, after the first ring, for
each incoming call.

The modulation technique and data format are probably public
information, as you can (theoretically) buy the display box from
anybody.  But where is the information available?  Bellcore... are
you listening?

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: ccicpg!wsccs![e-mail] (Barnacle Wes)
Subject: Re: NJ Bell CLASS Services
Date: 2 Jan 89 07:16:02 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (L Judice / 201-562-4103 / DTN 323-4103) writes:
> This seems slow to me, since I was under the impression that CLASS
> was implemented in software on existing ESS switches... Any NJ Bell
> folks out there have a schedule, or currently operating exchanges?

I thought the CLASS services were being implemented on newly installed
GTD-5s!  Can any AT&T employees confirm or deny this?

Wes Peters    GTE Electronic Systems & Services    :-) :-)
--
                          Signature?  What Signature?
                      Oops, I left my .signature on Obie!
                           (e-mail to [e-mail])


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Lester Hiraki)
Subject: Race conditions in a PBX
Date:     Mon, 9 Jan 89 14:16:47 EST




Does anyone know how to solve the following problem?

Consider a simple PBX which works as follows:
All incoming calls from trunks are routed to the attendant console.
Outgoing calls are processed as follows.  From an internal extention,
the user dials the trunk access code (usually 9) and then the some valid
number according to the North American Numbering Plan.  The PBX
accumulates the valid digits first and after receiving
the last digit, seizes the first free trunk and signals-out the
dialing information in a burst to the local CO.

Imagine now that an incoming call arrives at a trunk but the CO has not
yet applied the ring voltage - ie connexion was made during the silent
window (ringing is usually 2s on and 4s off, say).  Just at this moment
someone within the PBX is making an outside call & the PBX seizes
this trunk before ringing starts, in effect answering the call.  The
incoming caller is connected to the person waiting for his outside call
to be completed.

Assuming loop-start lines, can this race condition be avoided?  Note,
not all business have ground-start lines.  I understand ground-start
lines eleminate this very problem?  Can someone explain how ground-
start lines work?


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

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 08:58:54 PST
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: finding ringback numbers


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I also note that telcos often use a range of prefixes, e.g. in New Jersey
>they use 550 to 559 excepting 555.  If you look at the assigned prefixes
>and see ten in a row that are unused, that's probably it.
>John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]

At least as of a few days ago, 550-xxxx, where xxxx are the last four digits
of your phone number, will do ringback in North Jersey (201). This does
not work for (most, if not all) payphones (but when it did, it was a favorite
trick for the kids to leave the phone ringing in the Foodtown).

--
## 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.#

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

To: mit-eddie!comp-dcom-telecom
From: mit-amt![e-mail] (Chris Schmandt)
Subject: Re: Video Phones
Date: 9 Jan 89 03:40:37 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mad Nige) writes:
>In the December issue of Gentlemen's Quarterly, (the US edition) there
>is and ad from Panasonic for a few of their pieces of gear. The one
>that struck me as most interesting was the Video Phone, which according
>to the blurb transmits a still picture every 6.5 seconds.

They are pretty simple.  You need to buy a unit for each end, of course.
Each consists of monochrome camera and monitor, plus a moderately low
resolution frame store.  Press a button, your frame is grabbed, and
sent by modem to the other end, relatively low speed.  Of course, you
lose audio while you're your doing it, as the data transfer is in band.
If I recall, it's about 4 bits per pixel, so you can see how a bit of
encoding can get the image to the other end in that time.  I believe
that the various similar products use the same protocol so that you
can exchange pix between them.

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

To: [e-mail]
From: Joel B Levin <ames!mailrus!BBN.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another lesson on 700/800/900 service
Date: 9 Jan 89 20:23:08 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|AT&T 900 is a curious monster indeed.  It was designed as a "mass
|termination" service.  When you dial a 900 # by AT&T (such as the
|"hear space shuttle mission audio" number) you get routed to one of
|twelve "nodes" strewn throughout the country.  These nodes are each
|capable of terminating 9,000 calls >PER SECOND<.  . . .

This is also the AT&T service which allows those obnoxious television
"polls" ("dial this number to vote yes, this other number to vote no,
and by the way this costs fifty cents").

|The one last dialing pattern that is worth mentioning is what's
|called, "cut through dialing".  Try dialing 10220#.  If Western Union
|comes to your town, you'll get a FG-A style dial tone.  . . .

I haven't tried for a long time, but in Nashua NH (603-880-) this did
work for Sprint, i.e. 10777 + # would get you the same peculiar dial
tone that their dial-in access number would, expecting you to reply
with your access code and destination number.  This was convenient
because you could reach their customer service by dialling the above
followed by the special 6-digit numbers (without access codes).

    /JBL
==
UUCP:     {backbone}!bbn!levin        POTS: [phone]
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: flatline![e-mail] (james hartman)
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation
Date: 9 Jan 89 18:26:51 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Is there a relatively inexpensive device I could buy to attach to a standard
> RJ11 telephone line which has both 3-way, and telco call forwarding as well as
> the fact that there is another line in the house which would allow me to
> remotely control call forwarding.  I would want to be able to activate,
> deactivate, and change the number it forwards to, but of course security is
> important.  Does such an inexpensive beast exist???

Uh, what about your computer?  Write/adapt a demon to wake up at certain times
and change the number forwarded, or set up an option as part of a dial-in
program.  After all, what else does your computer have to do when you're
not around to keep it busy?


--
         Zaphod: "It doesn't look like any kind of vortex to me."
               Gargravarr: "It isn't.  It's just the lift."
 [e-mail] / uunet!sugar!flatline!phaedrus (James E. Hartman)

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (shun E. Ho)
Subject: Touch Tone in Hong Kong
Date: 10 Jan 89 20:13:46 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> "hugh_davies.WGC1RX"@Xerox.COM writes:
>I rang the local British Telecom telephone sales office to enquire if the
>new exchange (a TXE4A, I believe - judging by its inability to provide
>dialtone on offhook in about 50% of occasions) in the St.Albans (where I
>live) supported TouchTone dialling. The person I spoke to said, and I
>quote, "What's TouchTone dialling?". Sigh.

As of last summer, the tiny British continent of Hong Kong has TouchTone
service in at least one of the central business districts.  Telephone services
in HK are provided by Hong Kong Telephone, a subsidiary of the Cable and
Wireless Group of Britain.

-  Yue-shun

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 12 01:13:31 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA09337; Thu, 12 Jan 89 01:13:31 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89  1:00:04 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #11
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Jan 89  1:00:04 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:

               Users having address changed: Please read!
                             NPA/COC list
                     Re:  Area code and NNX pairs?
                       Re: AT&T alleges dumping
                       Re: AT&T alleges dumping
                       Re: AT&T alleges dumping

[Moderators' Note: The Digest is in *two parts* today due to the heavy
overflow of mail. You will receive issue 12 also dated 12 Jan with a
time stamp a few minutes after this one.   P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 23:33:08 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
Subject: Some users having address changed


Is your name on the list below? We have been requested -- like many other
lists -- to eliminate or greatly reduce our use of 'relay.cs.net' in the
mailing of [Telecom Digest]. The addresses listed below will be converted
to the format shown in the right column as of the digest to be mailed out
Friday morning. The addresses listed below should contact us *if you do
not receive a Digest mailing on Friday or Saturday. Obviously, that will
mean a mistake was made somewhere. If the addresses below DO get a Digest
on Friday, Saturday, etc then there is no need to write. The addresses
below marked with ?????? have been sent to the automated address-correction
service at relay.cs.net. As of now, I do not know what will happen to them.

[e-mail]   will become  [e-mail]
[e-mail]             [e-mail]
telecom%src.csnet.relay.cs.net                ???????
[e-mail]                  [e-mail]
[e-mail]             [e-mail]
[e-mail]         ???????


Moderator

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: NPA/COC list
Date: 9 Jan 89 14:57:15 CST (Mon)
From: Paul Guthrie <ll-xn!uwvax!chinet.chi.il.us!pdg>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Shaver) writes:
>Does anyone have an Area Code and NNX list?

Yes, Bellcore does.  They administer the master lists.  There are three
main `lists', The LERG, the V&H and the TPM.  The LERG (Local
Exchange Routing Guide) is used mainly for routing.  There are quite
a few (nine I think) data files on a LERG tape, each with different
information.  For instance, LERG 2 contains a CIC list.  Lerg 8 I think
has your NPA/COC list and contains info such as the switch type of
the CO, the place name, etc.  The V&H is used for rating.  It
consists of one data file which for every NPA/COC contains info such
as the place name, and vertical and horizontal mileage coordinates
relative to a grid superimposed on north america.  These coordinates
are used for calculating the distance of a call, and fitting this
into a mileage band chart to get first and additional minute rates
(these are published inb FCC tariff #2).  This is (generally) how
your phone call costs are done - although there are other methods
and losts of quirks, especially in intralata rating.  The placename
in the V&H is the name that will end up on your phone bill.  The TPM
(Termination point master) is an extension of the V&H which includes
such info as credit card prefixes, including corporate cards.
Anybody can order a V&H or LERG (they're not cheap though), but the
TPM is restricted to BOCs, LECs and independants.

>[Moderator's Note: Such a list, if it exists, would be hopelessly out of
>date in a short time.

Not so.  The LERG and V&H have update info built in for about 6
months ahead, including a field that says when the change becomes
effective.  There are also update services (Addison Wesley runs one)
that have both mailed and on-line updates.

Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

Date:     Sun, 8 Jan 89 23:02:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Area code and NNX pairs?


A while back, I received an area code program written in C.  It has a
few updates from me, mainly for new areacodes added in 1988.

As for NNX (or NXX, if the area in question has N0X/N1X prefixes),
you could check on the AT&T V&H tape via AT&T Long Lines.  As the
Telecom moderator states, this is subject to rapid updates (not to
mention having a LOT of information to begin with).

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 09:58:48 EST
From: David M. Kurtiak <[e-mail]>
To: bovine![e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Cc: [e-mail]


Mr. Higdon:

Your reply was well put, and I have to agree with most of what you said.
It was also well supported with current market issues.  My original
followup was based on the interpretation of what you were saying was
just to knock *everything* made here, and that we as a country CANNOT
compete.  That was the "knee-jerker" -- you originally just about
busted everything and anything without any support other than "typical
American attitude."  I just simply can't buy that line of thought.
Now I can see what was really behind the issue with a backed up
response.  I will somewhat apologize for the initial defensive
attitude now that its more clear that it wasn't just a bashing
without cause.  (hey, we're as American as the next guy!) :-)  There
have been several occasions were a US made product hasn't met my expectations
or has crapped out before its time.  But to generalize that *all*
US made products fall into that category wouldn't be fair either.

You may be perfectly right about the "smokescreen" that the dumping
issue may have on the real, underlying problems US manufacturers are
facing.  Instead of takeovers and boardroom games, more attention should
be directed at the quality and INNOVATION of products.  If the products
are *that* much better, they will sell despite the price until another
(possibly foreign) manufacturer comes in and drowns the market.  I guess
that MARKETING is more important at that stage, hunh??  Whatever - your
points are good, especially about the others hoping we never wake up...

There are some products out in the market that are maufacturerd here and
are making very impressive sales both domestically and internationally.
Perhaps more should follow those success stories instead of being more
concerned with personal greed...

----
David M. Kurtiak
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: [e-mail]
UUCP: [e-mail]  {gatech,rutgers}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk


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

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Harvey Cohen)
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Date: 11 Jan 89 20:30:40 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> bovine![e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 9, message 2
>Mr. Kurtiak:
>I was somewhat surprised by your instant reply to my posting. Unfortunately
>I feel that your response was typical of the knee-jerk attitude that
>pervades the US manufacturing community.
Translation:  "The US manufacturing community has no right to complain
about unfair trade practices, because the US manufacturing community
is not virtuous."
>Having owned an equipment vending company for over five years (no longer;
>the market's too hoary) I can speak with some authority concerning the
>wares. Most US makers have been well behind the times in their technology.
[Several examples deleted]
Translation:  "US makers have no right to complain if foreign companies
sell below cost in US markets, because US products are inferior."
>"Dumping" is a convenient smoke screen that may be true to a small degree,
>but it has been proven over and over again that the American people will
>pay MORE for what they really want. Japanese cars cost more than their
>American counterparts and yet they still enjoy brisk sales. The same
>applies to telephone equipment.
Translation: "Since people pay more for Japanese cars, it follows that
they would pay more for Japanese telephone systems.  Therefore,
foreign suppliers should be allowed to sell below cost in US markets."
[Lots more about how US products are priced too high and have inferior
workmanship.]
Higdon's logic is so grossly, mind-bogglingly out of joint that it
is impossible to construct a reasoned rebuttal.
--
Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T Bell Labs, Lincroft, NJ, mtund!hsc, [phone]


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

Date:     Wed, 11 Jan 89 0:15:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping

I followed the discussion of ATT and dumping with some interest.  Since I am
currently living in Korea, I thought I might have a thing or two to consider.

First of all, I doubt that things are ever as simple as we would like.  The
existence of differing internal (i.e. domestic) tax laws and market policies,
as well as external (i.e. import/export) ones makes it difficult to directly
compare situations across countries.  Koreans, for example, pay sales taxes
far in excess of any in the U.S., at least on "luxury" products like cars and
computers.

Second, the law of supply and demand (with allowances for taxes and other
market-distorting forces) still applies.  A smaller demand will generally
imply a higher market-clearing price.  In Korea, for instance, the middle
class is much smaller than in the U.S., so it is only the rich who buy
things like computers.  Thus both a smaller market and a less price-sensitive
consumer.

Third, distribution mechanisms are different.  I am unaware of any Korean
mail-order Computer Shopper-type distribution.

Fourth, culture.  Koreans are VERY Korean.  They don't need any government
"buy Korean" programs.  Buying foreign goods when Korean equivalents are
available is frowned upon socially.  (This is changing however.  In
particular there is considerable snob appeal in owning a foreign-made item,
since it is usually seen as more expensive and possibly better made.)

Now the anecdote:  As an American living in Korea, I can buy a Korean-made
Leading Edge Computer more cheaply by mail order from New Jersey, including
shipping, than I can get it here.  It's a strange world.

Moral:  ?

Dan Jones

[e-mail]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 12 01:42:40 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA11228; Thu, 12 Jan 89 01:42:40 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89  1:24:16 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #12
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Jan 89  1:24:16 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:

                           Switched 56 Info
                          Switched 56 Update
                        Telemarketing Hardware
                           Time marches on...
                        Re: Time marches on...
                            Re: A Tiny Tim

[Moderator's Note: This is *part 2* of the digest for Thursday 12 Jan.
I am still processing some mail a couple days old. All letters will
appear, given a couple more days.    Patrick Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Switched 56 Info
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-89 10:06:14 PST


I apparently have misled the net with my comment that Switched 56
service was readily available from most RBOCs and all you needed to
do was call your RBOC. I based that comment on articles I had read
in Teleconnect, Data Communications, etc., but not having used it
personally. Open mouth, Insert Foot, Close Mouth.

After receiving several request for more information, I decided to
call my RBOC (Mich Bell) and ask about it. Their rep claimed that it
had not been tarrifed in Michigan yet and was only available as a
negotiated service. She didn't think it would be tarrifed for at least
a year.

I then called AT&T. They advertise the service as Digital Dataphone Service,
with speeds up to 56K BPS.

Now, one would think that it would be easy to get info from them, especially
when one has an AT&T Marketing office in ones city, an AT&T Point of Presence
in ones city, and a brand new 1989 phone book. Sigh.

Local Offices - Data Services: "We don't know what you are talking about."
Long Distance Services: "You're talking about a leased line, right?"

Finally, someone took my name and said they would have someone else call
me. I can hardly wait.

I shall continue to persue this, perhaps calling some of the DSU/CSU vendors.
However, if anyone else has any first hand knowledge, please speak up. Based
on the inquiries I received, there is a lot of net interest in this product.

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

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Switched 56 Update
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-89 15:43:42 PST


Well, as it turns out, I wasn't as wrong as I thought I was. (Open Mouth,
Remove Foot, Close Mouth)

I received a call late today from my company's AT&T rep. She actually knew
quite a bit about Switched 56 service. I shall attempt to paraphrase what
she told me. Note: This is not an endorsement for AT&T. I assume MCI or
Sprint can provide similar services.

The biggest problem with my previous posting (in comp.dcom.modems),
was saying to contact your RBOC for details on Switched 56. I tried
that and found out that they know little about it and in many cases
it may not be tariffed for local service yet. Call your account rep
at your prefered Interexchange Carrier. If you use AT&T and don't know
your rep, you can call 1-800-222-0400 and ask them to look up your rep's
name for you.

Switched 56 is available through most of country. Whether or not you
can use it depends on how close you are to AT&T's Point of Presence (POP)
and if your RBOC has the facilities (read: #5ESS, DMS-100, etc) in your
area and the area you want to call.

AT&T acts as a single point of contact for the entire circuit. Even though
the tail ends of the circuit will be handled by the RBOC, you still call
AT&T for installation, support, maintenance and billing.

Rates are very contingent on what AT&T has to do to get the RBOC to install
the circuit, so she wouldn't get me any ballpark prices. She was very willing
to price specific circuits though.

So... I stand by my original recommendation in that if you need small amounts
(1-3 hours?)of large bandwidth a day, it may be very advantagous to consider
pricing this option.


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

Date: 11 Jan 89 17:07:54 +1100 (Wed)
To: [e-mail]
Path: otc!peterh
From: [e-mail] (Peter Holdaway)
Subject: Telemarketing Hardware (was: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Guthrie) writes:
>
>By the way, if anybody is interested I have a Unix device driver for
>Dialogic boards (in beta test).
>Also, dialogic has a nice new board that lets you bring a T-Span
>into a PC.  You can then link it with another board they sell to do
>the conferencing, A/D APCM conversion etc.  Useful now for big
>telemarketing people, but will be great for gateways if they
>eventually provide ISDN PRI user side support.
>--
>Paul Guthrie
>chinet!nsacray!paul

What sort of Unix and what sort of bus are we talking about here ?

This sounds like the sort of thing I'm after so I'll contact Dialogic
directly.

Does anyone else know of, or can comment on experience with, currently
available hardware to perform these sort of telemarketing functions.

    DTMF I/O
    A/D APCM conversion
    Conferencing
    Switching
    T1/CEPT Mux

I would prefer to plug these boards into a Sun VME or PC(386i) bus, but I
could probably live with a MeS-DOS environment.

Peter Holdaway   UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.oz!peterh



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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@lsuc
Subject: Time marches on...
Date:     Mon, 9 Jan 89 19:25:34 EST


Patrick Townson writes:
> ... people with touch tone phones are still a
> *minority* in the United States, let alone other countries. ...
> Yet we look at an 'antique' rotary dial phone and say how quaint ...

This, I think, has to do with television and the movies.  If you watch a
show from the era when "dialing" meant just that, you'll notice that they
usually cut away after 2 or 3 digits have been dialed.  There's just too
much dead time waiting for the character to dial 7 digits (or so), unless
the director is trying for (a) extra realism, (b) extra tension, or (c)
comic effect.  The widespread availability of Touch Tone phones meant that
this little distortion could be done away with, and now Touch Tone is almost
all that you see.  And if you don't see one on TV or in the movies any more,
it must be an antique, right?

I still remember the scene in ACE IN THE HOLE (1951, a.k.a. THE BIG CARNIVAL)
where reporter Kirk Douglas is phoning his editor.  He asks the long distance
operator for a New York number, say "New York 73204".  And then he gives the
number he's calling from:  "Escadrilo 2"!

When I first saw this scene it sounded wonderfully periodish.  Then in
1983 I went to New Zealand.  The user interface to the phone system there
is generally very like the British one, except of course for the dials
which are numbered the other way around.

Well, my wife and I were with a friend (Robert Biddle) in Te Anau
(a beautiful spot), and he placed a call to a hotel in Milford Sound
(a still more beautiful spot ... but I digress).  He was transferring the
charge, so he couldn't direct-dial the call.  After it, he reported to us:

    Robert:        I'd like to make a transferred-charge call to
            Milford Sound.  Please charge it to Spencerville 269.
    Operator:    That's Spencerville 269, and you're calling
            Milford Sound 6.
    Robert:        How did you know that?!
    Operator:    It's the only telephone in Milford Sound.
    Robert:        !!
    Operator:    Except for the box outside the post office, and
            I didn't think you'd be calling that.

As we drove THE road to Milford Sound the next day, we noticed poles alongside
with exactly 2 wires on them.  Robert noted, "That must be for THE telephone".

Antique?  What's antique?

Mark Brader            "That's what progress is for.  Progress
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         is for creating new forms of aggravation."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- Keith Jackson


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (bruce nelson)
Subject: Re: Time marches on...
Date: 10 Jan 89 04:36:29 GMT




>From the 1953 Binghamton, NY phone book (you never know when you  have to look
up someone's 1953 phone number :-)

1. Obtain the number from the directory. For example 7-3245.
2. Remove the receiver and listen for the dial tone, - a steady humming sound.
3. Then place your finger in the hole in the dial over the figure "7" and turn
   the dial around until your finger strikes the stop.
4. Raise your finger and without touching the dial allow it to return to its
   original position.
5. Then dial the figures "3","2","4" and "5".
   Listen for the RINGING SIGNAL, an intermittent burring sound which indicates
that the called telephone is being rug.
   If the called telephone is busy you will hear instead the BUSY SIGNAL, a
rapid buzz-buzz-buzz quicker and louder than the ringing sugnal.
   If the party you are calling does not answer after several attempts, call
"88" and ask whether the number has been changed or disconnected.

Simple, isn't it?

Bruce D. Nelson           | UUCP: ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!hawkeye!nelson
Eastman Kodak Company     | Voice: 716-726-7890

901 Elmgrove Road         |
Rochester, NY 14653-5219  |
------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 89 09:47:50 PST (Monday)
Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Still more on "... hooking an automobile accident to a computer ..."

The January 8 edition of the San Jose Mercury News (Section F, pages 1, 7)
had an article entitled "Disabled find jobs on-line."  The article lists
the following local agencies "that can help the disabled obtain computer
training."

1. The Bridge Project: Sunnyvale [phone]
2. Project Hired: Sunnyvale [phone]
3. The California Department of Rehabilitation: San Jose [phone]
4. The CIL-Computer Training Center: Berkeley [phone] (voice or TTY)
5. Disabled Programmers Inc.: San Jose [phone]

The article has more information on each of these organizations.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Jan 13 00:07:08 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA27571; Fri, 13 Jan 89 00:07:08 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 00:00:51 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #13
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Jan 89 00:00:51 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:

                          Dialing For Dollars
                      Re:  New way to donate money
                       Race conditions in a PBX
                 Glare (was Race Conditions in a PBX)
                             Cellular Info
                   Re: Finding Your Ringback Number
                             Many thanks!

[Moderator's Note: Address changes recommended by relay.cs.net were
implemented today, as per message in yesterday's Digest. If you see
anything flaky, please advise.   P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Dialing For Dollars
Date: Thu, 12-Jan-89 08:54:15 PST


Regarding the message about the local telco in Washington collecting
$5 or $10 depending on what number you dialed...

AT&T (and probably the others) has been getting geared up to offer
a similar service nationwide.

That is, certain 900 numbers will be billed at whatever rate the
info provider wishes. You may get connected to a recording similar
to current 900 service or you may get put through to a live person
or computer system similar to current 800 service.

Think of Compuserve with your telco doing the billing instead of
Compuserve billing your credit card.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 9:19:09 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  New way to donate money


Re the "moderator's note" on the subject of donating by making a phone call:
This looks to have enormous potential for abuse. Someone who gets access to
a company office's telephones or those of a university, say, could make
hundreds of phone calls, donating thousands of dollars to their favorite
cause, with no way to trace the false donations back to the real caller.

Traditionally, the potential for abuse of illicit access to someone
else's telephone was limited by the fact that they usually could only
call other people and run up a long-distance bill, but, after the abuse
was detected, such calls could be eventually charged to the called
party, or the actual caller could be identified by looking at the
pattern of calls or talking with some of the called parties (and
threatening them with being charged for those calls, sometimes! :-).

Now, with 976 numbers and other such automatically-charged services,
the abuse potential went up, but was still limited by time and
(probably) boredom -- after an abuser gets into an office and makes
ten 976 calls, he's probably bored by it and will stop. He has no
incentive to continue, unless all he wants is to attack the company,
and even then it gets tiring.

Now, with this new option, though, there is an incentive. He can both
hurt the company and direct thousands of dollars to some cause he
supports, be it "save the baby seals" or "right to life" or "planned
parenthood" or The Committee To Re-Elect The President or whatever...
Even though some mechanism will probably be implemented to allow
"backing out" of such donations, especially if such a pattern of abuse
is detected, it will still be a hassle, be after-the-fact, and not all
illicit "donations" will be detected or reversed. This gives the person
with a grudge an incentive to make many many many calls; he doesn't even
have to wait to listen to any spiel, but can just repeatedly make calls.
With an autodialer device, a determined hacker could tap into a line and
run up a multi-thousand-dollar string of "donation" calls in just a few
minutes, if we want to get technological about it...

Maybe it still is a good idea -- as long as the only people who get
donations are causes I approve of, that is... :-)

Will Martin

[Moderators Note: I think the answer to this is that most telcos allow
blocking of 900/976 numbers, to prevent abuse of any kind, which would
presumably include the abuse described by Mr. Martin. I suspect also that
there would be some cancellation clause in the telco's contract with the
charity, which gives the telco total recourse for uncollectibles. P. Townson]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 13:44:31 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Patton)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Race conditions in a PBX


   From: [e-mail] (Lester Hiraki)
   Date:     Mon, 9 Jan 89 14:16:47 EST

   Does anyone know how to solve the following problem?

   Consider a simple PBX which works as follows:
[... Describes race condition on bidirectional loop-start lines ...]

   Assuming loop-start lines, can this race condition be avoided?  Note,
   not all business have ground-start lines.  I understand ground-start
   lines eleminate this very problem?  Can someone explain how ground-
   start lines work?

I used to work for a company that made equipment for telephone
connection.  The answer to your question is that Loop-Start lines are
not supposed to be used bi-directionally, except for cases where this
does not matter (i.e. where the person answering the call and the
person wanting to dial would often be the same person anyway).  Full
PBX equipment should not use Loop-Start bi-directionally.  Frequently
the people involved in an actual installation don't know this and so
you get the problem you describe.

We occasionally ran into the opposite problem where the phone company
wanted to install Ground-Start lines because they assumed our
equipment was a PBX when in fact it was terminate-only.  In later
models we provide small amounts of originate-like service and had to
provide a Ground-Start interface to avoid exactly this problem.  It is
my impression that the conversion from Loop-Start to Ground-Start is
fairly simple on most CO equipment (they managed to do about 10 lines
in half an hour when we put in a PBX), but there are some low-end PBX
vendors that can't provide Ground-Start trunking.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 08:26:01 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Glare (was Race Conditions in a PBX)
To: [e-mail]


    Ref Hiraki@ecf-toronto's query.
    The condition you describe is known as glare and is as old as the
hills.  The way to avoid it is not to use ground-start for two-way trunks.
The way to >minimize< is to have one end select trnks from the "top" of
the trunk group, the other from the "bottom".  You will still occasionally
get glare but less often.
    Ground Start is the common signaling method for this type of trunk.
Trunk seizure is initiated from either end by grounding one of the wires.
Normally (a dangerous word to use here) the PBX grounds the Ring and the
CO grounds the Tip to initiate calls.

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

To: mcsd!killer!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
Subject: Cellular Info
Date: 11 Jan 89 21:53:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Goble) writes:
>
>I just got off the phone with John Covert.  He had information which
>said that ATT (when they went to #4 ESS toll switches) was the cause
>of the roamer ports going off hook.  The #4 ESS only allows a one-way
>connection until the remote end goes off hook.

To provide some added information, this is referred to as answer supervision
in the telephone industry, and must be known and programmed in both the
Cellular switch and the serving CO.  The "off-hook" on the roamer port is
actually generated in the Cellular switch, not by Bell.  The reason for this
is that due to the connection only being one way initally, if the Cellular
switch does not return Early Answer Supervision (I.E. when the switch Connects
as opposed to a mobile phone answering), the audio path from Bell to the
Cellular system is never established and the dialed digits never make it to
the Cellular system which then times out and fails the call. Answer supervision
is NOT the same thing as an off-hook condition.  Answer supervision typically
consists of a wink being returned to th C.O (E&M signalling at least) by the
Cellular system and is totally irrelevant as to whether the Cellular switch is
actually connected to and "listening to" the trunk circuit.  The primary reason
that Bell uses this is probably just as likely to be to increase billable
revenue as it is to prevent toll fraud.  Bell feels that they have every right
to bill for a call (local or long distance) which terminates to a Cellular
system roamer port since they ARE passing audio and the call is utilizing their
facilities for a period of time (while you dial the mobile number after
receiving the second dial tone).  Hopefully someday the Bell companies
will agree to exchange billing information with the Cellular carriers and then
what is known as Calling Party Billing (where the person who called eats the
entire bill INCLUDING the cellular air time, instead of just a local call or
whatever, just like a normal long distance land-land call) will be possible.
Then whenever that jerk salesman trying to sell you widget X of a wrong number
comes in, you could rest comfortably knowing that you won't have to pay for it!

tad
(First posting, so no signature yet!)


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

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 00:40:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Find Your Ringback Number

Re: moderator's response to my system to find one's ringback number

Point well taken.  I would never recommend or advocate running something like
that after nightfall, and even in the daytime, attempt it on your own
conscience.

A better solution might be to secure a list of all exchanges in your area
code; about 10 valid exchange prefixes are always left out of an area code's
numbering plan for plant test functions such as ringback.  A trip to the
public library's phone book section would give one the information necessary
for cross-referencing prefixes.

Miguel Cruz

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

Date: 9 Jan 89 11:23:34 EST (Mon)
From: gmeeca![e-mail]
Subject: Many thanks!
To: [e-mail]



My sincerest thanks to everybody who was kind enough to post their responses
to the Tiny Tim request.  I have forwarded all the information to the
appropriate source (father's friend), who was truly overwhelmed.

                  -- Bradley W. Smith
                  (gmeeca![e-mail])
                  2813  Dayton  Drive
                  Ann Arbor, MI 48108
                  [phone]


[Moderators Note: And thank you for sharing with us. Remember, we will be
expecting a follow-up message as the project continues, and at its conclusion
as well. PT]
------------------------------

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Jan 14 01:08:00 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA08955; Sat, 14 Jan 89 01:08:00 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 89  0:40:19 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #14
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Jan 89  0:40:19 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:

                       Re: AT&T alleges dumping
            Sleazebag 970 Numbers with Automatic Harrasment
                     Re: Race conditions in a PBX
                        "Antique" phone numbers
                         Re: Time marches on...

[Moderator's Note: Here's hoping your weekend is pleasant. If you are
getting a three day holiday out of it for MLK's birthday observed, then
you are a lot luckier than me. Watch for something *really special* in
the next issue of the Digest: an up-to-date, complete listing of North
American area code assignments, prepared by Alexander Dupuy. You should
have your copy sometime over the weekend.  Patrick Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: algor2![e-mail] (jeffrey)
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Date: 11 Jan 89 18:44:09 GMT



I was very sad to read that AT&T has descended to Japan-bashing.  It is a
company for which I have the greatest respect.  They have been a generous
client, and even if that had not been the case, as a UNIX programmer I
would still owe them my livelihood.  Their ability to plan for the long
term is unequaled.

However, it seems clear that the Japanese equipment is not underpriced,
except in comparison to the AT&T stuff.  I had looked at the AT&T phone
systems, and the sales people acted as if they already had a government
enforced monopoly.  The system was completely incompatible, even with other
AT&T equipment.  In short, AT&T has yet to make a serious attempt to
compete with the foreign systems, in price or openness, and their recent
"anti-dumping" action seems to indicate they would rather solve the problem
with lawyers than engineers.  Unfortunately, we expect this sort of thing
from American firms, but I had every reason to hope AT&T would be an
exception.

Phone systems, even Japanese ones, still are high priced, and tend to lock
customers into the vendor's equipment, and limit the customer's expansion
options.  The solution for this is competition.  Phone systems could be an
important source of innovation in our economy, rather than a major
overhead.  However, if foreign makers are locked out, this innovation will
be slowed in the United States.  Our foreign competitors are going to have
access to cheaper and better phone systems than Americans.

I would hope our "solution" to the DRAM "dumping problem" would have taught
all involved a lesson.  Our chip prices skyrocketed, sales of thousands of
U.S. products were hurt, the Japanese companies did just fine without our
markets, thank you, and the two American companies that did make money are
spending it on suing each other.  I am not sure my business could survive
many more attempts to protect my job.

AT&T is perfectly capable of beating the Japanese by producing a quality,
reasonably priced product--and of selling it in Japan.  Not to even try is
unworthy of a company which represents the very best of business in
America, and therefore the world.
--

Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists
1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
[e-mail] or uunet!algor2!jeffrey


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

To: rutgers![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ed Ravin)
Subject: Sleazebag 970 Numbers with Automatic Harrasment
Date: 12 Jan 89 19:12:34 GMT


A couple of months ago, I came home to find a message on my machine from
an automatic sales call machine.  The message went something like this:

"Please answer the following questions and listen carefully to the contest
rules.  You may win a vacation trip to sunny FLORIDA!"

Machine asks some dumb questions about my desires to go on vacation.

"Now please listen carefully.  If you answer this contest question
correctly, you will WIN an EXPENSES PAID TRIP TO FLORIDA! blah blah blah
blah blah blah...

"Who is the famous Star Personality that turns the letters on the TV hit
'Wheel of Fortune'?  Is it:

    a) Barbara Streisand
    b) Barbara Walters
    c) Vanna White
????"

"If you think you know the answer to this question, then call 970-xxxx.
That's 970-xxxx.  Yes, call 970-xxxx and if you have the correct answer you
will win the trip to FLORIDA!"

After repeating the number and the exhortation to call a few more times,
the machine says, in a faster and less understandable voice:

"cost is $5.95 per call"

And then repeats the phone number five more times trying to con you into
call.  This seems about as on the level as those postcards I've gotten
every now and then telling me I've won a trip to Florida and when you call
them for more information it turns out it actually costs at least $89.95.
What I find most disturbing about this is that it sure is easy to miss
their announcement of the price of the call, and get snookered into calling
back and dropping six bucks into these crook's pockets.  If I didn't have
it recorded on my answering machine I very well might have missed hearing
how much the call was and if I was a little dumber than I am I might have
called thinking that I was real smart knowing who Vanna White was and for
my smartness I was getting a trip to Florida.


--
Ed Ravin                  | cucard!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing
(BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| [e-mail]   | to waste-- boycott TV!"
--------------------------+----------------------+-----------------------------
Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article.

[Moderator's Question: This was printed the way I got it. Mr. Ravin, do you
mean 970 or 976 as the prefix? What area code is this?  PT]
       ^      ^
------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Race conditions in a PBX
Date: 13 Jan 89 02:09:11 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lester Hiraki) writes:
> Does anyone know how to solve the following problem?
>
> Consider a simple PBX which works as follows:
> All incoming calls from trunks are routed to the attendant console.
> Outgoing calls are processed as follows...
...
> Imagine now that an incoming call arrives at a trunk but the CO has not
> yet applied the ring voltage - ie connexion was made during the silent
> window (ringing is usually 2s on and 4s off, say).  Just at this moment
> someone within the PBX is making an outside call & the PBX seizes
> this trunk before ringing starts, in effect answering the call.  The
> incoming caller is connected to the person waiting for his outside call
> to be completed.
>
> Assuming loop-start lines, can this race condition be avoided?  Note,
> not all business have ground-start lines.  I understand ground-start
> lines eleminate this very problem?  Can someone explain how ground-
> start lines work?


Lester's question refers to what telephony people call glare.  When
bi-directional trunks are used between two switches, either end may
seize a trunk at any time.  How do we handle the case where both
ends of the same circuit are seized at the same time?

Ground-start lines are typically used between PBX and Central Office
switches.  A separate mark-busy channel in each direction is
provided, as follows:  The CO marks the circuit busy by applying a
high-impedence ground to the TIP side of the loop.  The customer
equipment marks the circuit busy by applying a high-impedence ground
to the RING side of the loop.  Either end may send its busy-mark to
the other end while testing the other end's busy-mark.  The standard
protocol is that the PBX tests the CO's busy-mark (by checking for
the ground on TIP) before it bids for the line (by grounding RING).
The CO does the same thing in reverse.  If the PBX and the CO both
bid at the same time, the standard protocol requires that the PBX
release the circuit and seize another outgoing trunk, and the CO
will complete the incoming call.  The probability of glare is
reduced, if possible, by having the PBX hunt for a trunk from the
top down, while the CO hunts from the bottom up.

If ground-start service is not available, the usual practice is to
use two trunk groups, one for incoming service, and the other for
outgoing service.  If this is not done, there is no reliable way of
avoiding glare.

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 12 Jan 89 15:57
To: [e-mail]
Subject: "Antique" phone numbers


>    Operator:    That's Spencerville 269, and you're calling
>            Milford Sound 6.
>
>Antique?  What's antique?

We still have plenty of those here, and if it's possible when not doing a
transferred call charge to Milford Sound 6 to dial it directly, the NZ system
is less antique than ours.

The Patrick Creek Lodge, near Crescent City California, is "Idlewild 5."  To
call this you must call your operator (I suspect if you're outside the LATA
you've gotta call AT&T; Sprint operators almost certainly can't put the call
through).  BTW, the number is listed with normal 707 555-1212 directory
assistance.

It's a magneto phone on a ring down.  Although the last full magneto exchange
was removed from Bryant Pond, Maine, several years ago, there are still quite
a few phones in remote places which have to be called via special ring-down
magneto circuits on the local intra-LATA toll board.

/john

[Moderator's Note: And don't forget northern Nevada. There are dozens of these
'toll stations' as they are called; tiny communities with two, three or maybe
four telephones in total. I think the entire state of Nevada is in a single
telephone directory, called logically enough, "Nevada Bell". An entire town
with all five telephones -- or sometimes three entire towns! -- will be listed
on a single page. For billing purposes, they are called 'other places' and
connection is from your long distance operator via Reno, NV Microwave (702+181)


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

Date: 13 Jan 89 16:18:00 GMT
To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom

From: [e-mail] (Alex Zell)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Time marches on...
Date: 13 Jan 89 16:17:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John B. Nagle) writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 7, message 7
>
>
>     The John Crerar Library at IIT in Chicago had, and probably still has,
>a number of classic pamphlets and books on early telephony.


The John Crerar library is no longer at IIT. It has been a part of
the University of Chicago library system for several years.  The
library is open to the public.  There are, of course, restrictions
on withdrawals.
--
Alex Zell  editor@chinet    editor@igloo
Pictou Island, NS

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Jan 15 10:54:04 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA03904; Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:54:04 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:41:04 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #15
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:41:04 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:

                Request For Area Code Program Written in C
                       Area Code Numerical Listing
                       Supplementary Code Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: harvard!gatech!cbnews.ATT.COM!ms (Michael S. Stansbery)
Subject: Request For Area Code Program Written In C
Date: 13 Jan 89 17:04:49 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
> A while back, I received an area code program written in C.  It has a
> few updates from me, mainly for new areacodes added in 1988.
>
> As for NNX (or NXX, if the area in question has N0X/N1X prefixes),
> you could check on the AT&T V&H tape via AT&T Long Lines.  As the
> Telecom moderator states, this is subject to rapid updates (not to
> mention having a LOT of information to begin with).


If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would appreciate a copy of the area
code program you have written in C.  Probably the best way would be
to post it to the newsgroup.  Other people may be interested also.

Thanks,
Mike


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Alexander Dupuy)
Subject: Area Code Numerical Listings
Date: 13 Jan 89 22:11:51 GMT



You don't need a C program to translate area codes into placenames: this script
does the trick just as well, and it's easy to modify when they change:

@alex
==============================================================================
#!/bin/sh
'exec' /usr/bin/look "$1" "$0"
011 [ International Access Code ]
201 Morristown, and Newark, (Northeast) New Jersey
202 Washington, District of Columbia
203 All parts of Connecticut
204 All parts of Manitoba, CANADA
205 All parts of Alabama
206 Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, (Western) Washington
207 All parts of Maine
208 All parts of Idaho
209 Fresno and Stockton, (Central) California
212 New York City (Manhattan and Bronx) New York
213 Los Angeles, California
214 Dallas, (Northeast) Texas
215 Allentown, Chester, and Philadelphia, (Southeast) Pennsylvania
216 Akron, Cleveland, Massillon, and Youngstown, (Northeast) Ohio
217 Springfield, (South Central) Illinois
218 Duluth, (Northern) Minnesota
219 Gary, Hammond, Michigan City, and South Bend, (Northwest) Indiana
301 All parts of Maryland
302 All parts of Delaware
303 Denver, (North and West) Colorado
304 All parts of West Virginia
305 Fort Lauderdale, Key West and Miami, (Southeast) Florida
306 All parts of Saskatchewan, CANADA
307 All parts of Wyoming
308 North Platte, (Western) Nebraska
309 Peoria, (West Central) Illinois
312 Chicago, Illinois
313 Detroit and Ann Arbor, (Eastern) Michigan
314 Saint Louis and Columbia, (Eastern) Missouri
315 Syracuse and Utica, (North Central) New York
316 Dodge City and Wichita, (Southern) Kansas
317 Indianapolis and Kokomo, (Central) Indiana
318 Lake Charles and Shreveport, (Western) Louisiana
319 Dubuque, (Eastern) Iowa
401 All parts of Rhode Island
402 Lincoln and Omaha, (Eastern) Nebraska
403 All parts of Alberta, CANADA
404 Atlanta and Rome, (Northern) Georgia
405 Oklahoma City, (South and West) Oklahoma
406 All parts of Montana
407 Orlando, West Palm Beach, (Eastern) Florida
408 San Jose and Sunnyvale, (Silicon Valley) California
409 Galveston, (Southeast) Texas
411 [ Directory Assistance ]
412 Pittsburgh, (Western) Pennsylvania
413 Springfield, (Western) Massachusetts
414 Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Racine, (Eastern) Wisconsin
415 Oakland and San Francisco, (Bay Area) California
416 Toronto, (South Central) Ontario, CANADA
417 Joplin and Springfield, (Southwest) Missouri
418 Quebec City, (Northeast) Quebec, CANADA
419 Toledo, (Northwest) Ohio
501 All parts of Arkansas
502 Louisville and Paducah, (Western) Kentucky
503 All parts of Oregon
504 Baton Rouge and New Orleans, (Eastern) Louisiana
505 All parts of New Mexico
506 All parts of New Brunswick, CANADA
507 Rochester, (Southern) Minnesota
508 Worcester, Framingham and New Bedford, (Eastern) Massachusetts
509 Spokane, and Walla Walla, (Eastern) Washington
512 Austin, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio, (Southern) Texas
513 Cincinnati and Dayton, (Southwest) Ohio
514 Montreal, (Southern) Quebec, CANADA
515 Des Moines, (Central) Iowa
516 Hempstead, (Long Island) New York
517 Lansing and Saginaw, (Central) Michigan
518 Albany and Schenectady, (Northeast) New York
519 London, (Southwest) Ontario, CANADA
601 All parts of Mississippi
602 All parts of Arizona
603 All parts of New Hampshire
604 All parts of British Columbia, CANADA
605 All parts of South Dakota
606 Ashland and Covington, (Eastern) Kentucky
607 Binghamton, Elmira and Ithaca, (South Central) New York
608 Beloit and Madison, (Southwest) Wisconsin
609 Atlantic City, Camden, and Trenton, (Southwest) New Jersey
611 [ Repair Service ]
612 Minneapolis and Saint Paul, (Central) Minnesota
613 Ottawa, (Southeast) Ontario, CANADA
614 Columbus, (Southeast) Ohio
615 Chattanooga and Nashville, (Eastern) Tennessee
616 Battle Creek, and Grand Rapids, (Western) Michigan
617 Boston area, (Eastern) Massachusetts
618 Alton and Centralia, (Southern) Illinois
619 San Diego and the Imperial Valley, California
701 All parts of North Dakota
702 All parts of Nevada
703 Arlington and Roanoke, (North and Western) Virginia
704 Charlotte and Salisbury, (Western) North Carolina
705 North Bay, (Northern) Ontario, CANADA
706 Tijuana, (Northwest) MEXICO [equivalent to +52 6X XXX XXX]
707 Eureka, Napa, and Santa Rosa, (North Coastal) California
708 Aurora, Elgin, and Highland Park, (Northeast) Illinois
709 All parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, CANADA
712 Council Bluffs, (Western) Iowa
713 Houston, Texas
714 Orange County and Palm Springs, California
715 Eau Claire and Wausau, (Northern) Wisconsin
716 Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Rochester, (Western) New York
717 Harrisburg, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre, (Central) Pennsylvania
718 New York City (Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island) New York
719 Colorado Springs and Pueblo, (Southeast) Colorado
801 All parts of Utah
802 All parts of Vermont
803 All parts of South Carolina
804 Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Richmond, (Southeast) Virginia
805 Bakersfield, Ventura, and Simi Valley, (South Central) California
806 Amarillo, (Northern) Texas
807 Thunder Bay, (Northwest) Ontario, CANADA
808 All parts of Hawaii
809 Bahamas, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
812 Evansville, (Southern) Indiana
813 Fort Myers and St. Petersburg, (Southwest) Florida
814 Altoona and Erie, (West Central) Pennsylvania
815 Joliet, and Rockford, (Northwest) Illinois
816 Kansas City and Saint Joseph, (Northwest) Missouri
817 Fort Worth, Temple, and Waco, (North Central) Texas
818 San Fernando (Suburban area near Los Angeles), California
819 Sherbrooke (South Central and Northwest) Quebec, CANADA
901 Memphis, (Western) Tennesee
902 All parts of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, CANADA
903 * Unassigned *
904 Jacksonville, (Northeast) Florida
905 Mexico City, (Northern) MEXICO [equivalent to +52 5 XXX XXXX]
906 Sault Ste. Marie, (Northern) Michigan
907 All parts of Alaska
908 * Unassigned *
909 * Unassigned *
911 [ Police/Fire Emergency Service ]
912 Macon and Savannah, (Southern) Georgia
913 Salina and Topeka, (Northern) Kansas
914 White Plains, and Poughkeepsie, (Southern) New York
915 El Paso, (Western) Texas
916 Sacramento, (Northern) California
917 * Unassigned *
918 Muskogee and Tulsa, (Northeast) Oklahoma
919 Greenville, Raleigh, and Winston Salem, (Eastern) North Carolina
--
--
inet: [e-mail]
uucp: ...!rutgers!columbia!dupuy

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:39:19 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Supplementary Code Numbers


You may wish to add a few additional codes to the list given above. These three
digit codes are also in use, although they are not, strictly speaking, 'area
codes'. They are not in the chart above since I thought some of you may not
want them there. If you do, then edit them in.

200 Local testing, used by many telcos.
410 Western Union Telegraph Company - Northeastern USA
510 Western Union Telegraph Company - Eastern USA
610 Western Union Telegraph Company - Canada
700 Value Added Information Services, per individual OCC
710 Western Union Telegraph Company - Southern USA
800 In-WATS 'toll free' calling
810 Western Union Telegraph Company - Mexico
900 Mass Calling Information/Value Added Services
909 Telenet Communications Corp. Data Network
910 Western Union Telegraph Company - Western USA (from Chicago westward)

The thing with WUTCO is, many years ago the old Bell System operated Teletype
machines; what they called the TWX (or [T]ype[W]riter E[X]change. The TWX
machines had their own switches, located in existing telephone central
offices, but on separate equipment. About twenty years ago, a court ruling
required Bell to sell its TWX service to Western Union, in a suit brought by
WUTCO against AT&T. WUTCO operated the system as TWX for many years, and in
the past five years has changed the name to Telex II.  The Western Union
central offices for Telex I (the original telex network) have always been
in WUTCO offices. The central offices for Telex II (formerly AT&T's TWX) are
still in Bell central offices, although they now belong to WUTCO. Is that
clear?

Telenet's data network uses conventional area code numbering in the way
its switches route calls. Again, there is a lot of telco central office
equipment tied up with hardwired connectons between Telenet and its customers
who have direct connect PADS, etc. Telenet also has gateways into telex and
TWX (or Telex II). 'Area Code' 909 is assigned for billing purposes to the
activities of Telenet. If you use the Telenet network, via indials or
whatever, that any connection of the form @C 909xxx is a connection to
the Telenet headquarters offices in Reston, VA.

So these codes 410,510,610,710,810 and 909 are occupied and recognized by
the network for purposes other than voice. You cannot dial into them from the
voice network, but they are none the less assigned.

Likewise, AUTOVON, the federal government telephone network, is largely
accomodated through the Bell central offices in every city with federal
government facilities. This part of the overall network was grouped together
under 300 at one time. I am not sure of the code now. No one *actually dials*
300-anything, but the number relates to that function. Calling from  the
public switched network to AUTOVON is largely transparent. In calling to a
federal office in Our Nation's Capitol for instance, we can generally dial
202-public-last four *or* we can dial 202-autovon-last four and the call
will go through. That is because autovon and 202 prefixes are not overlapped
or duplicated in many areas.

When the present unassigned area codes of the conventional format have all
been used, sometime around 1992-1995, area codes 210,211,310,311,400,500,511,
600,711 and 811 will be next in line for assignment.

Whether or not you want to include these special numbers in the chart given
in the earlier message depends on if you want strictly a listing of the
*dialable* codes used by the voice network at present, or if you want to
include all *assgined* codes. And while 700-800-900 are not strictly
speaking area codes, my belief is they definitly should be added to the list.


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

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

From [e-mail]  Tue Jan 17 02:43:35 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA28773; Tue, 17 Jan 89 02:43:35 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89  2:15:05 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #16
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jan 89  2:15:05 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:

                         Hello Direct Catalog
                  Re: Alternative Operator Services?
                        Telemarketing Hardware
                 Re: Network Access Fee Up December 1
                          New File Available

[Moderator's Note: Over the weekend, the mailer went out of order. On
Monday morning I remailed issue 13 from Friday, rerouted through Harvard.
As a result, I was unable to get this issue out. Today you are receiving
*two digests* -- number 16 and number 17.   Patrick Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 12:02:41 mst
From: [e-mail] (Robert Wier)
To: arizona!noao!ncar!husc6!harvard!bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Hello Direct Catalog
Cc: naucse![e-mail]


 Hello Telecomers --

 I recently received a new catalog from a company called Hello Direct
(800-444-3556)(800-HI-HELLO), located in San Jose,
 which contains a number of products relevent
 to topics discussed in recent months on the net.

 Some of the more interesting items they have listed are:

 A call forwarding re-router which can be changed from remote
 locations.  Requires a single line with Centrex type call forwarding
 at Central Office. $149 (Not sure if this would work with standard
 TT ESS equip.  Anyone know?)

 A 2 line call forwarder that will work without Centrex for $355.

 A voice mail system which runs on a PC $349

 Automatic Call timer (start/stop when phone goes off/on hook) $30

 Group III battery operated FAX machine with celluar phone adaptor,
 about $1600

 Various combinations of phone sets without dials, and restricted
 access phones $70 - $160

 Call restrictors - Since there has been a lot of interest in these on
 the net, I will include an extended description.
 The single line model can be custom programmed.
 Factory settings disallows 976: 1 or 0 followed by 976, area code
 followed by 976. 900: 1 or 0 followed by 900.  1 plus area code
 (long distance).  411: 1 followed by 411, 555: 1 or 0 followed by
 555;  1 or 0 followed by area code and 555 (directory assistance).
 Has capacity to allow/disallow up to 23 different phone number of 21
 digits, or other combinations of phone numbers up to 484 digits.
 Remote programming with security code (5 digits).  Override passcode
 (4 digits).  Rotary or TT programmable.  Also allows timed calls from
 1 to 15 minutes.
 (note- Can't tell if it is battery operated or not.  The picture does
 not look as if it contains a battery...there have been problems reported
 with other battery powered units that the call restriction goes away when
 the battery goes dead).

 STRONG DISCLAIMER:  I have no connection with HELLO DIRECT, and am
 *NOT* recommending their products.  I, in fact, have not actually
 seen any of these units.  But it might be worthwhile getting their
 catalog if you have any interest along these lines.


 -Bob Wier at Flagstaff, Arizona         Northern Arizona University
  ...arizona!naucse!rrw |  BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers*


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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: orion@nuchat (Roland Dunkerley III)
Subject: Re: Alternative Operator Services?
Date: 14 Jan 89 20:10:16 GMT
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]



In article <[e-mail]>, marko@apple writes:
>Last night I was paying bills and opened my phone bill.  Well the usual PR
>junk was stuffed in there with the bill.  I normally glance at it to be
>sure they aren't trying to sneak one by, like a rate increase hearing or
>something.  Anyway, the brochure had a blurb about alternative operator services
>and how you could be billed for their use when you are away from home and using
>your credit card.  It went on to say that you should ask what operator you are
>using and ask for a different one if it is not the one(company?) you
>normally use.
>
>Now I understand that.  What I don't understand is how do I know what I want?
>How do I get the best rate say eight or nine times out of ten?  Does anyone
>know more about this?
>
There was a big discussion on this subject in comp.dcom.telecom a
while back, follow-ups have been directed there.  The places to look
out for AOSes are Airports, Hotels, and Non-Local Operating Company
Coin Operated Computer Operated Telephone (I'm sure I've slaughtered
the acronym, someone please tell me the right way).  The best thing to
do is to ask the operator what company he/she works for, and what
outlandish rate they are going to try and charge you, be especially
careful making what you may think to be AT&T credit card calls - If
the operator doesn't say "AT&T" they usually aren't.  If you want any
more info on this, someone else on Telecom-Digest may have the
relevant back issues.
  Oh, addressing the last question, usually any AOS is going to have
their rates Hiked way way up, the only way to tell is to ask (or read
it on the phone, I've seen phones in houston that charged 50c a minute
for all domestic LD.
>Mark O'Shea
>SDA
   Roland Pleasant Dunkerley III KSC
*** ([e-mail])  (uunet.UU.NET!nuchat!orion)
*** South Coast Computing Services
*** We service Publicly Redistributable software - reasonable rates
*** Inquire within

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

To: mit-eddie!comp-dcom-telecom
From: mit-amt![e-mail] (Chris Schmandt)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Hardware (was: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines)
Date: 14 Jan 89 03:29:02 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Holdaway) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Guthrie) writes:
>>
>>By the way, if anybody is interested I have a Unix device driver for
>>Dialogic boards (in beta test).
>
>What sort of Unix and what sort of bus are we talking about here ?
>

Dialogic currently has a System V driver.  Their boards are 8 bit PC bus.
I hope to be converting their drivers to SunOS (BSD) in the next couple of
months, and a Mach port after that.  If anybody is interested in this as a
product, they should call Dialogic (Parsippany, NJ, AC 201) as that's likely
to make it happen faster.  Ask for Jim Shinn (President) and tell him who sent
you! I've been trying to convince them that the Sun 386i is a nice
platform for voice/phone hacking!

There's also work at Olivetti Research Center, Menlo Park, in an
"audio server" called VOX that is similar in spirit to the X window
graphics server.  Good bet that Dialogic will be the first hardware
supported.  The VOX code may become public domain, again in the spirit
of X.  It's the *right* way to handle multiple lines/conversations in
a multi-process environment.

Chris Schmandt



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

To: [e-mail]
From: moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)
Subject: Re: Network Access Fee Up December 1
Date: 12 Jan 89 20:53:24 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 191, message 8
>
>
>   AT&T WATS rates will be reduced 4 percent effective January 1, 1989.
>   In addition, AT&T will bill calls individually based on time and
>   distance. The current hourly pricing method will be discontinued.

Is this all WATS calling, or just the PRO-WATS (formerly the Pro-America)
setup?  I have been patiently waiting for a report deleting most of ATT's
FCC #2, but to no avail.
--
 -->        David Esan                rochester!moscom!de

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 00:23:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: telecom
Subject: New File Available


The messages from Mr. Dupuy and Mr. Statton on the subject of area code
assignments and the prefix assignments in 800-900 have been compiled into a
special file called [TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes], or
'guide.to.areacodes' within the telecom-archives. In a general announcement
on USENET, I've made this special file available by request to anyone who
writes to ask for it. Or they can take it via ftp if they have that ability.

If you would like to have those messages, which originally appeared in
Volume 9 Issues 2 and 15, ask for your own copy, or ftp it. I found the
messages quite good and felt certain the general net readership would
probably want to have a copy; at least of the numerical listings if not the
technical discussion, but it is included also.

The file has of course been placed in the public domain to be copied and
distributed as desired, subject only to my requirement that subsequent
republications credit [TELECOM Digest] and the authors of the messages
used therin.

Patrick T.

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

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


From [e-mail]  Tue Jan 17 03:06:38 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA00418; Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:06:38 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89  2:29:45 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #17
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jan 89  2:29:45 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:

                        Finding Phone Numbers
                       Re: AT&T alleges dumping
               Demise of Auto Number Announcement (ANA)
                              A Tiny Tim
                       Re: AT&T alleges dumping
                      Re: Excuses instead of info
             Telecommunications And The Emotionally Disturbed

[Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of the Digest for Tuesday 1-17.
We had a clogged up mailque over the weekend which forced suspension of
transmission early Monday morning. We got a backlog of mail as a result.
By Wednesday's Digest I hope we are back to normal with incoming mail.
You should have received issue 16 just a few minutes ago.

Furthermore, you received one -- or two $%%%$#-up copies of 17 just
now, thanks to stilll another evil, dastardly control character stuck in
the file which aborted it after 85 lines or so. This, then folks, is
the real issue 17. Honestly. This is NOT my day!   P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 09:26 EST
From: GREEN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Telephone Numbers
To: [e-mail]


When I dial the WUTCO "area code" 410 followed by any 7 digits, the
synthesized voice returns the number I'm calling from.  How widespread is
this phenomenon?

-Scott Green

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Pierce T. Wetter)
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Date: 12 Jan 89 21:25:17 GMT



> Now the anecdote:  As an American living in Korea, I can buy a Korean-made
> Leading Edge Computer more cheaply by mail order from New Jersey, including
> shipping, than I can get it here.  It's a strange world.
>
> Moral:  ?

  This is true in Japan as well. If you buy a stereo in japan you are almost
forced to buy it from a small shop. (Not much inventory & High overhead per
item). He buys it from the Sony distributor, who buys it from someone else etc.
until you finally reach sony. Because of this long chain, markups from
wholesale are much higher than in the US for an equivalent item.

  I suspect that if American companies weren't prohibited from doing so, a lot
of companies like Sears, Federated, the Warehouse could make an awful lot of
money by opening American style distribution networks in Japan.

  Additionally, the terrible Japanese distribution system makes it more
difficult for American companies to compete in Japan. (for various reasons
I won't go into.)

  The Japanese economy is very bizarre. (Stocks sell for up to 1000 times
earnings, Vs. the US 20 times earnings). My opinion of the Japanese culture is
that its some sort of bizarre capatilist fuedalism. (But this is only my opinion).

  Dumping notwithstanding, if Japan does not do more to open its borders, or
if the dollar does not fall lower, Japan may be in for a rude shock when the US
and Europe finally get annoyed enough at Japan to do something about it, in
which case the US will probably overreact. Japan doesn't understand that if they
want us to buy their stereos, they have to buy our rice. The US is getting to
the point that they will soon be willing to stop all trade with Japan, and damn
the consequences.

Pierce

You can flame or laud me at:
[e-mail] or [e-mail] or [e-mail]
  (There would be a witty saying here, but my signature has to be < 4lines)

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 13:19:29 PST
From: ll-xn!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com!mtbill (Mountain Bill)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Demise of Auto Number Announcement (ANA)


In San Diego county Pac*Bell has removed the popular ANA test number from many
ESS central offices (410-222-2222).  I heard a rumor (from a Pac*Bell
installer; can't be true! 8-) ) that the company disabled this test number
after a harrassment suit was heard in a local court, naming Pac*Bell as a
co-defendant because it allowed the harrassing party a means by which to learn
the victim's new unpublished number after each number change.  Sheesh.

Does anyone know the true story, or better yet, the new ANA test number?
I find it hard to believe that Pac*Bell can justify sitting a person at the
testboard all day long to provide this function...

UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!mtbill
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1989  14:43 MST
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: A Tiny Tim


Amateur Radio has opened up a whole new world for disabled persons,
allowing them to communicate with others by radio.  It can offer hours
of entertainment and participation to such people.

In that light, I offer the information enclosed below.

--Keith Petersen  W8SDZ  (my amateur radio callsign).

---forwarded message---
Date: Saturday, 15 February 1986  19:18-MST
From: kroth%regina.DEC (Philip J. Kroth)
Re:   Address for Handi-Hams

A guy at work asked me for the address of Handi-Hams.  After thinking
about it I thought that there might be other people out there who
might want it too:

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

Here is the address of Handi-Hams.  Handi-Hams is an organization of
handicapped and non-handicapped people who help other handicapped
people get licensed and on the air.  If you know of a handicapped
person, licensed or unlicensed, who would like assistance or if you
would like to help, contact Keith Graham who is the director:

              Keith Graham
              Handi-Ham Systems
              Courage Center
              3915 Golden Valley Road
              Golden Valley, MN  55422

The preceding information was given to me by Gayle WA1OPN from
Worcester, MA.  Gayle is a blind and deaf Amateur also suffering from
MS.  She is limited to CW operation only but is in the process of
getting the necessary equipment which will allow her to operate
packet.  As anyone who knows Gayle will agree, she is an inspiration
in the truest sense of the word.  Despite her three handicaps, she
earned an extra class license, teaches radio theory to people around
the world, holds two part time jobs and writes articles about
computers and the handicapped which have been published in several
languages.  She has received many awards including a commendation from
President Reagan.

Philip Kroth KA2QIK/1

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

Date: Fri Jan 13 21:23:32 1989
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
From: zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)


On Jan 11 at 20:30, Harvey Cohen writes:
> Translation:  "The US manufacturing community has no right to complain
> about unfair trade practices, because the US manufacturing community
> is not virtuous."

If US manufacturing community wants to complain about what they
perceive to be unfair trade practices, let them do so. If they want to
improve their position in the world marketplace, then let them put
their own house in order.

> Translation:  "US makers have no right to complain if foreign companies
> sell below cost in US markets, because US products are inferior."

Whether or not foreign companies sell below cost in US markets is moot
if the public will not touch the inferior wares spewing forth from US
manufacturers.

> Higdon's logic is so grossly, mind-bogglingly out of joint that it
> is impossible to construct a reasoned rebuttal.

Judging from the "translations" offered by Mr. Cohen, he has completely
missed the point. It used to be that the finest telephone equipment in
the world was manufactured in the United States, period. Matters of
dumping and unfair trade practices were not an issue. If you wanted the
best, you bought American. Furthermore, if you offer inovation that no
one else can match, how can unfair trade practices harm you?

It's when you sit back and rest on your laurels (as AT&T seems to be
doing, among others) you leave yourself wide open for trouble. It is my
understanding the the "dumped" systems are of poor quality anyway. If
this is causing AT&T trouble, then things are worse off for them than I
orignally thought.

> Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T Bell Labs, Lincroft, NJ, mtund!hsc, [phone]

Mr. Cohen's attitude is understandable considering his affiliation.

--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
From: comdesign!ivucsb![e-mail] (Dan Howell)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 15 Jan 89 07:23:55 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> hp-sdd![e-mail] (Roger Haaheim) writes:
|Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number,
|hang up, and the dialing phone would ring;  some kind of
|echo.  It was used by phonefolks who came to fix the phone,
|to check to see if it was working.  They had no problem
|telling the customer what that number was so the customer
|could dial back to him/herself.  Why has that capability
|become proprietary?  I know it's still done, but when I
|ask...excuses, but no number.  How come?

On GTE phones in both Santa Barbara and in the Los Angeles area, it seems
that dialing your own phone number will give you a clicking sound, then
when you hang up gour phone rings, and when you answer you get the same
clicking sound.  Also, dialing 114 will tell you your phone number.

On some Pacific Bell phones in the Los Angeles area, 1223 will give you
a digitized voice telling you your phone number, followed by a menu giving
you several options, one of which is ringback.

This doesn't work on the phone I use in L.A., and works on my friend's
phone.  What's really strange is that we both are located in the same
calling area, although we have different prefixes and live in different
cities.  I do know that my prefix is used in his city and his prefix is
used in my city, but have not had an opportunity to try any these out.


-- Dan Howell  <...!pyramid!comdesign!ivucsb!dan>  <[e-mail]>

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

Date:     Mon, 16 Jan 89 13:02:26 -0900
To: [e-mail]
From: JTJBM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications With The Emotionally Disturbed

I am writing a paper on the use of telecommunications with the
emotionally disturbed--using it as a socializing mechanism.
Do you know any programs involved in this technique? Jan-Baptiste
Maas, Juneau, AK University of Alaska, Southeast.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan 18 03:19:07 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA13917; Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:19:07 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89  2:58:00 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #18
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jan 89  2:58:00 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:

                1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
              Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
                       Fraudulent Use of 900 #'s
                     Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
                     Re: Race conditions in a PBX
               Free Trip to Florida (for $5.95 a call!)

[Moderator's Note: By now everyone should have issues 13-14-15-16-17,
although you may have received them somewhat out of order. Unfortunatly
I have no control over the mailer programs used. If you did not get
one or more of these, please advise. This is *part 1* for Wednesday;
*part 2* will follow in a few minutes as issue 19.  P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: 14 Jan 89 03:31:59 GMT



My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area
code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial-
ing "1" before area codes.  (Up till now, they've just dialed the area
code and the seven-digit number.)

At about the same time, my MCI bill contained a short announcement of
this same thing (why they told me, in Los Angeles, I have no idea), and
it said this was part of a plan by Pacific Bell to introduce a new area
code in the San Francisco Bay area.

I'd be interested in any comments from the net about this development.

-- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // [phone]
   3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA
   [e-mail]      ...!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!wales
"Now, if you do see me again today, I want you to report it to me immediately."

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

To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
From: comdesign!ivucsb![e-mail] (Steve Lemke)
Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers
Date: 16 Jan 89 21:47:11 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> soley@ontenv writes:
}In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black) writes:
}: I just read a short review in PC Week about a  $400  gizmo  which
}: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the
}: caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person
}: press  the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice
}: phone, which rings as usual.  If '3' is not  pressed,  the  gizmo
}: box  assumes  that  a  fax  or  modem  is  calling, and your data
}: equipment receives the incoming call.  Seems like a good  way  to
}: get double use of one line.
}:
}: The $400 seems overpriced for what  you  get
}
}I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in
}addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with
}voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable)
}considering this the price is quite reasonable.

Actually, I was just at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and
I think that what you're after is a neat new device I saw there called
The Eliminator - Autoswitch TF-300, made by Command Communications, Inc.
Their number is [phone], and they also have another device called
the Autoswitch TF-500.

The Autoswitch TF-300 will handle a FAX machine, answering machine, and
normal voice telephone, and the Autoswitch TF-500 adds modem handling.

The details of how these devices work is a bit too complicated to mention
here (and besides, I'm not feeling well and don't feel like typing it all
in) but it was discussed on page 22 of the November, 1988 Radio Electronics
and is described in detail on the product brochures available from the
company.  I believe the prices were $195 (TF-300) and $295 (TF-500) but I'm
not sure.  They'll also be coming out with a TF-400 which is like the TF-300
but works with a modem instead of a FAX machine.


----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!"
----- Internet: [e-mail]                    CompuServe: 73627,570
----- uucp:     apple!comdesign!ivucsb!steve         GEnie:      S.Lemke
----- Quote:    "What'd I go to college for?"   "You had fun, didn't you?"

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

To: [e-mail]
From: arizona!naucse!kwc
Subject: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
Date: 12 Jan 89 19:42:37 GMT


I saw an interested approach to the illegal use of 900 numbers on a T.V. news
program the other night.

It seems that a man in New York city set up a 900 number for his home and
proceeded to place an advertisement in the New York Times to the effect that
he had a "free" house for rent in trade for upkeep and maintenance on the
house.  I can't remember what percentage of the income went to the phone
company and what percentage went to the guy in NYC but he got significantly
more than 50%.

Finally, after enough complaints, the FBI launched an investigation and
told this guy to remove the add.  He did remove the add but one week later
he took out another add for some other deal which was "too good to pass up"
using the same 900 number.  After several weeks the FBI was again notified
and they investigated again.  This time the investigation was more significant
and the whole affair may eventually go into litigation.  But as of the news
report that I saw, all money received by this man was still in his possession.

It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new
category of fraudulent crimes (recall the Portland Santa Claus 900 number
discussed on the net not long ago), as well as all of the problems parents
have making sure that their teenagers are not running up hundreds of dollars
in bills from 900 numbers.  Add to that all of the complaints about telephone
solicitation and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service
of the business world rather than individual users.  I guess whoever has the
most money wins!

--
Ken Collier                            ...arizona!naucse!kwc
College of Engineering and Technology  Bitnet: collier@nauvax
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona


From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
Date: 13 Jan 89 15:42:50 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Collier) writes:
>It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new
>category of fraudulent crimes....
>...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service
>of the business world rather than individual users.  I guess whoever has the
>most money wins!

Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud????
The telephone company.  When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls
and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill,
the parents aren't about to pay $2,000 and the sure don't want to have
to discipline their children or even worse actually "supervise" them!!!
(Whats really weird, and of course kinda off the subject, but my
parents would have skinned me alive if I had run up that kind of a bill,
and probably would have made me pay for it...)

The phone company pays for all kinds of fraudulent phone calls.  College
students from foreign countries who call home and then skip out leaving
a bill of about $3,000, stolen calling cards that are used by the thief,
etc, etc.  I could go on and on.  How do I know???  Well I used to work
in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money
from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen or
their kid calling whomever.

Businesses stay in business by making money.  Plain and simple.  Try
to run a business that loses money and see how long it lasts.  And
when the phone company makes money, I make money being an employee.
But then I turn around and buy a new car, and that keeps Ford in
business, and I rent an apartment, and that keeps the landlord in
business, and it goes on and on.....


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ Sharon Deetz, System Administrator               /  "The only trouble with
/ Southwestern Bell Telephone - Advanced Tech Lab  \    being in the rat race
\ 1010 Pine St. - Room 502 - St. Louis. MO. 63101. /    is even if you win
/ UUCP: {pyramid, uunet, bellcore}...!swbatl!rebel \    you're still a rat!"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



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

From: hou2d![e-mail]
To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde
Subject: Re: Race conditions in a PBX
Date: 13 Jan 89 20:25:10 GMT




The condition with PBX's where two simultaneous seizures (call attempts)
may be connected together is called glare.  In PBX trunking,
there are two common signaling arrangements: loop start and ground start.
Loop start is a two state signaling (on-hook and off-hook), which
may allow simultaneous seizures.  That is, an outgoing call may, in the
absense of ringing, seize a trunk at the same time as an incoming call
is waiting for the ringing generator to place ringing on the line.
Remember that there is a pause in the ringing signal which is typically
four seconds.  To eliminate this condition with loop start signaling,
PBX trunks are usually engineered as one-way in or one-way out.
This directionality refers to the call set up direction, not the
transmission path.  From the PBX's perspective, a one-way in trunk
can receive outside calls, but the PBX cannot place calls on that trunk.
This eliminates the possibility of a trunk being seizied from both ends
simultaneously.

The other PBX signaling, ground start, uses more than two states to contain
signaling information.  A seizure from central office to PBX is initiated
by placing a  ground on the tip.  A PBX to office seizure is initiated with
a ground on the ring.  After detecting a ground, the trunk is considered
busy, and is not seized at the detecting end.
>From here ground start gets complicated.
In the office, a ring ground is responded to with a tip ground and a
dial tone, the tip ground causes a loop closure at the PBX,
which is detected in the CO, and a DP or DTMF detector (where applicable)
recieves the digits (and causes dial tone to vanish).  The call is now set up
from the station set to the office.  On an incoming call,
an office tip ground is also accompanied with office ringing, which
initiates a loop closure in the PBX, and sets the call up.
(Disclaimer: I haven't studied this in a while, and address signaling
isn't addressed here.)

Hope this answered your questions...


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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 09:14:27 EST
From: [e-mail] (Frank Prindle)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Free Trip to Florida (for $5.95 a call!)


This scam is being operated by Integrated Information Services (how typical!)
at 402-330-5150.  They issue their calls from local nodes in major cities.
I called to suggest that they block our PBX exchanges before systematically
ringing all 3000 phones here at NADC (fortunately, outgoing 976 calls are
blocked by the PBX).  Their representative, Marilyn Gore, said she would try,
but it would take a few days!  I sure hope the FCC or PUC or whoever soon
puts an end to these people.  Junk mail is one thing, but charging people to
get hooked into one of these land deals takes a lot of guts!
Sincerely,
Frank Prindle
[e-mail]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan 18 03:50:29 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA15904; Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:50:29 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89  3:28:35 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #19
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jan 89  3:28:35 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:

                        Life as a toll station
              Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling
                              Phone Rates
                      Panasonic Switching System
                      AT&T 1300 Answering system
                 Re: Will my Sony IT-a600 work in Oz?
                     Re:  New way to donate money

[Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of the Digest for 1-18. P.Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 12:54:54 PST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Life as a toll station


Back when I was in elementary school, my mum and dad decided they
wanted to live out in the country, so we moved to a place about
50km west of Quesnel, B.C. At first we had no phone, then we had
a radio phone because dad was the local manager for BCTel. Then
we became a toll station...

We remained Baker Creek 1-C for a couple of years. Everybody (10
parties? 12 parties?) was on the same line, and BCTel used coded
ringing to identify subscribers. Our code was two long rings and
two short rings. To place an outgoing call, you picked up the
phone and it rang at the operator's console in Prince George
(140km away). You told the operator who you wanted to call, and
she connected you. Incoming calls had to go through the operator
as well; you told the operator you wanted Baker Creek 1-C and she
connected you after tapping out two longs and two shorts. I
believe such calls were billed as operator-handled long-distance
calls, at the same rate as for adjoining areas just outside of
the local calling area.

The system that had been in place before was administered by
another phone company (NorthWesTel?). It used a home-made loop
extender that was a big power transformer with the line to the CO
hooked up to the filament winding, and with the line to the
subscribers (a 12 party line, but no coded ringing) coming out
the primary. We were beyond its range. Besides, it didn't work
very well...

We got a dial phone and 7 digits about 1974, when Baker Creek
became part of the Bouchie Lake exchange (604-249).

- laura halliday
  University of B.C.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1989 15:29-EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling


[avoid these if you can, I suppose.  I was travelling from Pittsburghgh
to Boston when these things happened to me.]

Bad experience #1:
 C{e,o}ntel, random operating company first rest area in NY on East 84:
 950-1022 MCI access works, but the tone pad is dead after connection.
 I can't enter any numbers to call or access codes.

 theory: polarity is reversed after the call is completed, and the lousy
 phone doesn't have diodes to handle this.
 The nice operator connected me to the 'MCI operator', who took the
 information verbally and then connected me.  I plan to fuss if I don't
 get billed at the '950' rate (50c surcharge)

Bad experience #2 (worse)
 [don't remember the company, can anyone tell me who serves that area?
 They mostly use GTE pseudo-phones.]
 Somewhere on I-81 S (rest area between Scranton and Wilkes-Barre)
 try {,1,0}-950-1022, no luck. try 1-800-950-1022 and get the operator.
 I think I have a wrong number and hang up.  I pick up the phone again
 and just dial 0, asking the operator to connect me to the MCI operator.
 She says (~) "No, I can only connect you to AT&T or Bell of PA". (I recall
 it being more like a refusal to speak with an ALDS carrier than anything
 else.)

 Not wanting to push the point at 5am, I give up and say OK, then call
 collect using AT&T (the AT&T operator was friendly, at least.)  No
 answer, so next time I try MCI's 800-950-1022 number again, again get
 an operator, and say 'I was trying to call <number>.  She connects me
 and all proceeds normally, except for that hated $1 surcharge.

Does anyone know of any other company that doesn't have a travel surcharge?
I signed up with SBS Skyline originally, but then IBM sold them to MCI and
they kept my $20 fee for this service and provided nothing.

                    - Ralph

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 21:38:57 PST
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Rates



One of the things that bothers me about the current pricing for phone
service is that phone costs are becoming more constant 24 hours per
day.

It costs the phone company almost nothing to complete a phone call.
Almost all of their costs are in fixed costs, mostly capacity costs
for installing the equipment.  Each individual call at the margine
that is completed and billed for is almost pure profit.  (It is
business that wants all of the new services and equipment, the phone
system of 10 years was technologically fine for transmitting voice).

The heaviest demand for calls is Christmas and Mother's Day.  Other than
these special days, the heaviest demand for phone service is during
the business day, which is why phone service has traditionally cost
more during the day, than at night.  Since the circuits are usually
idle during the night (unless usage patterns have changed significantly
during the past couple years), it would be most fair to charge almost
nothing during those hours.  The hours with the highest demand should
have higher rates than now in order to encourage people to call at non-
peak times.  (The overall costs of phone service would decline if that
were the case since less capacity would be needed to handle the same number
of calls).

In reality, however, costs are becoming more equalized, not less so.
Services like 900 numbers cost the same no matter what the time of day
they are called.  The access charge is the same whether you call at
peak or non-peak hours.  (Business may refuse to pay that charge;
residential customers cannot).  Reach out America plans charge the same
for calls during the evening and night periods.  The last I checked
there was no Reach Out America Night Plan, but there are discounts
during the peak, daytime period available.  AT&T's new tariff allows
them to discount their telephone rates below their standard rates
to business customers in order to be competitive, but they did
ask to have the same ability to cut rates for residential customers.

Finally, the night discount has been reduced as a percentage of the
daytime rate.  (The cost of completing a call at night has gone up
because the decrease in the discount has not been offset by declines in
the base rate.  In fact, for many carriers, the base rate has been
increasing, not decreasing).

These changes have all helped the business customer (who deducts the
cost of his phone service) and harmed the residential customer (who
cannot).  Thus, on an after-tax basis, the business customer calling
during peak times may actually pay less for phone service than a
residential customer who calls during hours with lower utilization of
capacity.  (I am assuming that the length and the location of the calls
is the same).

The reason given is that otherwise large businesses would set up their own
telephone systems.  The entire reason for the existence of the telephone
monopoly in the first place, however, was that due to economy of scale,
one large company could be much more efficient (and thus have lower prices)
than smaller companies.  To the extent that such economies of scale exist
today, smaller companies should be unable to provide phone service cheaper
than a large one.  If there are no economies of scale, then we should expect
to see more and more companies rather than the mergers of the past few
years.  And regardless, those companies would still have all of that unused
capacity at night and on  weekends, which they could sell very cheaply.

It is easy to see who has more lobbying power.  Businesses, who cannot vote,
are more succesful than individuals who can.

David Gast
[e-mail]
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast

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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Srini Sankaran)
Subject: Panasonic Switching System
Date: 17 Jan 89 21:42:00 GMT



I am considering buying a Panasonic KX-T616H Electronic Modular
Switching System. If you have anything good or bad to say about this
equipment, will you please e-mail me?
Thanks in advance.
-srini...
[e-mail]
...!cs.utexas.edu!srinivas



------------------------------
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Chip Maurer)
Subject: AT&T 1300 Answering system
Date: 17 Jan 89 22:13:00 GMT

We received an AT&T 1300 answering machine for Christmas.
I am happy with the machine, but do not like how many rings
it waits until it answers (about 6).  If I had saved all receipts
and boxes and stuff, and if it had been gotten at an AT&T phone
store, I could have gotten an upgrade to one that adjusts the number
of rings until it picks up.

Anyway, is it possible through a chip or some other modification, to
modify my machine to answer on fewer rings?  I realize that my warrenty
would be void, but if it is simple, I'd like to try it.


--
              Chip Maurer
     Concurrent Computer Corporation, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 [phone]
       {masscomp|mtune|purdue|rutgers|princeton|encore}!petsd!pedsga!chip
       "It's one o'clock, and time for lunch.  Bum de dum de dum dum dum"



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

To: munnari![e-mail]
From: munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail] (Dave Horsfall)
Subject: Re: Will my Sony IT-a600 work in Oz?
Date: 18 Jan 89 00:45:40 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes:
|
| i have reason to believe i may spend some time down under soon,
| and i'd (naturally) like to take my favorite phone/dialer/ansaphone.
| of course, i have no clue as to whether or not it is legal to
| connect devices to the australian phone network, and (if so),
| whether us-type phones will work.

Unless it's Telecom-approved, it's not legal.  But be that as it may,
there are a few differences you should be aware of:

1) Mains power is 240-250V, 50Hz.

2) Most of Oz is still pulse-dial, with tone-dial slowly being introduced.

3) Pulse-dial timing is, ummm... 0.6 secs break, 0.3 secs make, with extended
   pause (dunno how long) between digits.  (Since the PABX's I've used have
   always been tone-dial, and our local home exchange is now tone dial, I've
   forgotten all about the pulse stuff.)

4) The connector is a big 3-prong monstrosity, but RJ-11 adaptors exist.

5) Call-progress indicators are different - the RING tone is a double
   burr-burr, for example.

6) You won't find anywhere near the number of features provided by our
   favourite monopoly that you may be used to.  It's a real POTS, but
   the new AXE digital exchanges offer a few primitive features, like
   call-waiting, abbreviated dialling etc.  However, these are optional,
   and a particular account selects the required features (and pays).

7) There could be others - the risk is yours.

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel-STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
    PCs haven't changed computing history - merely repeated it

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  New way to donate money
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 22:41:10 PST
From: [e-mail]


Will Martin called attention to the enormous potential for abuse
of donations by telephone.  The moderator dimisses this problem
with the statement:

    I think the answer to this is that most telcos allow blocking
    of 900/976 numbers, to prevent abuse of any kind, which would
    presumably include the abuse described by Mr. Martin.  I suspect
    also that there would be some cancellation clause in the telco's
    contract with the charity, which gives the telco total recourse
    for uncollectibles.

This cries out for a reply!

1.  In fact, over their strong opposition, telcos were ORDERED to allow
    blocking of 976 numbers by the State PUC's (and, at least, in
    California, out-of-state 976 numbers cannot be blocked).  Initially,
    the telcos charged for the blocking!  Now the FCC is going to permit
    900 numbers with similar charging privileges to come on line and
    there is no plan to allow blocking them.

2.  Any sort of cancellation clause will be nothing but a major problem
    for the subscriber.

3.  There are services dedicated to providing charging and billing
    services, both electronically and physically (e.g., Visa,
    MasterCard, American Express, etc.).  Numerous abuses by these
    companies have caused Congress to pass rigid laws regulating them.
    These companies already permit donating to charities by telephone
    calls.  Next time there's a telethon, call one of the 800 numbers
    and you will be asked for a credit card number to charge your
    donation to.

4.  The key point is that as long as telephone service is an essential
    public utility, without competition (and this is the case for local
    service) the telcos' regulated services should be separated from
    inessential other services.  If they desire to provide charging
    and/or billing services, these should be provided separately,
    subject to the usual regulations that govern such services, with the
    same power of enforcement of payment (civil suit), AND NO MORE.  In
    particular, in no way should failure to pay for these other services
    be allowed to interfere with telephone service.

dgc

David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]
UUCP:      ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc

[Moderator's Note: A quick comment on a couple points Mr. Cantor raises:
He says the telcos were *forced* by the PUC's to allow blocking. Maybe his
telco was: Illinois Bell voluntarily implemented 900/976 blocking. They did
it after consultation with the Illinois Commerce Commission, but there was
no strong arm tactics involved; nor did they do it when it was apparent the
Commission would force the issue.

Mr. Cantor incorrectly notes that interstate 976 calls cannot be blocked. MCI
has always blocked them. Calls to AC-976-anything via MCI return an intercept
message saying 'at the present time, MCI does not complete calls to 976...'
It is true that AT&T does not block the calls; however it is also true the
charges billed to *intrastate* callers do not apply. 415-976-4297 costs 13
cents per minute at night via Reach Out. Callers within California pay $2 for
three minutes.

By 'telco having total recourse on collectibles' I was saying that when telco
cannot collect from a customer, a chargeback is made to the IP. Mr. Cantor
says the problems for phone subscribers would be horrible. What is so hard
about calling your service rep and saying you refuse to pay for something?
Patrick Townson]
------------------------------

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 19 02:55:27 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA03802; Thu, 19 Jan 89 02:55:27 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89  2:27:20 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #20
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jan 89  2:27:20 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:

          Drastic errors in "Supplementary" article in V9#15
                    Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
                    Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
                             The Moderator
                        Please Explain NT1U Boxes
                            SL/IP over X.25
              Re:  1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
                     Re:  Fraudulent use of 900 #'s

[Moderator's Note: In this issue of the Digest, The Moderator is expected
to take his medicine like a man-child. Honest, I was just testing to see
how much of this Digest you *actually read* every day! Regards issues 16
and 17, I assume everyone now has received them.  P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 18 Jan 89 00:12
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Drastic errors in "Supplementary" article in V9#15


The article "Supplementary Code Numbers" which appeared in V9#15 was one of
the most inaccurate articles I've seen in Telecom in its 9 volume history.

Although it's true that X10 codes were used on the public network for TWX
at one time in the past, not all of the codes shown in the article were ever
used, nor were they in the places the article indicates.

The X10 codes, and the associated equipment, have been completely removed from
the U.S. public switched telephone network.

Telenet's use of 909 within their public packet switch network has absolutely
no impact on any current or future use of 909 on the public switched telephone
network.

The article pretends to discuss AUTOVON, but most of the description given is
more applicable to FTS, the Federal Telecommunications System, than to AUTOVON,
which is the military's network.  The two networks are separate.  FTS does use
the same prefixes in the DC metro area for both on and off-net numbers, but
Autovon doesn't.  For example, the public network number for the Pentagon is
202 69x-xxxx, but the Autovon number is 22x-xxxx.  All the 22x codes are
assigned in 202 -- in fact 202 is almost completely full.  And Autovon's
internal use of area codes includes the use of "312" which has nothing to
do with Chicago at all.

>codes 210,211,310,311,400,500,511,600,711 and 811 will be next in line for
>assignment.

Wrong.  At that point, we'll start using XX0 codes that are indistinguishable
from NXXs, and 1+NPA+ dialing will be required on a nationwide basis.

/john

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 18 Jan 89 09:08
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers


The recent posting about special "area codes" was, uh, rather less
than stunningly accurate.  Indeed it probably contained almost zero
correct information!  Please allow me to clarify.

[lots of stuff about 410, 510, etc. and TWX deleted]
Western Union's Telex II services do NOT use area codes!  While the olde
AT&T TWX did indeed use four NPAs, WUD has a separate network, using
its own central offices.  The service codes are an artifact, not part
of the numbering plan!  The only exception is 610, the Canadian code,
which is still reserved in the North American Numbering Plan.  (WUD
does not serve Canada; the two networks aren't as fully separated up
there.)

>Telenet's data network uses conventional area code numbering in the way
>its switches route calls. Again, there is a lot of telco central office
>equipment tied up with hardwired connectons between Telenet and its customers
>who have direct connect PADS, etc. Telenet also has gateways into telex and

And Telenet has nothing to do with the telco numbering plan!  They, like
many other customers, lease private line facilities ("Special Access")
from the local telcos.

>TWX (or Telex II). 'Area Code' 909 is assigned for billing purposes to the
>activities of Telenet. If you use the Telenet network, via indials or
>whatever, that any connection of the form @C 909xxx is a connection to
>the Telenet headquarters offices in Reston, VA.

They do NOT have 909 reserved for them, nor does anyone else.  Since 909
is vacant, it is often used for local purposes, but Telenet doesn't own
it any more than Digital, Boston University or the Portal System!.  (We
had to use it to spoof some dumb PBXs that needed a "home area code", to
handle on-net calling.  909 will be the last one assigned, so it was a
logical choice.)

All those codes are NOT assigned.  700, 800 and 900 are assigned.  The
Administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, a job currently
assigned to Bellcore, will assign Service Access Codes 200, 300, 400,
500 and 600 as they see fit.  They may be used for non-Local Exchange
Carrier numbers.  In particular, ISDN standards specify that
telephone-style numbers can be used for data services as well, so
data carriers like Telenet might be assigned prefix codes in 700, 900
or the vacant SACs for their customers.

Re: Autovon, FTS, FTS-2000, etc.  These are private networks, that again
don't own public area codes.  Calls from private networks like these to
the public network typically use an area code, but that's a matter of
local convention.  The new FTS-2000 will have internally-assigned
"area codes" to dial between the AT&T and Sprint portions.

>When the present unassigned area codes of the conventional format have all
>been used, sometime around 1992-1995, area codes 210,211,310,311,400,500,511,
>600,711 and 811 will be next in line for assignment.

No, while n10 may become available (except 610), n11 is reserved for
special local functions (i.e., 911) and n00 is reserved for Service
Access Codes (i.e., 800, 900).  When area codes run out, new ones will
be of the format nn0; i.e., they will assign  Area Code 260.  And
the whole country will have 1+ dialing to disambiguate it.

The definitive reference is, of course, the Blue Book (Notes on BOC
Intra-LATA Networks, published by Bellcore).  And the authority to
change it nominally lies with the FCC and courts, but the sanctioned
forum for reaching industry consensus is now ANSI T1S1.4.  The numbering
plan is not settled yet, since ISDN will require lots of non-LEC numbers
to be made available to other carriers.
         fred

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 10:00:58 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
Does anybody other than Telenet recognize area 909?  And is Telenet's
950 number good for anything?

Signed,
Confused

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 08:46:31 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Moderator
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]


    Patrick Townson is a much more "activist" moderator than those in
the past,  more  notes  comments etc.   Unfortunately  the  notes  often
contain  quick,  top-of-the-head  reactions   which  are  erroneous   or
incomplete.  For example, the recent  posting on Nevada Telephone  Books
is 100% accurate for Northern  Nevada.  However, the majority of  phones
in the state are in the Las Vegas area served by Centel which  publishes
a large, conventional phone book.

    On the  other hand....Patrick  is doing  an outstanding  job  in
getting the Newsletter out,  a public service for  which he deserves  our
gratitude and support.  To paraphrase the outgoing president: "Moderate,
but verify".  :-)
-------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 09:17:36 EST
From: Jeff Spyker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Please Explain NT1U boxes
To: [e-mail]


We have recently become a test site for ISDN with Chesapeake and Potomac
(Bell Atlantic) with the installation of an on-site optical remote module
to a 5ESS at the CO.   The installation of AT&T ISDN 7506 stations is
proceeding with NT1U boxes on the wall.  Here's the question....
besides the obvious two wire to four wire conversion...what else does
this interface do?  There are quite a few chips and support components
inside to only do wire conversion.

thanks.

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

From: <pacbell!belltec![e-mail]>
To: pacbell!ames![e-mail]
Date: Wed Jan 18 15:38:16 1989
Subject: SL/IP over X.25


Does anyone use SL/IP with X.25?  Particularly, with PADs?

It appears that the only way to put any TCP computer on any X.25 network
is to rig up one or more serial lines between the computer (call it Fred)
and the PAD (call it Paddy) in a "milking machine" arrangement, with
Fred pretending to Paddy that Fred is one or more terminals, and Fred
running a modified version of SL/IP through Paddy to other Fred/Paddy combos.

Why would anyone do this?  Well, unless you spend a VAST amount of
money and time to get your X.25 board/machine combination certified
around the world, you can't do wide-area TCP any other way in many
countries like West Germany that have criminalized modems.

Isn't there a SL/IP committee somewhere?  Are they working on SL/IP II?
Will it run over X.25?

Jerry O. Merlaine
pacbell.com!belltec!jom


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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 10:21:41 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?


It might help to type in the text of that short MCI announcement.
Requiring leading 1+ where you have been starting immediately with
the area code could indicate that N0X/N1X prefixes are coming shortly.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:18:54 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Fraudulent use of 900 #'s


Sharon Deetz of Southwestern Bell, St. Louis, writes:
>Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud????
>The telephone company.  When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls
>and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill...

(By the way, Hi, There! I can look out my office window and see the
1010 Pine SWBell building -- I'm in the building at Tucker & Olive,
14th floor, 2 blocks away from you! This note is probably going to
travel about 3000 miles before you see it! :-)

The thing about these 900 and 976-number charges is that the telephone
company does NOT have to pay for them. First off, the charges are
totally artificial -- there is no relationship between the charge for
the call and the cost to provide the service. So to say that someone ran
up "$2,000" in calls may actually mean that the teenager made two hundred
calls, each billed at $10, but which cost the telco maybe 2 cents each in
actual expended resources [wear and tear on the relays, using up some
electrons in the wires or photons in the fiber cables, whatever... :-)].

The rest of the charge for the call is made up of the amortized
assignment of a portion of the telco's overhead and of various
development and suchlike costs being recovered on a per-call basis. Add
to that the totally arbitrary charge the telco just turns over to the
provider of the 900 or 976 service; this probably has even less of a
relationship to real costs than the telco's charge for the call!

Secondly, when a customer refuses to pay for these 900 or 976 calls, the
telco can turn around and just not pay that service-provider that amount,
deducting it from the payments made the next month to that company or
individual. That is, given the example cited, the telco just cancels the
$2000 billing, and then turns around and subtracts $2000 from the
$50,000 it was to pay "Dial-A-Porn" or whatever it was the next month,
and pays them only $48,000. (Agreed, actually they would deduct only the
amount that would have been paid to the service provider, maybe 75% of
the $2000 or whatever... details... :-)

In any case, though, the telco is NOT out any really noticeable amount of
money. It is all just bookkeeping and the juggling of figures.

Regards, Will Martin

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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Jan 20 02:03:57 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA22526; Fri, 20 Jan 89 02:03:57 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89  1:43:52 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #21
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Jan 89  1:43:52 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:

                 Bad pay-phone experience while travelling
                           Private Pay phones
                      Re:  New way to donate money
                          Query about Telebit
                              SMART Parks
                  Question Regarding 'Cut Through' Codes
                      Re: Excuses instead of info

[Moderator's Note: (Still gagging from bad tasting medicine) Another
heavy day with the mail, so a second part will be issued a few minutes
after this one, and it will include the 'area code program' written in
C language discussed by Carl Moore.        P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Roger Crew)
Subject: Bad pay-phone experience while travelling
Date: 20 Jan 89 00:24:43 GMT



Here's one for you:

   This one was at a payphone in Milford, PA.  Evidently, the area is
serviced by ConTel.  So I have a US Sprint calling card that I want to
use to make a call to NJ:

Tried 950-1033.  Doesn't work, but then, I didn't really expect it to.
Tried 800-877-8000.
    Recording ``your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Check the
    number and try again or stay on the line and a customer service
    representative will be with you shortly...''
    Well, I wasn't completely sure about the 800 number so...
Try the 800 number again...  Same recording.  Ok this time I'll wait
    for customer service.  ``Hello.  MCI customer service.''
    ``...actually I'm trying to place a call on US Sprint.''
    ``... oh, this is MCI.''  I then explained the problem
    ``well, the number we have for US Sprint is 800-531-0008''
    ``Ok, thanks, bye.''
Try 800-531-0008.  Recording
    ``The number you have dialed 800-531-0008 has been changed.
    ``The new number is 800-877-8000.''
    Great, so I was right the first time.
Back to the MCI people.
    ``Well maybe you can try US Sprint customer service at 800-531-4646''
Try 800-531-4646.
    ``The number you have dialed 800-531-4646 has been changed.
    ``The new number is 800-877-4646.''
Try 800-877-4646.
   ``your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Check the
    number and try again or stay on the line and a customer service
    representative will be with you shortly...''
    There's a pattern here.
Back to MCI.
    ``looks like the numbers you have are out of date, and the new
    ones don't work.  Maybe YOU could dial the call for me.''
    ``...well, I'm just a customer service rep; you need an operator
    for that... I know,... maybe you can check the number with 800
    directory assistance''  Well, I suppose it's worth a try.
Try 800-555-1212
    No problem getting through, but...
    ``Sorry we don't list LD access numbers.''  Well, f**k you very much...
    I know.  If I need an operator, I'll use an operator:
Dial 0
    Explain the situation.  ``...now I can't seem to dial this number.
    I know it's the correct number --- it's supposed to work
    nationwide; I just can't seem to reach it from this phone.
    Do you suppose you could connect me?''
    ``Sure, no problem.''
    Operator dials the number.  Same recording. ``Well gosh, I can't
    seem to get through either...  You need to talk to a long distance
    operator.''
    ``How do I get a long distance operator?''
Dial 00
    Explain the situation.  ``...do you suppose you could connect me?''
    ``Sure, no problem.''
    Operator dials the number.  I find myself listening to the same
    recording as before.  Unfortunately, the operator has long since
    gotten off the line by the time the recording comes on...
Dial 00
    Different operator.  Explain again.
    ``...do you suppose you could stay on the line this time?''
    Operator dials.  We get the same recording.
    ``I'm stumped.''
    ``Well, can you connect me with a US Sprint operator?''
    ``No.''
    ``How about an AT&T operator?''
    ``You're talking to an AT&T operator.''
    ``Oh, sorry, I thought you were MCI...  Anyway, what can I do?''
    ``You're travelling right?''
    ``Yup.''
    ``Go down the road about 20 miles until you're out of that service
area and try again...''

Bottom line:  You can't get there from here.  Period.

Didn't this all work five years ago?
--
Roger Crew        Copyright 1988 -- All Rights Reserved.   (so there!)
Usenet:    {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Private Pay phones
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 14:46:34 -0500
From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>


This is the first one I've seen -- a two column by two inch display ad
in this morning's Boston Globe business section:
----------
                  ATTENTION
               PAYPHONE LOCATION OWNERS

     .  Highest Commission On All 0+ Long Distance Calls
     .  $25 - $100 Signing Bonus Per Payphone
     .  Direct To You -- Never Available Before
     .  Keep Your "Bell" Payphone

     Recent Justice Dept. ruling lets YOU choose your 0+ long distance
     service.  By selecting ITI on your ballot, you will receive the
     most per call revenues monthly, in addition to your present Bell
     Commissions.  Call or write:

              CTI PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS*
            Pay Telephone Sales & Service
               [gives street address.]
       [gives 800 and 617 area code telephone numbers.]
          *Divison of CTI Inducstries, Inc.

[Text accompanied by photograph of a pay phone]
----------
[Quoted verbatim, typos and "[]" material mine, capitalization theirs.]

    /JBL

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New way to donate money
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 09:16:39 PST
From: [e-mail]


A few more quick comments:

1.  In California, the state PUC did order the telcos to allow 976
    blocking and initially they charged $2.00 per line for the
    "service".  I discussed this rather extensively with the PUC
    attorney who handled the matter.  The telcos didn't want to do the
    blocking!  I know nothing about other states.

2.  When we had finally were able to have 976 numbers blocked, our local
    telco (General Telephone) informed us, IN WRITING, that, pursuant
    to Federal law, it was not blocking out-of-state, long-distance 976
    numbers.  Whether some individual long-distance services do so, I
    don't know.  At the moment, I have NO WAY of blocking 900 calls and
    fairly expensive ones are now being advertised.  Look at the TV
    commercials around 4:00 am for the $1.00 per minute 900 party lines!

3.  The reply to the comment, "What is so hard about calling your
    service rep and saying you refuse to pay for something?" is easy.

    a.  You dial the 800 number for the service rep (General Telephone has
        centralized the service).

    b.  You wait 2 minutes until someone answers.

    c.  You wait another 3 minutes until the call is transferred to a
        person who handles your type of account.

    d.  You dither and bargain, get questioned, etc. and finally, maybe,
    if you are trusted, the calls are deleted from the bill (in
    the case when he had 976 calls deleted, we were asked to write
    a Formal Letter of Request to a Mrs. X of the telco for this
    deletion, and we did so).  In some cases, occuring to close
    friends of ours the telco has simply refused to delete calls,
    and it has taken lengthy negotiation with the PUC to have that
    done (turned out it was a "bug" in the billing system).

    e.  You get the next month's bill and find that it was done all
        wrong.

    It's easy to waste a great deal of time.

    Once again I reiterate.  If the telco's are going into the general
    billing service, like Visa, Mastercard, etc.,

          (And note that there's no particular reason that you
          shouldn't be able to buy theater tickets, airline tickets,
          automobiles, rent cars, reserve hotel rooms, etc., using
          976 or 900 calls)

    then they should be subject to the same regulations that these other
    operations are, including the various kinds of recourse which protect
    the customer--the card companies must refuse to pay companies when
    the customer so requests, etc. and failure to pay charges for other
    than telco services should have no effect on telco service.  This
    implies that the billing should be separate, so that the charges can
    be distinguished.

dgc

David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]
UUCP:      ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc

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

To: [e-mail]
From: nth![e-mail] (Loyd Blankenship)
Subject: Query about Telebit
Date: 16 Jan 89 13:36:29 GMT



I have been reading about the wonders of the Telebit, and was curious as to
the availability of software for the PC to run a BBS with it.  I'd like to
be able to use the modem with my Amiga for getting news, and run a BBS with
it on my AT clone.  Currently I'm using Wayne Bell's WWIV 3.xx software.
Is the Telebit compatible with standard AT-style Hayes commands?

Loyd Blankenship
cs.utexas.edu!nth!loyd   (UUCP)
Nth Graphics Ltd
Austin, TX

Disclaimers, etc...



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

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: harvard!gatech!cbnews.ATT.COM!alh (Al Housel)
Subject: SMART Parks
Date: 19 Jan 89 20:11:40 GMT



I have been reading about the development of smart office parks designed
to have all of the telecommunications capacity required for current
and future tenants.  Does anyone have any information on SMART parks?
I would be interested to learn of anyone taking part in this type
of office development to that I may contact for mor information.

Al Housel

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:57:02 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Question regarding 'cut through' codes


   I have just one question concerning the information contained in the Guide
to NA Area Codes. Immediately before the glossary, "cut through dialing" is
mentioned. This is a technique which I like to use, particularly when my
primary carrier is busy or suffering from sunspots or the like. What I would
like to know is, What are all of the cut through codes which one can use to
specify a carrier for your call. The only one which I know of is 10288, which
gives you an AT&T connection.

   Also, thanks for the copy of the guide.

                                                          --John DiLeo-Lopez

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

To: [e-mail]
From: avsd!childers (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 16 Jan 89 23:24:51 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> mcgp1![e-mail] (Donn Pedro) writes:

>If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would
>not be available for our use for testing. People used it to
>busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed.

Can you document this, or is this what your supervisor told you to say ?

>    Donn F Pedro  {the known world}!uw-beaver!tikal!mcgp1!donn

-- richard


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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Jan 20 02:51:07 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA25608; Fri, 20 Jan 89 02:51:07 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89  2:25:50 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #22
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Jan 89  2:25:50 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:

              Request For Area Code Program Written In C
                    Here is the areacode program
                    Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
              Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
                   Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder

[Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of the Digest for Friday 1-20. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 11:15:28 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Request For Area Code Program Written In C
Date: 13 Jan 89 17:04:49 GMT

[Moderator's note: Carl wrote me to say he tried to reach Mike Stansberry
but was unsuccessful. So the program is being presented here; we can all
benefit from it. Carl stressed to me in a note that he did NOT write the
program; but was merely passing it along.]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
> A while back, I received an area code program written in C.  It has a
> few updates from me, mainly for new areacodes added in 1988.
>
> As for NNX (or NXX, if the area in question has N0X/N1X prefixes),
> you could check on the AT&T V&H tape via AT&T Long Lines.  As the
> Telecom moderator states, this is subject to rapid updates (not to
> mention having a LOT of information to begin with).

[Mike Stansberry responded]
If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would appreciate a copy of the area
code program you have written in C.  Probably the best way would be
to post it to the newsgroup.  Other people may be interested also.

Thanks,
Mike

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 11:13:26 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  areacode program


/* Received from Brint Cooper
*/
#include    <stdio.h>
#include    <ctype.h>
/*
    areacode.c
    Translated from AREACODE.MAC.
    Ken Yap ([e-mail], ..!rochester!ken).

    Compile: cc -O -o areacode areacode.c
    Run: areacode nnn nnn ...

    AREACODE.MAC Ver 1.3 as of November 20, 1984
    Notes by Carl Moore:
    Modified 26-28 May 1988 to account for 305/407 split in
    Florida, 303/719 in Colorado, 617/508 in Massachusetts; also
    added note about suburbs in area 202.

    Ver. 1.3 added LA suburbs area code 818, added periods to
    messages (why not?), deleted double entry for area code 809,
    removed ungrammatical comma from ASCII string at MSG2: and
    added a space before the `$' in MSG2: so the first space in
    messages could be removed, providing an extra space for text
    without changing the SCAN3: routine's 58-character bias.
    This version provided for M80/L80 devotees courtesy of Irv
    Hoff's XLATE5.COM to prevent undue anxiety trying to find a
    copy of ASM.COM.  It has not been tested, so bug fixes from
    Z80-land are more than welcome. - Bruce Morgen

    Ver. 1.2 added 718 area code for New York City, and fixed bug
       in area code 604-804 Harry Kaemmerer

    Ver. 1.1 update of area codes for new U.S. areas, Mexico, &
    Eastern Canada. Harvey G. Lord, Storrs, CT 06268

    Ver. 1.0 - January 2, 1981 by Kelly Smith

    AREACODE is used to display the region and state, specified
    by the user...very handy, when someone leaves a area code
    number on a CBBS, but no city or state reference. Simple
    enough to use, just type AREACODE nnn<cr> (where 'nnn' is a
    three digit area  code), and in return, you get a
    geographical region by city(s), and state. Sorry if your
    particular city is not represented, and feel free to add it
    as required...

**    Entries must be in sorted order because binary search is used.
*/

char *areacode[]    = {
"011the International Access Code",
"170Northwest Mexico",
"190Mexico City, Mexico",
"201Hackensack, Morristown, and Newark, New Jersey",
"202Washington, District of Columbia (also suburbs)",
"203all regions, Connecticut",
"204Manitoba, Canada",
"205all regions, Alabama",
"206Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, Washington",
"207all regions, Maine",
"208all regions, Idaho",
"209Fresno and Stockton, California",
"212New York City (Manhattan and Bronx) New York",
"213Los Angeles, California",
"214Dallas, Texas",
"215Allentown, Chester, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania",
"216Akron, Cleveland, Massillon, and Youngstown, Ohio",
"217Casey and Springfield, Illinois",
"218Duluth, Minnesota",
"219Gary, Hammond, Michigan City, and South Bend, Indiana",
"301all regions, Maryland",
"302all regions, Delaware",
"303Denver, Colorado",
"304all regions, West Virginia",
"305Fort Lauderdale, Key West, and Miami, Florida",
"306Saskatchewan, Canada",
"307all regions, Wyoming",
"308North Platte and Scottsbluff, Nebraska",
"309Peoria, Illinois",
"312Chicago, Illinois",
"313Detroit, Adrian, and Ann Arbor, Michigan",
"314Saint Louis, Missouri",
"315Syracuse and Utica, New York",
"316Dodge City and Wichita, Kansas",
"317Indianapolis and Kokomo, Indiana",
"318Lake Charles and Shreveport, Louisiana",
"319Dubuque, Iowa",
"401all regions, Rhode Island",
"402Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska",
"403Alberta, Canada",
"404Atlanta and Rome, Georgia",
"405Oklahoma City, Oklahoma",
"406all regions, Montana",
"407Orlando and West Palm Beach, Florida",
"408San Jose and Sunnyvale, California",
"409Galveston, Texas",
"412Pittsburgh, Indiana, and Rochester, Pennsylvania",
"413Springfield, Massachusetts",
"414Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Racine, Wisconsin",
"415Oakland and San Francisco, California",
"416Toronto, Ontario, Canada",
"417Joplin and Springfield, Missouri",
"418Quebec, Quebec, Canada",
"419Toledo, Ohio",
"501all regions, Arkansas",
"502Louisville, Paducah, and Shelbyville, Kentucky",
"503all regions, Oregon",
"504Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana",
"505all regions, New Mexico",
"506New Brunswick, Canada",
"507Albert Lea and Rochester, Minnesota",
"508Framingham and New Bedford, Massachusetts",
"509Pullman, Spokane, and Walla Walla, Washington",
"512Austin, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio, Texas",
"513Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio",
"514Montreal, Canada",
"515Des Moines and Mason City, Iowa",
"516Hempstead, New York",
"517Lansing and Saginaw, Michigan",
"518Albany, Greenwich, and Schenectady, New York",
"519London, Ontario, Canada",
"525the Country and City code for Mexico City, Mexico",
"601all regions, Mississippi",
"602all regions, Arizona",
"603all regions, New Hampshire",
"604British Columbia, Canada",
"605all regions, South Dakota",
"606Ashland and Winchester, Kentucky",
"607Elmira, Ithaca, and Stamford, New York",
"608Beloit and Madison, Wisconsin",
"609Atlantic City, Camden, and Trenton, New Jersey",
"612Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota",
"613Ottawa, Ontario, Canada",
"614Columbus, Marietta, and Newark, Ohio",
"615Chattanooga and Nashville, Tennessee",
"616Battle Creek, Cadillac, and Grand Rapids, Michigan",
"617Boston, Massachusetts",
"618Alton, Mount Vernon, and Centralia, Illinois",
"619San Diego, Palm Springs, and the Imperial Valley, California",
"700Value Added Special Services, per individual carrier",
"701all regions, North Dakota",
"702all regions, Nevada",
"703Fredericksburg, Roanoke, and Winchester, Virginia",
"704Charlotte and Salisbury, North Carolina",
"705North Bay, Ontario, Canada",
"707Eureka, Napa, and Santa Rosa, California",
"708Aurora, Wheaton, Evanston, northeastern Illinois (as of 11-89)",
"709Newfoundland, Canada",
"712Council Bluffs, Iowa",
"713Houston, Texas",
"714Orange and Anaheim, California",
"715Eau Claire and Wausau, Wisconsin",
"716Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Rochester, New York",
"717Harrisburg, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania",
"718New York City (Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island) NY",
"719Colorado Springs, Colorado",
"800In-WATS Toll Free Calling",
"801all regions, Utah",
"802all regions, Vermont",
"803all regions, South Carolina",
"804Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Richmond, Virginia",
"805Bakersfield, Ventura, and Simi Valley, California",
"806Amarillo, Texas",
"807Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada",
"808all regions, Hawaii",
"809Bahamas, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands",
"812Evansville, Indiana",
"813Avon Park, Fort Myers, and Winter Haven, Florida",
"814Altoona, Erie, and Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania",
"815La Salle, Joliet, and Rockford, Illinois",
"816Kansas City and Saint Joseph, Missouri",
"817Fort Worth, Temple, and Waco, Texas",
"818the suburban area north of Los Angeles, California",
"819Malartic and western Quebec, Canada",
"900Mass Calling Value Added Information Services",
"901Memphis, Tennesee",
"902Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, Canada",
"904Jacksonville, Florida",
"906Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan",
"907all regions, Alaska",
"912Waycross and Savannah, Georgia",
"913Ottawa and Topeka, Kansas",
"914Monroe, Mount Vernon, and Poughkeepsie, New York",
"915El Paso, Texas",
"916Sacramento and South Tahoe, California",
"918Muskogee and Tulsa, Oklahoma",
"919Greenville, Raleigh, and Williamston, North Carolina"
};

char *where(code)
    char        *code;
{
    register int    i, high, low, mid;
    int        strncmp();

    low = 0; high = sizeof(areacode) / sizeof(areacode[0]);
    while (low <= high)
    {
        mid = (low + high) / 2;
        i = strncmp(code, areacode[mid], 3);
        if (i < 0)
            high = mid - 1;
        else if (i > 0)
            low = mid + 1;
        else
            return (areacode[mid] + 3);
    }
    return ("not a valid area code");
}

area(code)
    char        *code;
{
    char        *where();

    if (!isdigit(code[0]) || !isdigit(code[1]) || !isdigit(code[2])
        || code[3] != '\0')
        printf("Area code %s is not a valid area code!\n", code);
    else
        printf("Area code %s is %s. \n", code, where(code));
}

main(argc, argv)
    int        argc;
    char        *argv[];
{
    if (argc < 2)
    {
        printf("Usage: areacode nnn nnn ...\n");
        exit(1);
    }

    for (--argc, ++argv; argc > 0; --argc, ++argv)
        area(*argv);
}

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

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: harvard!gatech!cbnews.ATT.COM!alh (Al Housel)
Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
Date: 19 Jan 89 19:54:13 GMT


Sometime ago I read about a number that you could call to determine
the long distance carrier that you had assigned to your telephone
service.  When this number was called you received a voice message
indicating the carrier.  Would someone post the number again.
Thanks.

Does anyone know an easy way of getting an update on the tariff filings
filed by the various long distance and local offices ?  An address,
database, telephone number, etc. would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Al Housel
AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

To: encore!linus![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Senie)
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: 20 Jan 89 04:26:43 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area
> code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial-
> ing "1" before area codes.  (Up till now, they've just dialed the area
> code and the seven-digit number.)
>

When New York City was running out of numbers, they started requiring 1 + for
long distance. They then proceeded to use area code style numbers for prefixes.
That makes it impossible to sense area codes by the second digit dialed. The
phone companies seem to want to get rid of the automatic area code sensing
just in case they need to expand exchanges into the area code style numbers.

--
Daniel Senie               UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts
Stratus Computer, Inc.     ARPA: anvil!cloud9![e-mail]
55 Fairbanks Blvd.         CSRV: 74176,1347
Marlboro, MA 01752       TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 22:32:57 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
To: [e-mail]


Recently I received in the mail a rather curious packet from Pacific Bell:
a new Calling Card (made of paper, not a "credit card" with mag strip
like the last one), and a letter of explanation, from which I quote:

    "YOUR REPLACEMENT PACIFIC BELL CALLING CARD IS HERE!

    In response to a Federal Court ruling, Pacific Bell has decided to
    remove the International Number from its Calling Card.  Various
    long-distance companies have arrangements for international calling.
    Please contact your long-distance company ... [etc.]"

I have a couple of questions about this, which will appear below, but
the main reason for this message is the following:

    "We've Added Something New to Make Your Calling Card Even More
    Convenient...

    Notice those four extra digits at the end of your phone number?
    They're your own Special Access Code.  You'll need this whenever you
    use your Calling Card to make a call.  Now that your Special Access
    Code is right on your card, you'll never have to worry about
    forgetting it."

MY GOD!  I nearly fainted after reading this.  There goes five years of
anti-fraud progress out the window in one fell swoop of marketing
hype.  I looked at it again to make sure I was really seeing it.  Yes,
they printed the PIN right there on the card.  If a bank did that with
an ATM card, it would probably make the front page of the newspapers.
What PINHEADS!!  Every time you think that some people are beginning
to understand some security issues, some bozo in the marketing
department blows it for everybody.

As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it
(I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to
work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain
what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and
a calling card issued by a telco?  Also, what was the issue with respect
to the international callback number?  I only used it a couple of
times, from Japan in 1985, and more recently have used AT&T USA DIRECT
>from Germany and the UK, and recommend it highly.

Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb / ames!lll-tis!mcb

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Jan 21 01:33:08 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA11701; Sat, 21 Jan 89 01:33:08 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89  0:52:11 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #23
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Jan 89  0:52:11 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:

              Re: Bad payphone experiences (MILFORD, PA)
            Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling
                     Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
                 Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
                            SL/IP over X.25
                       International Phone Calls
                     Re:  New way to donate money
                 Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code
                 The Last Word on 'AT&T Alleges Dumping'
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 09:22-EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Bad payphone experiences (MILFORD, PA)


[copied without permission.  Sorry , Roger]
>    ``You're travelling right?''
>    ``Yup.''
>    ``Go down the road about 20 miles until you're out of that service
>area and try again...''
I'd guess closer to 10 miles, there is a Bell payphone at the Exxon
station the exit before (to the west of) Milford, PA.  Once you
cross into New York State toward Newburgh, you are still in Contel
territory.  At least I was with the apparently-more-easily-reachable MCI
when it happened to me.

although it was getting covered with ICE last time I used it.
Maybe we should keep a database of Bad Phone locations?

                    - Ralph

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling
Date: 20 Jan 89 17:29:20 GMT


      It can get much worse.  A few months ago, I attempted a call from
a Pay-Tel Systems private coin station (at the Diana Market #2 on 9th
Street in S.F.).  The call was to a S.F. suburb, and would cost about
$0.75 from a Pacific Bell phone.  The Pay-Tel unit's voice synthesizer
came out with a demand for $18.75.

                    John Nagle

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
Date: 20 Jan 89 00:49:39 GMT


>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Collier) writes:
>>It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new
>>category of fraudulent crimes....
>>...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service
>>of the business world rather than individual users.  I guess whoever has the
>>most money wins!
>
>Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud????
>The telephone company.  When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls
>and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill,

Wait a minute. The phone company collects for 900# calls and splits
the money with the 900 operator. If the bill is legally uncollectable
(for instance in some cases when run up by a minor, or when the calls
were solicited by illegal means) then the phone company does not LOSE
any money, as it never had rights to it in the first case. If the 900
operator was already paid their split, the phone compyany is being
dumb.

>Well I used to work
>in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money
>from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen

Are you really implying that a customer is fully responsible for all
fraudulent use of their card in the event that it is stolen? I can see
why it was difficult to collect, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for
the difficulties you encountered.

                Peter Desnoyers

[Moderator's Note: Under federal law, any person whose credit card(s) is
stolen can be held responsible for the first $50 in charges or the amount
incurred until the matter has been reported to the card issuer, whichever
is less. Credit extended by a telephone company is not an exception. PT]

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

To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
Date: 20 Jan 89 10:15:47 EST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John Owens)


I have a few comments on the question of PINs on calling cards, after
which I'll actually answer the posted question. :-)  There's one major
difference between calling card PINs and ATM PINs, which is the scope
of charges and effects of having the PIN compromised.  With a stolen
ATM PIN, someone can empty your bank account, and if any recourse is
possible, it will be after the fact.  In the mean time, you're left
with a serious cash-flow problem.  With a calling card PIN, someone
can make phone calls that are charged on your telephone bill, which
you can contest before the money actually leaves your control.

In addition, since card reader phones are quite rare, and the vast
majority of calling card use is not card reader use, there's
practically no purpose to a calling card without a PIN printed on it.

Anyway, opinions aside:

> As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it
> (I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to
> work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain
> what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and
> a calling card issued by a telco?

I'm not sure that "cancelling" your calling card would be very useful.
AT&T gets its PIN number for you from your telco, so any change they
would make would (eventually) propagate to AT&T, and if they do
disable it, AT&T might not have a hassle-free method of assigning you
a number independently.  Besides, AT&T isn't allowed to carry
intra-LATA calls, and you still want to make local calls from
payphones without change, don't you?

The only real difference I know of, besides the International Number
being on the AT&T card, is that AT&T card reader phones (with the
video displays) won't take BOC cards, and that the card reader phones
placed by BOCs don't claim to take AT&T cards.

And, finally, the AT&T card DOES print the PIN on the card, as do all
other long distance carrier cards I've seen.


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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: SL/IP over X.25
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 08:55:56 PST
From: [e-mail]


In 1983, a CSNET-sponsored project at Purdue implemented a system for
running TCP directly over X.25. It required that you had "real" X.25
access on your machine, not just a PAD; in our case, we used a board
from ACC, with certified ROMs from Interactive Systems (I think).

In the US, it's not a terribly cost effective way to operate (SLIP is
much cheaper, since it isn't necessarily subject to usage-sensitive
charging), but it might be useful in Europe. I'm sure the CSNET folks
can still supply a version of this if someone is interested.

chris

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

To: munnari![e-mail]
From: munnari!psych.psy.uq.oz.au![e-mail] (Jonathan Dwyer)
Subject: International Phone Calls
Date:  18 Jan 89 01:32:01 GMT


About 6 months ago (I think) a posting referred to the Telecom Australia
prefix for international toll-free calls (0018 instead of 0011?? or
something similar).

In the posting or resulting replies a contributor mentioned that STD
codes could be used to dial New Zealand (but didn't mention the actual
code).

What I'm after is the STD code to PNG.....

Can anyone help??

     ,-_|\      [e-mail] --\
        /     \     <-----------------------/
    \_,-._/     "proofs have been omitted in
         v       the interests of clarity"

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 15:57:43 pst
From: mtxinu!excelan![e-mail] (Chuck Kollars)
To: bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re:  New way to donate money


It is indeed true that the California Public Utilities Commision,
after being deluged with consumer complaints, had to _order_ the
local telcos to allow blocking of 976 numbers, and also that the
telcos originally were going to charge for blocking.
--
Chuck Kollars,  Excelan, Inc.    [e-mail]
                (or mtxinu!excelan![e-mail])
                ...!{mtxinu,leadsv,cae780}!excelan!chuck

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

To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
From: comdesign!ivucsb![e-mail] (Dan Howell)
Subject: Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code
Date: 19 Jan 89 14:11:09 GMT


|[Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach
|is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* This is
|just a variation on the programs which search for carrier by dialing
|everyone else in the community without regard to their desire to be left
|alone. I do not like 'demon-dialer' software. It causes an invasion of
|privacy of others.     P.Townson]

It would seem that if 952 is a ringback exchange, it would not be listed
in the phone book as a normal exchange.  Then couldn't all the exchanges
listed in the phone book be eliminated?  Then you could dial all the
remaining exchanges without worrying about bothering anyone (unless you
happen to get a new exchange which wasn't listed in the phone book yet).


-- Dan Howell  <...!pyramid!comdesign!ivucsb!dan>  <[e-mail]>

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


To: hafro![e-mail]
From: mcvax!rsp.is![e-mail] (Orn E. Hansen)
Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping
Date: 20 Jan 89 22:57:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, algor2![e-mail] (jeffrey) writes:
>
> AT&T is perfectly capable of beating the Japanese by producing a quality,
> reasonably priced product--and of selling it in Japan.  Not to even try is
> unworthy of a company which represents the very best of business in
> America, and therefore the world.
> --
>
As a non-American it is very annoying to read statements like the one above
in articles.  If you'd care to re-read your artice, you will notice that
you tend to talk of America as it was the whole WORLD.  The total population
in America is only about 1/10th of the world.  Americans are not Europeans,
Asians etc., even though you sometimes seem to think so.

Further more, some products I have seen and used made in the US are not made
in top quality.  Years ago, when you peeked into products made in Europe and
America you'd notice that Europeans had everything neatly positioned while
Americans obviously were manufacturing cheap, but good compared to it's
price.  The Japanese have outsmarted you on that one, they produce quality
products at low cost.  Quality manufactured cheap.

Europeans are beginning to produce DRAM's that are bigger and even
East-Europeans are gaining on the West's lead in Electronics.  The space
shuttle the russians manufactured showed that their Computer knowledge is
far far far greater than anyone suspected.  So, mine freund, it's not only
the Japanese!
===========================================================================
[Moderator's Note: I had sworn off publishing *anything* further in the
'AT&T alleges dumping' category. This Digest is not really the proper forum
for a long-term discussion on the merits of American made versus foreign
made anything. But this one item did come in which rebutted an earlier
message and in the interest of fairness I am including it today, assuming
that our overseas correspondent may get the Digest or comp.dcom.telecom on
a somewhat delayed basis and not been able to answer until now. But as of
now, please move the discussion elsewhere. Thank you.   P. Townson]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Jan 22 01:24:54 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA28708; Sun, 22 Jan 89 01:24:54 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89  1:03:54 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #24
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Jan 89  1:03:54 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:

                        Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application
                       Area Code Numerical Listings
                            Cellular Setup
                     Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
                     Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 00:27:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Victims of Wrong Numbers


Pat Zsetenyi operates an interior design business in one of the south
suburbs of Chicago. On the day she opened her business, she thought she
had hit upon a gold mine.

After going out for a few hours, she returned to her office to find the
answering machine on her new number loaded with calls.

"I was thrilled," said Zsetenyi. "It was my first day in business and I had
all these messages on my answering machine already." Then she realized no
one could be calling her yet, since no one knew the new number. Well then,
whose calls *did* she have?

When she played back the messages, there were dozens of calls for United
Airlines, which has a reservations number that is almost the same as hers --
just two digits are transposed. At the time she did not know it, but she had
joined an elite group of people, who through no fault of their own, have
phone numbers easily mistaken for frequently dialed numbers.

She says she gets anywhere from ten to dozens of wrong numbers per day. If
the weather is bad or there is some incident at the airport, then the calls
really start pouring in. She pointed out the most amazing part of the whole
thing are the people who call and get her answering machine. They hear the
whole outgoing message "Thank you for calling Zsetenyi's Decorating Den"
and then they still proceed to leaving a message for United Airlines, asking
to be "....called back when the reservations office is open...."

"...one lady called back three days in a row, saying , 'Why won't you return
my call? I need my tickets!'....I finally called her and told her she was
never going to hear from United at the rate she she was going..."

Area Code 312 is very rapidly filling up, which increases the odds that
misdials will reach a working number. Because of the growing scarcity of
numbers until 708 kicks in later this year, the period of time a disconnected
number is held before being reassigned has been reduced from several months
to a few weeks at most. In years past, 'notorious' numbers -- such as those
belonging to call girls -- would be retired  from service for YEARS after
being disconnected. This is a luxury no longer available here.

Hillary Anderson, a spokeswoman for Illinois Bell Telephone said she has the
same problem with her home phone which happens to be very similar to the
main switchboard number for W. W. Grainger Company. Ms. Anderson said that
anyone can have their number changed if it bothers them, "...but yet, most
people with easily mistaken phone numbers do not want to change them. It is
not a matter of the fee involved. IBT charges $33 to change someone's phone
number, but as a matter of good relations with our customers, we will waive
the fee whenever someone is receiving an 'annoying amount' of wrong numbers.
I can write off that charge from a customer's bill, but it seems like instead
of being annoyed, those people seem to relish their odd distinction."

About fifteen years ago, I had an office in downtown Chicago on one of the
first ESS exchanges to open up here in the Chicago-Wabash office. My number
was WEbster 9-4600. At the time, Sears Roebuck's national credit card office
was also downtown. Unlike me with two lines on a desk phone, Sears then had
a big old fashioned *five position* cord board with the lead number in their
hunt group being WAbash 2-4600. Now 939 and 922 are not that similar, but
one day a new AT&T toll switcher opened on Canal Street. In a simple
accident, 922 was incorrectly translated by that office to 939....need I say
more? For two days straight, I was flooded with calls for Sears' credit
department. It was fun while it lasted. On complaining I was told I should
change my number. I told them that number had been in service for 13 years
and would not get changed. "So what," said the service rep. "Sears has had
WAbash 2-4600 for *sixty five years* and they probably won't change theirs
either!"

Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 06:45:52 PST
From: ll-xn!ucsd!pro-mars.cts.com!bill (Bill Cerny)
To: crash!telecom-request
Subject: Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application


"On April 1, 1988, Pacific [Bell] filed Application No. 88-04-004 wherein it
requested that the [Ca Public Utilities] Commission authorize Pacific to offer
a new service, Information Calling Services (900 ICS)."
                                - Ammendment to Application, filed Jun 2, 88
Selected extracts from this filing:
9.5.4.A.1   Three selective blocking options are available to the residential
            customer:

                Option 1                Option 2                Option 3
                --------                --------                --------
                    976                     976                 900-303
                900-844                 900-505
                900-505                 900-303
                900-303

            900-844 is general audience - "Resource Network" programs
            900-505 is general audience - "Open Forum" [talk] programs
            900-303 is adult services with both "Open Forum" and "Resource
                    Network" programs.

9.5.3.D.1.c     Transport and billing of service to IP/Sponsor

                (1)  Billing, per call:  $.05
                                                        1st Min     Addl Mins
                (2)  Transport - Resource Network       -------     ---------
                        per call, day period (8-5)        $.20        $.09
                        per call, night period            $.19        $.06

                (3)  Transport - Open Forum, per call     $.20        $.09

9.5.3.A.2   Definitions

        FREE TRIAL OPTION - A period not to exceed 30 days during which no
        Information Charges for a selected Resource Network Program will be
        billed to a Subscriber.  [an IP may have up to four "Free Trials"
        during one calenday year]

        NON-PEAK INFORMATION CHARGE - Resource Network IP's may establish
        non-peak charges.  If this option is selected, non-peak Information
        Charges will apply to the lower of two IP selected rate periods,
        Monday-Friday, and to weekends and Utility holidays.

Lotsa goodies, too many to list, and they make me drool.  I wish I could
switch my 976 program to 900; but the CPUC is allowing every/any-body state
their druthers, especially those nauseating "consumer advocate" groups.  The
proposed 900 service is superior (from an IP's viewpoint) to that currently
offered by AT&T, Telesphere, et. al.  But my grandchildren may be old men
before Pac*Bell is allowed to offer it (surprise! the Pac*Bell network is
already routing 900 calls; call one of the 3 prefixes and note the disconnect
recording comes from the same c.o. that switches 976 calls!)

Get a copy of the application: dial 811-4976 (in Ca only; folks outside of Ca
just wish they weren't  8-)  )

-- Bill

ARPA: crash!pro-mars![e-mail]                (as seen on TV)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 12:36:22 EST
From: Alexander Dupuy <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject:  Area Code Numerical Listings


   Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 17:10:59 EST
   From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>

   You included 708 in Illinois.  When does that take effect?

   "conventional" area code format apparently means N0X/N1X except N00,N10,N11,
   right?


The 708 changes were something I read about in Telecom digest.  I think they
will take place in spring '89 (correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick).

Yes, at least for now, N0X/N1X covers all "conventional" area codes.


@alex

[Moderator's Note: 708 gets assigned to new subscribers starting later this
year. November 9 is the official starting date. The split will be official
shortly thereafter. Very little grace period given; unlike NYC's 212/718. PT]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea)
Subject: Cellular Setup
Date: 21 Jan 89 06:53:42 GMT


Question: How is phase shifting actually involved in communications between the mobile unit and the switching office ?

Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio?

Thanks for your help ..

Perry

Reply here on this newsgroup or e-mail to [e-mail] (arpanet)


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

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
Date: 21 Jan 89 13:44:34 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, kwc@naucse writes:

> Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud????
> The telephone company.

Let's not forget who _really_ pays for telephone fraud!
The telephone company recovers its costs by collecting money from
you and me and everybody else who pays a telephone bill, don't they?

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 21:54:38 PST
From: "Eric P. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Supplementary Code Numbers
To: [e-mail]


In California, 811-XXXX numbers provide toll-free access to
various Pacific Bell offices.  My recollection has it that the
tariff allows inter-LATA calls to be handled by PacBell rather
than an IEC (but must terminate within the organization, of
course).

211 is reserved for COPT (Customer-Owned Pay Telephone, CPUC's
version of the FCC's COCOT) refunds.

                                        -=EPS=-

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

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

From [e-mail]  Mon Jan 23 00:41:00 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA02654; Mon, 23 Jan 89 00:41:00 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89  0:10:20 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #25
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Jan 89  0:10:20 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:

                         New Movie: 976-EVIL
              Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
                      Correct dates for 708 split
                     re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
              Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 01:57:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kurt A. Geisel" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: New Movie: 976-EVIL


I heard something about an ultra-cheap horror flick, directed by the
same guy who plays Freddy Crouger (sp?) on the Nightmare on Elm
Street movies, called 976-EVIL.  In light of the recent discussions
on phone rip-offs, I was wondering if anyone knows if there will be
some gimmick to go along with this movie.  If not, I don't think the
phone company would appreciate this title (or a similar one.)  You
know what kind of people watch these movies.  Even if there is no
official ripoff, they will try and dial the number.

If it's not a gimmick, it still made me realize there could be a lot
more phone gimmicks associated with movies and TV shows in the
future.  Even beyond the typical "dial X for YES, dial Y for NO."
Pretty soon, they may try to get us to pay to find out how the story
ends.

- Kurt
Kurt Geisel                       SNAIL :
Carnegie Mellon University            65 Lambeth Dr.
ARPA : [e-mail]           Pittsburgh, PA 15241
UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel    "You mean, I could have... THUNDERBOLT FISTS?"
BIX  : kgeisel                                    - Infra Man

[Moderator's Note: Actually, the use of the telephone jargon in the title
of movies is nothing new; nor is the use of the telephone as the primary
theme in the film. Of course some movies are made in better taste than others,
and some presume their viewers will have IQ's => 90. Two examples of the
latter from years ago were "Dial 'M' For Murder"; and "Bells Are Ringing"
with the wonderful Judy Garland. Then there was that piece of trash a few
years ago about the phreak (or do you say freak?) who could send killer
amounts of electrical current down the line, and murder his victims simply
by their answering the telephone. Does anyone remember the name of that one?
'Tandem Rush' comes to mind.  P. Townson]

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: 21 Jan 89 23:29:36 PST (Sat)
From: bovine![e-mail] (John Higdon)


As in many other areas of the country, SF Bay Area will now be faced with
those dreaded "informal" prefixes. You know, the ones that look like area
codes. This is the reason for the "1" before dialing a ten-digit number.

But the southern part of the Bay Area, in 408, still does not require a "1"
before dialing an area code. A spokesperson for Pac*Bell says that due to
lack of growth, there are no plans to implement "informal" prefixes and
hence no "1" requirement in the forseeable future. How many other areas of
the country are left where a "1" is not required for long distance? Is this
one of the last?

Interestingly enough, San Jose and Sunnyvale are in 408 and Mountain
View/Los Altos are in 415. This is all one local calling area. To place the
local call, it is necessary to dial the area code. When calling San Jose
from Mountain View a "1" will be required; when calling Mt. View from San
Jose it will not. Can you say confusing?

--
John Higdon
john@bovine   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 22 Jan 89 10:38
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Correct dates for 708 split


The correct start date for the 312/708 split is 11 November 1989.
Permissive dialling will continue until at least 9 February 1990.

/john

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 17:25:42 -0500
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>


If   the  Interior  Decorator   thought  that   United wasn't exercising
appropriate  care  in publicizing  its  correct  number,  could they say
something like this on their tape,  "No matter who our  employer is, for
personal travel  we much prefer American at   xxx-xxxx"?   It could be a
true statement, not libellous to United,  that would cost  them a lot of
business, and that would not tip off someone  who thought he was talking
to a United number.

                           Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail]                  Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

From: ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: Sat, 21-Jan-89 23:44:10 PST


Rich Wales's <[e-mail]>:

| My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area
| code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial-
| ing "1" before area codes.  (Up till now, they've just dialed the area
| code and the seven-digit number.)
|
| At about the same time, my MCI bill contained a short announcement of
| this same thing (why they told me, in Los Angeles, I have no idea), and
| it said this was part of a plan by Pacific Bell to introduce a new area
| code in the San Francisco Bay area.

The requirement to dial 1 before area codes doesn't necessarily mean that an
area code split is imminent.  It means that the NNX-style prefixes are
running out and that NXX will be the rule for future prefixes (N is a digit
from 2 through 9; X is any digit from 0 through 9).  Since most of the new
prefixes will consist of the same three digits as existing area code numbers,
the 1 in front is needed to inform the telco that the next three digits are
indeed an area code and there will be seven more digits following; without
the 1, the first three digits are taken to indicate a prefix in the caller's
area code and only four more digits are expected.

As long as all local prefixes were NNX, the initial 1 wasn't needed for that
purpose (it might be for others): if the second digit was 0 or 1, then the
first three digits were an area code and seven more would follow; if the
second digit was 2 through 9, then the first three were a prefix within that
area code and only four more would be coming.

But NNX allows only 640 prefixes; NXX allows 792 (assuming that those of the
form N11 will not be used).

This is not perforce a harbinger of splitting the area code.  Here in 312 the
requirement for 1+ before area codes was introduced October 1, 1982; we are
indeed being split, but the partition into two area codes will take place
more than seven years after the institution of 1+.

Along with 1+ for area codes, we had to start dialing 0312+NXX-XXXX instead
of 0+NNX-XXXX for operator-assisted calls within area code 312 as of the same
date for the same reason.  Curiously, 1312+NXX-XXXX is forbidden by both of
the local providers here and results in a recording that the call cannot be
placed as dialed.  Since, with the upcoming split, it is quite likely
(especially from a COCOT with no phone number of its own written on it) for
callers near the dividing line to know the area code of the number they want
to reach but to misjudge the area code they are calling FROM, and therefore
to dial 1 + their own code.  My personal opinion is that a call dialed within
one's own area code in eleven-digit form should just be put through.

[e-mail]   ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin

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

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

From [e-mail]  Tue Jan 24 01:39:54 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA23834; Tue, 24 Jan 89 01:39:54 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89  1:22:33 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #26
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Jan 89  1:22:33 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:

                      cheap & easy circuit backup
                          Plantronic Headsets
                 Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
                 Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
                               1+areacode
              Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                        Re: Query about Telebit

[Moderator's Note: Thank you to everyone who pointed out that the movie
star reference yesterday should have been to Judy Holiday -- not Judy
Garland.  P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Telecom Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: cheap & easy circuit backup
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 09:58:08 -0800
From: ben ullrich <sybase!calvin![e-mail]>


Every once in awhile, out local telco manages to cripple our customer support
(among other things) by cutting several of our analog circuits.  this seems to
happen because the area we're in is under heavy construction, but nevertheless
we're looking to get some sort of backup for out incoming and outgoing
circuits for this and other (perhaps more disastrous) outages.

we're looking for something that won't be too expensive, since we are something
of a smallish operation (only 16 did's and 16 co trunks) and don't have a lot
of money to dump into something we'll almost never need.

one idea being kicked around is plain ol cellular phones.  the budget-writers
here really like this one, but i'd like to know what others more experienced in
both cellular and backup systems have to say.  i'd also like suggestions for
inexpensive backup circuits.

the general end is to skip the local telco in the area from our building to the
CO.  this seems to me to require the the solution be wireless.  (microwave is
too expensive).

thanks to any help you folks can provide.  please mail to me, and i'll
summarize if there are enough responses.


...ben
----
ben ullrich    consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc.        "everybody gets so much information all day long that
emeryville, ca          they lose their common sense." -- gertrude stein
(415) 596 - 3654
[e-mail]        {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis,capmkt}!sybase!ben

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 21:20:30 mst
From: stjhmc!stjhmc![e-mail] (David Dodell)
Subject: Plantronic Headsets
To: [e-mail]



I have seen advertised lately Plantronics headsets for the small business
market.  Does anyone have any experience with them, and if so, a good source
for obtaining them?  They seem to be going in the $50 to $70 range.

Thanks,

David


          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center - Phoenix Arizona
               uucp:  {decvax, ncar} !noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
        uucp:  {gatech, ames, rutgers} !ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15 or 1:1/0
                  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 23:15:58 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Owens) writes:
>
>The only real difference I know of, besides the International Number
>being on the AT&T card, is that AT&T card reader phones (with the
>video displays) won't take BOC cards, and that the card reader phones
>placed by BOCs don't claim to take AT&T cards.

The BOC phones increasingly do take all of the LD carrier cards.  The phones
at the Denver and Los Angeles airports in fact take AT&T, MCI, and Sprint
cards even though the illustrations on the phones are of Visa and Amex
cards.  High time, too.  I was at the Cleveland airport last week and about
half of the phones there are a strange hybrid -- it's a regular AT&T coin
phone with the dial replaced by a thing about three times the size which
includes a tone pad, a mag stripe reader, and a bunch of extra buttons
probably intended for carrier selection but currently programmed for 411 and
911.  I was unable to make any of these card readers accept any card at all,
be it AT&T, Sprint, or Visa.  At least the lack of access is equal.
--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
{ bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
You're never too old to have a happy childhood.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 17:54:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder


> I have a few comments on the question of PINs on calling cards,

> In addition, since card reader phones are quite rare, and the vast
> majority of calling card use is not card reader use, there's
> practically no purpose to a calling card without a PIN printed on it.

No, the PIN can be on a separate sheet, which you have to memorize.
Do you want your computer to print out your password after you type
your login name?

Further, the card reader phones are just as big of a security problem
if you do not have to type the PIN.  And they cost more, which raises
telephone rates.

> > As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it
> > (I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to
> > work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain
> > what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and
> > a calling card issued by a telco?

> And, finally, the AT&T card DOES print the PIN on the card, as do all
> other long distance carrier cards I've seen.

Allnet does not issue a standard looking credit card so the PIN is
not on it.  On the other hand, I seem to remember that it is about
10 digits long, so you probably have to write it down, unless you
can figure out a good acronym for your random number.  Also, they
change the number frequently and expire the number if you do not use
it for a month or two or so.  And they have 2 different numbers
depending on whether you are dialing their 950 number or their 800
number.


David Gast
[e-mail]
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 10:39:48 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: bovine![e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject:  1+areacode


Wasn't it as recent as 1982 when "local & nearby calling" in 415/408 was only
7 digits, even if crossing that areacode boundary?  Then, the change made was
to require the areacode on all calls, even local, crossing areacode boundary,
so you got what New York City had until late 1980.  Area 415 is apparently
growing fast enough to be running out of NNX.

As I recall, all or part of areas 516 and 914 (these pick up NYC suburbs) have
not required 1 before area codes, nor has Pittsburgh (area 412), and several
years ago I dialed "800" from 3 pay phones in Delaware (prefixes 674, 475, 478)
without the leading 1.  I don't know if any of these changed.


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: 23 Jan 89 18:15:07 GMT



Mostly this comes from the use in the local area of exchanges that have N0X/N1X
prefixes. Washington DC just went through this change as well. Since they never
used to allocate prefixes from this range, it never used to be a problem, but
now it needs 1+ to indicate that what follows is an area code and no 1+ to
indicate that the prefix is following.  From what I've read, the Numbering
plan has always intended to have NXX prefixes, but it was a convenient hack to
differentiate area codes by this basis in the past. It certainly saved dialing
time, but touch tone and autodialers made this less of a problem.

-Ron

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 24 Jan 89 01:22:55 GMT




Along those lines -
The exchange for dormitory phones at MIT is 225, and there is a room
in New House? Next House? with the phone number (617) 225-8xyz, where
1-800-225-8xyz is the toll-free number for reservations for the
Sheraton across the river. I knew someone who was unfortunate enough
to live in that room - the problem is that you can't dial 800 numbers
from outside the U.S., so many of the people who call the number are
foreign, speak English poorly, and are in a different time zone.

Several callers were persistent enough that she had to take
reservations to get rid of them. (or so she says) The switch was an old
step-by-step, and the crafts where surly part-time students, so the
easiest way for her to change her number was to move to another room.


                Peter Desnoyers

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea)
Subject: Re: Query about Telebit
Date: 24 Jan 89 05:12:26 GMT


  Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud.
Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 +
baud system that operates with a US robotics. US, has promised to upgrade
their modems and promise compatibility. Without one, people will not be able
to call your BBS, trust me, I use one, and run a bbs.



[-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]
| "Undermine their pompous authority, make anarchy and disorder your          |
o  trademarks cause as much disruption and chaos as possible, but don't let   o
|  them take you alive" -  Sid Vicious                                        |
o                           ____ ____                                         o
|                           Boo\ /rax      [e-mail]         |
[-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan 25 01:30:14 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA18878; Wed, 25 Jan 89 01:30:14 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89  1:11:24 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #27
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jan 89  1:11:24 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:

                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
            Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling
                Bizarre phone conversation interception
                             area code map

[Moderator's Note: Another day with a lot of mail, so this is *part one*
of two parts today. Part two, a/k/a/ issue 28 will follow in a few
minutes, with messages relating to credit card PINS, and a discussion
of cellular phone billing identification.  P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 22:56 CST
From: [e-mail] (Mark Linimon)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>In a simple
>accident, 922 was incorrectly translated by that office to 939....need I say
>more? For two days straight, I was flooded with calls for Sears' credit
>department. It was fun while it lasted.

It's horror stories you want?

At school (Rice) the dorms have fixed phone numbers assigned, per room.
i.e. if you are in 701 Sid Rich this year you will have the same number
whoever had 701 Sid Rich had last year.  All in all, understandable.

Well in 450 we always got calls for American Savings.  Never could
figure out why.  Finally one day I was driving down I-45 (one of the
major drags through town) to Galveston...and there's this giant
billboard for American Savings... :-)

We did try to convince American Savings to at least _change the billboard_,
but to no avail.  We were nice to the callers for the first few months,
then after that we got to the point where we would walk them through
getting their balance and make up outlandish numbers...

Disclaimer: this was years ago.  In the meantime I grew up. :-)

Mark Linimon
killer!nominil!linimon


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

Date: 24 Jan 89 10:33:43 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]



Your message brings back some old memories.  When in college, I made the
mistake of asking for "an easy-to-remember number".  Pac Tel had a list of
repetitive numbers that, for no extra charge, they would issue for those
who asked.  Essentially only businesses asked, and so nearly all the
adjacent numbers were big businesses.  I got so many wrong numbers that I
kept a list by the phone of the most often called ones, and gave the
correct number out to most wrong dialers.  If I didn't, some callers would
dial again and again.  Some callers claimed the business card they were
reading really said 8 where I knew it had to read 3, 6 or 9.  Must have
been really small type or smeared printing.  I got a lot of calls where
they dialled 8 instead of 7, too; must have been finger-aiming error.

It was pretty funny one morning hearing an operator trying to get out of me
why I would not accept a collect call; she had never had a business refuse
to accept, and it didn't dawn on her that she had got the wrong number.  I
wasn't very coherent explaining this, since it was about 6 am, and I had
been up studying most the night.  The caller (from the east coast) didn't
apparently believe in time zones.

I think my roommate took a couple of orders from callers who wouldn't
believe they had dialled wrong.  Some poor devil is probably still waiting
for his water cooler to be delivered.

We never asked for our number to be changed.  I don't know whether it was
the thought of an unneccessary expense (no one offered to change it for
free, but then we didn't complain much), or whether we were just too naive
to know we were being bothered.

That summer, my roommate stayed over the summer, and with essentially all
school friends gone, he went for weeks at a time with wrong numbers only,
none intended for him.  He started answering every call with "I'm sorry you
have dialled the wrong number."  He was wrong only once.

/Don Lynn
[e-mail]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 24 Jan 89 17:26:33 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> She says she gets anywhere from ten to dozens of wrong numbers per day. If
> the weather is bad or there is some incident at the airport, then the calls
> really start pouring in. She pointed out the most amazing part of the whole
> thing are the people who call and get her answering machine. They hear the
> whole outgoing message "Thank you for calling Zsetenyi's Decorating Den"
> and then they still proceed to leaving a message for United Airlines, asking
> to be "....called back when the reservations office is open...."

It is apparently human nature to refuse to believe that you've dialed a wrong
number unless you've been confronted with unimpeachable evidence.  A friend of
mine spent a few years working as the receptionist for a local contractor named
Eastern Heating and Cooling Inc.  She used to get at least one call a week, and
usually considerably more, intended for Eastern Air Lines.  Some confusion may
be due to the fact that, if you open the Albany phone book to the general area
for Airline Companies, you may easily spot the huge ad for Eastern Heating and
Cooling Inc. which is in the Air Conditioning Contractors & Systems section.
Never mind that Eastern Heating logo is nothing like the Eastern Air Lines
logo, the Eastern Heating ad contains phrases like "25 Radio Dispatched
Vehicles" and "Walk-in Coolers and Freezers," as well as logos for Trane,
Carrier, York, and Bryant.  Anyway, the conversations would usually go
something like this:

+++
My friend: "Eastern Heating and Cooling, may I help you?"

Caller: "Yes, I'd like to get some information about this afternoon's flight to
Atlanta."

MF: "I'm sorry, sir, but this is Eastern Heating and Cooling.  You want Eastern
Air Lines."

C: "Yes, but what's the price on the non-stop from Albany to Atlanta?"

MF: "I don't have that information.  This is NOT Eastern Air Lines."

C: "Okay, but why can't you tell me how much the ticket is?"

MF: "Because you dialed the wrong number.  Check the phone book under Eastern
Air Lines."

C: "Look, you have a flight to Atlanta, flight number 689 leaving Albany at
5:50, right?"

MF: "No.  All we have are 25 radio dispatched trucks."

C: "I don't like the way you're speaking with me.  Please connect me with your
supervisor."

MF: "Okay, but he's gonna be mad because right now he's busy taking apart a
heat pump."

C: "$#*@*&!!!  I just want you to know I'm never flying Eastern Air Lines
again!" (hangs up)
+++

Under that Eastern Heating ad is an ad for American Heating and Cooling Inc.
I'd love to know what kind of calls they get THERE...

--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  [phone]
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

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

To: ames![e-mail]
From: claris![e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling
Date: 24 Jan 89 21:18:58 GMT



In a previous article Ralph Hyre discusses bad experiences with pay
phones.

1.  The case in which 950-xxxx connects but the pay phone doesn't give
tone.  Usually the operator can reconnect you to the 950 number and
the tones work. (This assumes a cooperative operator.)

2.  Can't get 950 from the sticks.  That's the breaks, I think.  Some
of these phone companies are still living in the dark ages.  Carry an
ATT credit card for just in case.

Here are some of my pet peeves.

1.  I call my voicemail via AT&T credit card, but the phone
disconnects me when I hit the pound.  It tells me that I may dial
another call now.  Solution:  call via the operator or on MCI.

2.  Hotel phones that either block 950 or charge you 50 cents for it.
Solution:  Complaining bitterly usually doesn't help.  In the old days
you could sic Sprint on a hotel and they'd try to sell the hotel on
unblocking the 950 access.  I don't use Sprint any more, so I don't
know if this is still done.

3.  Hotels that use Alternative Operator Services for credit card
calls.  If it don't say "Thank you for using AT&T" or "Thank you for
calling on Pacific Bell [insert your BOC here]" hang up.  Be sure to
fill out the comment card on the bureau and tell them you don't
appreciate being raped.  This is especially nasty when the hotel
charges you a $.50 or more charge for making a credit card call from
the room and then places your call on an AOS that kicks back a hefty
percentage.

4. COCOTs of any kind.  Local calls are charged as toll calls (deposit
.85 for a call that should cost .20.)  COCOTs that route to AOS's.
COCOTs that cut off the touch tone pad so you can't unload your
voicemail.  COCOTs that tell you to call *611 for a refund and then
don't answer.

Sorry I blew my stack.  The state of telephony is declining, even as
the technology improves.
                    -edg

--
{decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg    Ed Greenberg
    -or-                        3Com Corporation
{sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg                Mountain View, CA
                            415-694-2952


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Mike Trout)
Subject: Bizarre phone conversation interception
Date: 24 Jan 89 17:42:16 GMT


I just remembered something that happened to me a couple of years ago.  I'm
wondering if someone can explain how this could happen.

I was living the Troy, N.Y. exchange at the time (north of Albany, area code
518, number 274-XXXX).  I came home to find my answering machine indicating
one call had been received.  But the tape did not contain a phone call to me.
Instead, it contained a part of a long distance phone conversation between
some place in the midwest and some place in the east.  There were two people
talking: a male representative of the American Beef Council and a female
editor of some kind of nutrition newsletter produced at a famous eastern
university.  The Beef Council rep was explaining to the woman that he would be
mailing her some menus and nutritional information that she could use in her
newsletter.  She was reluctantly agreeing that she would take a look at the
material and would use it if it was suitable (the usual PR vs. journalism
battle that I'm familiar with).

Neither party was located in New York State.  My machine did not record the
beginning of the conversation; for whatever reason it just started recording it
in the middle.  It did record the end of the conversation and the sound of the
two parties hanging up.  I made a casette tape of this and have saved it
somewhere.

I've never had anything like this happen before or since.  My answering machine
is a fairly common Panasonic model, and I've never had any trouble with it.

Anybody have any ideas?

--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  [phone]
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 11:07:16 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  area code map


I could not get mail thru to [e-mail] , so I am rephrasing this some-
what to make it more of general interest.
I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map?
I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Jan 25 02:36:42 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA23281; Wed, 25 Jan 89 02:36:42 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89  1:42:03 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #28
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jan 89  1:42:03 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:

                 PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
                 Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
                         Kredit Kard Kwestions
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                        videotex EHKP-protocol
                     Where To Find Telecom Archives

[Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of two parts for Wednesday 1-25.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 24 Jan 89 13:31:09 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards


The recent discussion on PINs on cards in cleartext, and the Moderator's Note
in Digest #23 on treating a Calling Card like a credit card (in regard to
the individual being responsible for the first $50 in illicit charges on
that card if it is stolen) prompts this note:

First off, here in SW Bell territory, the PIN has *always* been on both the
cardboard SW Bell calling card and the plastic AT&T card. So I was a bit
taken aback when reading the posting of the individual who was outraged
that the PIN was on his new card. I would contend that NOT having it on
the card was the exception, and his telco was merely coming into line with
the other BOC's in putting it on the card. (This is not a claim that
having it on the card is a *good idea*; it just is how things are.)

As regards equating calling cards with credit cards, I think I differ
with the moderator on this. Also, I would be interested to see references
which state that the calling card actually does fall under the federal
credit-card regulations. As I recall, I never did request a calling
card. It was sent to me by the telco on their initiative. I seem to
recall that credit cards sent by an issuer when there was no specific
request or application for them made by the individual do NOT fall under
the $50 rule, but that those are specifically exempted. Also, I don't
think that credit cards can legally be sent out to non-requesters, like
they used to be. (If you recall, years back, firms like oil companies
would send out credit cards en masse to college graduating classes and
suchlike groups. That no longer happens. I think that was made illegal.)

Since I haven't changed phone service in many years, I have no way of
knowing how calling cards are now distributed. Maybe some others on the
list can post their experiences; do you get a calling card in the mail
automatically without requesting it when you set up new phone service?
Or do you have to specifically request one to receive one (in writing or
just verbally)?

The other aspect that makes me wonder if calling cards are legally
equivalent to credit cards is the fact that there is usually a secondary
element of identification with the use of a credit card. In person,
there is a signature. For telephone orders of merchandise to be shipped,
some firms will ship only to the address-of-record of the credit card
holder. (This latter admittedly breaks down, especially with regard to
having gifts shipped to other people at Christmas, etc.) Plus there is
a verification or check with the credit card company for charges over a
certain dollar amount.

Calling cards have no such secondary identification, nor do they have
the verification process. (If they DID have the PIN issued separately,
and require the user to type it in to complete the call, like an ATM
requires for a transaction, then they *would* have a secondary
identification, of course.) I believe that the calling-card-number info is
stored and then run through the billing process in batch mode daily,
right? So the use of a stolen calling card or an illicitly-acquired
number would only be detected after-the-fact in that batch run. (I may
well be wrong on this -- maybe there is a massive central on-line database
to catch illegally-used calling card numbers as they are used. Is there?
There would have to be one for each LD carrier, I guess...)

All this leads me to contend that calling cards are not legally the same
as credit cards. Therefore, we cannot maintain that regulations referring
to credit cards apply to calling cards. However, that doesn't mean that
tarriffs or contracts do not contain wording that may actualy result in
the obligations of a calling card holder being similar to those of a
credit card holder. But that would then differ with each issuer.

Will Martin

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
Date: 24 Jan 89 16:37:40 GMT



Actually, there is no excuse for carrying around your telephone
credit card anyhow.  As I only rarely find a phone with a reader
I almost always type it in after the DONG.  I just do this from
memory.  If I'm calling home, which I usually am, at least AT&T
lets you hit just the pin after the DONG which is even faster.

-Ron

[Am I the only one that terminates the call with the # so I can
tell the nice lady who says "You may dial another number now,"
"No, thank you, I'm finished now."

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 10:50:48 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Kredit Kard Kwestions


  First, a comment on the PIN brouhaha: AT&T cards (and BOC cards) always have
had your PIN number right on the card, but as it's a 4-digit number, most
people can remember it.  There are numerous ways to write down your secret code
numbers on a wallet card so as to maintain security: use 10's complement, or
subtract 1 from each digit, or you-name-it.

  I'm a bit perplexed by the 'international' number
on the bottom: 1M,<10-digit phone no.>,<1 digit>. It seems pretty easy to
guess or 'exhaustively' determine the digit for anyone, if it only takes a
maximum of 10 tries!

  A mundane question: I have a Sprint FON card. It gives the 800-877-8000
number to access the service, but no mention of a 950-1022 or whatever
the local access # is.  Do you get a cheaper rate if you avoid the 800 number?
The scanty documents which accompanied the card give no clue. Is this another
case of deviousness, or what?

JG Black, black@[e-mail]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 24 Jan 89 17:41:05 GMT



> Question:  Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place
> fraudulent call with a ham radio?

Technically no, because a radio operating on the appropriate freqencies
would not be an amateur radio.  The words "ham radio" is a synonym for amateur
radio, a regulated radio service by the FCC that allows radio enthusiasts to
construct and operate their own radios.  The modes of operation and frequencies
in use are well defined by the commissions rules.  Use of the term to mean any
person building his own radios (for degenerate purposes) is like the
bastardization of the term hacker.  Please avoid doing it.

It is by far easier to defraud the phone company by modifying a legitimate
cellular telephone.  The thing already does most of the work (the radio part
and most of the dialing).  All you have to do is hack the roms a bit to make
them operate with phony ID's.

-Ron

[Moderator's Note: It is far easier to go to the penitentiary that way also.
Remind me to search my files for the newspaper story of the fellow here in
Chicago last year who was convicted of operating a 'reprogramming for profit'
cellular phone 'repair shop'. When IBT security representatives, Chicago
police and FCC personnel raided his place, they found not only cellular phones
being liberated from billing constraints. It seems the dude was also into
freeking CB radios; getting them broadbanded and oscillating in the ten meter
band. Six months in the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized
representative followed by two years federal probation is not my idea of how
to spend my summer vacation. P. Townson]

------------------------------
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 25 Jan 89 03:29:34 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Perry Victor Lea) writes:

> Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place
fraudulent call with a ham radio?

It is probably possible to place a fraudulent radio telephone call
from an amateur radio station, but it's easier (and just as illegal)
to use a cellular telephone set.  When a valid call-attempt is made,
the cellular telephone set transmits its phone number and its
serial number (an electronic PIN), as well as the number dialed by
the user. The local cellular carrier is supposed to validate the
combination.  A cellular telephone user who fiddles with the proms
or other administerable memory can probably impersonate a valid
subscriber. It may be high tech, but it's functionally equivalent to
stealing and using another telephone subscribers calling card number.

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: videotex EHKP-protocol
Date: 24 Jan 89 08:33:29 +200

Communications protocol EHKP for Videotex via X.25/Datapak
==========================================================

The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences is planning to participate
in the Swedish Videotex system as a Videotex (database) host. We are interested
in software that support the EHKP protocol for connecting to Videotex.

We would appreciate any information on:

- Hints on good litterature that describes the EHKP protocol. Any public
  domain software?

- Avialable EHKP protocol software for connecting VAX/VMS minis to Videotex
  via X.25/Datapak or any software running under unix or MS-DOS. Features
  and price?

                Torbjoern Leuchovius


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

Date: 24 Jan 89 11:50:51 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Where Are Telecom Archives?
From: "Arthur_Axelrod.WBST128"@Xerox.COM
To: [e-mail]


Patrick, re your item in V9 #16 offering the file
    [TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes], or
'guide.to.areacodes' within the telecom-archives . . .

Alas, I can't recall where the telecom archives are.  Could you please tell
me?  I can FTP the file.  Thanks.

   Art Axelrod
   Xerox Webster Research Center

[Moderator's Gleeful Note: Ah! A chance to beat my own drum again! Thanks
for asking, Art. The telecom archives is housed for the time being at
bu-cs.bu.edu.  Slightly under 10 megs of reading material is there for you,
or anyone who wants it. An almost complete set of {TELECOM Digest} for the
past 7.5 years -- it began in June, 1981 -- is available in 8 volumes. The
most recent issues are in a file called appropriately, 'telecom-recent'.
Many other text files are also available; some of which appeared in various
issues of the Digest, much of which has not ever appeared here.

Follow normal FTP protocol. After you 'ftp bu-cs.bu.edu', login as anonymous
and provide a password. You would then 'cd telecom-archives', and 'ls -l'
to see what all is available. Please help yourself. In the meantime, I have
mailed you a copy of the North American Area Code Guide.

See you tomorrow!  P. Townson]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 26 01:47:47 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA03186; Thu, 26 Jan 89 01:47:47 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89  1:03:29 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #29
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Jan 89  1:03:29 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:

                         Wrong Number Stories
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                      Another Wrong Number Story
                        Re: Annoying Phone Calls
                        Re: Annoying Phone Calls
                     Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
                     Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
                 Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code

[Moderator's Note: This is *part one* of two parts for the Digest for
1-26. The second part, on the topic 'Is there life after PC Pursuit?'
will follow in a few minutes. P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Wrong Number Stories
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 16:31:27 -0500
From: [e-mail]


I once had trouble with a phone number. It happened
that a business in a neighboring town had posted an ad in a trade
journal with a botched exchange.  I got calls every few weeks for nearly a
year.  Once I had figured out what had happened, I contacted the company, and
passed the customer contacts along to them.  They never repeated the ad, the
calls dwindled, and then I moved and got a different phone number.

A former co-worker had a place in Boston with a number very close to one for
a phone sex service.  Needless to say, she got several amsusing calls from
men who fat-fingered (a piano player's term) the number.  Some of these guys
apparently got quite annoyed when she refused to accept their credit card
numbers and call back as promised in the ad.  To make matters worse, her
mom was visiting one week, and reportedly had a long (30 minutes or more)
conversation with some guy.  Her mom didn't take his credit card number,
but did coyly advise my friend that a guy had called for her, and left his
number.

Recent grumblings about the decline of US phone service, particularly with
regard to hotel add-on charges, inspired a cute thought.  In Europe, hotels
have been ripping people off for years on long distance.  Also, the general
opinion and personal experience has been that phone service in Europe is
inferior to ours.  With the all the fawning over Euro-style, European formula,
and European engineering, I suppose it's only logical that we also aspire to
a European-quality phone system (:-).

Having grown up with the offspring of Murray Hill types, and learning phone
tricks from the Jersey Bell repair guys, I must admit to a certain nostalgia.
Paying 60 cents for a domestic long-distance directory assistance call also
contributes to my sense of loss.  I miss Ma Bell.

                -Jim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Gonzalez                AT&T: 617-873-2937
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.     ARPA: [e-mail]
Cambridge, Massachusetts        UUCP: ...seismo!bbn!gonzalez
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 24 Jan 89 19:55:37 EST (Tue)
From: cucstud![e-mail] (David Lesher)


The classic had to be Mike Royko, columnist for the [Chicago Tribune].
AT&T had new 800-xxxxxxx customer service number. Alas, Mike's home phone
was 312-xxxxxxx. He wrote a nice piece about how he was going to tell all the
people calling they didn't deserve service and he would see to it they were
disconnected, and various other threats. Seems to me Ma ended up taking out
an ad in his paper, next to his space to beg forgiveness.


[Moderator's Note: Actually, it was his office telephone. The [Chicago Tribune]
centrex is 312-222. His private number 312-222-3xxx was commonly dialed by
people wanting AT&T at 1-800-222-3xxx. These were people who failed to dial
the 1-800 first. AT&T frequently advertises in the Chicago papers, but their
ad in this instance was to remind people to 'dial 1-800 first, when calling a
toll-free number.' I think the easiest telephone number to remember in the
world must be the Tribune classified ad-takers: 312-222-2222.  P. Townson]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 02:41:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: One More Wrong Number Story

Just one more wrong number victim story.
My next-door neighbor in the dorm some years ago had a number that was
exactly the same as the local power company except that he had a 4 where
they had a 1, two digits that are right on top of each other on a TT pad.
In the beginning of the year, he would just tell people that they had a
wrong number, but as the year went on, he started being quite mischievous
with callers who refused to admit to having dialed a wrong number.

He would apologize, and ask them to describe their electricity problem.
Billing inquiries he would refer to the proper number, but he came up with
some incredibly bizarre responses to service/repair questions.  I still
feel sorry for the woman he told to unplug all her appliances and unscrew
all of her lightbulbs and wait for the truck that would be there in "half
hour to 45 minutes".

Not such a good story in the retelling, I guess.
Oh, well.

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

From: unknown - id lost in transmission
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Annoying Phone Calls
Date: 20 Jan 89 13:08:32 GMT
Organization: Bellcore


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Noel) writes:
>
>     I just moved from Greensboro, NC (*WHEW*), and as I was leaving
>     I received an advertising slick from Southern Bell promoting a
>     new multiplexing type service.
>
>     The service provided you with up to three phone numbers, all
>     ringing on the same phone but with different "rings". Hence,
>     you could get a general (solicitor) number, and a number for
>     IMPORTANT people. Nice.
>
>     I got here to LA, and was disappointed though not surprised to
>     find the service is not available here. What parts of the country
>     is the service is available in?

New Jersey Bell is going to offer this service starting in the early
part of 1989 - I think in April (from what I remember reading in the
newspaper)
Bill Mitchell

[Moderator's Note: Bill Mitchell is with Bellcore. I am sorry that his
network address got scrambled before it reached me.  P. Townson]

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Annoying Phone Calls
Date: 21 Jan 89 20:23:22 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Noel) writes:
>     The service provided you with up to three phone numbers, all
>     ringing on the same phone but with different "rings". ...
>     I got here to LA, and [I couldn't get it]

In the western part of L.A. GTE used to allow you to order both halves
of a two-party party line which provides the same sort of service.  It
used to be popular when two people were living in sin and didn't want
people to know about it.  ("Who is that guy answering your phone at
7:30 in the morning?")  You might try asking to see if that's still
possible.  Two-party service is usually cheaper than private line, so
even with both halves it's not much more than a regular private line.
--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
{ bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, [e-mail]
You're never too old to have a happy childhood.

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

Date: Sun Jan 22 19:40:47 CST 1989
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick Farris) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ([e-mail]
> 5-9080) writes:
> : Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud????
> : The telephone company.  When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls
> : and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill,
> You gotta be joking.  Where do you think the phone company gets it's
> money?  The RATE PAYERS pay for fraudulent phone calls.

Actually, it's the 900 or 976 service provider who takes it in the
shorts. If the phone company can't collect from a customer for calls to
an information service, do you think that they are going to remit to
the provider anyway?

Also, if they have already remitted to a service provider, and the bill
eventually proves uncollectable, they *charge back* the service
provider.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s
Date: 15 Jan 89 03:07:19 GMT


    "Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone
    fraud????  The telephone company ... Try to run a business that
    loses money and see how long it lasts."

This is incorrect.  When a customer refuses to pay for thousands of
dollars worth of prefix 976 calls, the telephone company doesn't lose
money.  They just don't make more money.  They end up with the same
amount of money as though those calls had never been made.  The account
that runs the 976 service doesn't get their cut.

It's not as though the telephone company buys telephone calls at
wholesale and resells them at retail.  Virtually all their costs are
fixed costs.  The incremental cost of placing a 976 call is zip.

The newspapers are full of this "the phone company loses millions of
dollars on fraud" stuff.  It ain't so.

(None of the above should be construed as support for perpetrators of
telephone fraud.  Especially when they bill to my phone number.  Hang
'em high!)

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (uunet!tektronix!hammer!frip!andrew)    [UUCP]
                        ([e-mail])  [ARPA]


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

To: [e-mail]
From: cucstud![e-mail] (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code
Date: 25 Jan 89 00:41:10 GMT



I have found many, but not all BOC's use 55n-xxxx where xxxx
is the  last 4 of the ntbrb (thats nUMBER tO bE rUNG bACK) and
n varied from CO to CO. I found 0,1,2,3 in various places.
The operative prefix was one NOT in use in that local dialing
area, of course.
I have had cases where I could not easily get the dang thing to
let go of the line when I was done;-{
Of more interest to me  is the ANI number. In Cleveland, it
was 200+any 7d, except the correct #. If you had a wrong # the
ANI voice kindly told you which pair you were on. That was a
godsent when you had 30 trunks and you wanted to figure which
was where. It also gave out interesting numbers when used on
out-WATS lines.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 26 03:10:39 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA08614; Thu, 26 Jan 89 03:10:39 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89  2:07:08 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #30
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Jan 89  2:07:08 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:

                STARLINK - an alternative to PC Pursuit
                    Telecom Info From Travel-Holiday
                 Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
                            More pet peeves
                   How US West Handles 976 Blocking

[Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of two parts for 1-26. Recently I
received word of a new competitor to Telenet's PC Purusit. Considering
that Telenet is raising their rates beginning next week, you may want to
research your own traffic and do a cost comparison with the new service
described below. Whether or not it will save you money depends on your
own application, of course.   P. Townson]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Keith Petersen)
Subject: STARLINK - an alternative to PC Pursuit
Date: 24 Jan 89 07:51:00 GMT


The following is provided "as-is" for its informational value.  It is from
a file that was recently uploaded to my BBS.  I cannot answer questions as
I have no connection with this service.

--Keith Petersen  <[e-mail]>

---cut-here---

STARLINK is an alternative to PC Pursuit.  You can call 91 cities in
28 states during off-peak hours (7pm-6am and all weekend) for $1.50
per hour.  All connections through the Tymnet network are 2400 bps
(1200 bps works too) with no surcharge and there are no maximum hours
or other limitations.

There is a one time charge of $50 to signup and a $10 per month
account maintenance fee.  High volume users may elect to pay a $25
per month maintenance fee and $1.00 per hour charge.

The service is operated by Galaxy Telecomm in Virginia Beach, VA and
users may sign up for the service by modem at 804-495-INFO.  You will
get 30 minutes free access time after signing up.

This is a service of Galaxy and not TYMNET.  Galaxy buys large blocks
of hours from TYMNET.  To find out what your local access number is
you can call TYMNET at [phone] 24 hours per day.  Don't ask
them questions about rates, etc., as they don't know.  Call Galaxy
instead.

Galaxy says they will soon have their own 800 number for signups and
information.

The following is a listing of the major cities covered.  There are
others that are a local call from the ones listed.

Eastern Time Zone

Connecticut:  Bloomfield  Hartford  Stamford
Florida: Fort Lauderdale  Jacksonville  Longwood  Miami  Orlando  Tampa
Georgia: Atlanta  Doraville  Marietta  Norcross
Indiana: Indianapolis
Maryland: Baltimore
Massachusetts: Boston  Cambridge
New Jersey: Camden  Englewood Cliffs  Newark  Pennsauken  Princeton  South
            Brunswick
New York:  Albany  Buffalo  Melville  New York  Pittsford  Rochester
           White Plains
North Carolina: Charlotte
Ohio:  Akron  Cincinnati  Cleveland  Columbus  Dayton
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia  Pittsburgh
Rhode Island: Providence
Virginia: Alexandria  Arlington  Fairfax  Midlothian  Norfolk  Portsmouth

Central Time Zone
Alabama: Birmingham
Illinois: Chicago  Glen Ellyn
Kansas: Wichita
Michigan: Detroit
Minnesota: Minneapolis  St. Paul
Missouri: Bridgeton  Independence  Kansas City  St. Louis
Nebraska: Omaha
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City  Tulsa
Tennessee: Memphis  Nashville
Texas: Arlington  Dallas  Fort Worth  Houston
Wisconsin:  Brookfield  Milwaukee

Mountain Time Zone
Arizona: Mesa  Phoenix  Tucson
Colorado:  Aurora  Boulder  Denver

Pacific Time Zone
California:  Alhambra  Anaheim  El Segundo  Long Beach  Newport Beach
             Oakland  Pasadena  Pleasanton  Sacramento  San Francisco
             San Jose  Sherman Oaks  Vernon  Walnut Creek
Washington:  Bellevue  Seattle


STARLINK is a service of Galaxy Telecomm Division, GTC, Inc., the
publishers of BBS Telecomputing News, Galaxy Magazine and other
electronic publications.


[Moderator's Note: The above has been making the rounds on various news groups
and Fidonet Bulletin Boards. I thought it worth bringing here FYI; but how
well it would work for you is something only you can tell.  P. Townson]
------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 25 Jan 89 8:58:17 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Telecom Info From Travel-Holiday


The Feb '89 issue of Travel-Holiday magazine has several telecom-related
news items in their "Travel Advisor" traveller's news section:

In the "Consumer Watch" column, p. 85:

"Q. Is it possible that my credit card [sic] number was stolen by
someone aboard the ship? I placed two satellite calls from my cabin
through the radio room, where I had left my credit card number. When I
returned home, I was informed by the telephone company that my number
had been used 75 times one day and 150 times the next.

A. It's possible that a passenger or crew member used your telephone
credit card number. However, considering the volume of calls made on
your number, it's more likely that your number was stolen by several
parties over the air. When your credit card number is given to the
overseas operator, it can be heard by anyone with a shortwave radio.
As a precaution, on your next trip, preregister your card number with
the telephone company. If you have an AT&T calling card, dial
1-800-SEACALL. Tell them your name, telephone credit card number, the
name of yur ship and your cruise dates. Onboard ship, inform the radio
room that you have preregistered your card with the phone company. Don't
give them your credit card number so that it won't be accidentally
transmitted when you call."
***End of item***

[Comments: Appropos to our current discussion as to the "creditcardness"
of Calling Cards, here's a good example of confusion between the two on
the part of the general public. Also, note the confusion between the
question's referral to calls by satellite, vs. the answer's reference
to ordinary shortwave-carried marine-operator ship-to-shore calls. If
the call had really been made via a satellite uplink from the ship, the
issue of shortwave would have never entered into the picture. Also, I
like the casual use of the traditional "the telephone company", when
there now are hundreds instead of just one... :-)]

And, in the same issue, p. 89:

FAX AND PHONE FACTS
"Just when you thought you were safe -- fax charges. After years of
pressure from guests upset over unreasonable telephone surcharges,
hotels have thought up another charge for your bill. Hundreds of hotels
now charge up to $10 when you *receive* a fax transmission. And it's
very likely that you won't even know about it until you check out.

Hotels say they use the fee to cover the cost of renting the equipment.
However, that may not always be true. Some fax-machine companies install
the machines in return for a percentage of the fees the hotels charge
their guests.
               *          *         *
At Stouffer Hotels and Resorts you no longer have to pay the surcharges
on the credit-card, collect, and 800 number calls you make. You will,
however, still be billed $2 extra for long distance calls and 75 cents
for local, long distance and local directory and 950 number calls.
               *          *         *
...In November, AT&T announcd the addition of three new countries to its
USADIRECT service. Now you can dial an access number from 51 countries
to directly reach an AT&T operator in the US. In some countries you can
dial from any residential, business, or public telephone. In others you
must use a dedicated telephone located in hotels, airports and seaports.
And you can use your AT&T card or make a collect call. There's no extra
charge for the service. For more information, call [phone]."
***End of item***

[Comments: I called the 800 number given and asked a couple questions.
The man at the other end said that "no extra charge" in the above means
that, though this service bypasses the foreign country's overseas
operators, you are billed at the regular overseas-call rate for your
call. It just saves you time and hassle to do it this way. They don't
split the call charge into separate overseas-to-US and internal-US
segments, charging separately for each, which is what I had first
envisioned.]

Anyway, hope the above is of interest!

Regards, Will Martin

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

To: mcnc![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
Date: 25 Jan 89 21:26:14 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 22, message 5
>
>MY GOD!  I nearly fainted after reading this.  There goes five years of
>anti-fraud progress out the window in one fell swoop of marketing
>hype.  I looked at it again to make sure I was really seeing it.  Yes,
>they printed the PIN right there on the card.  If a bank did that with
>an ATM card, it would probably make the front page of the newspapers.
>What PINHEADS!!  Every time you think that some people are beginning

      ^^^^^^^^

 That's a good one!!  PIN-HEADS (Personal Identification Number) ...

Well, anyway, I thought it was funny.  o o
                                        >
                                       \--/

--
Kim L. Greer
Duke University Medical Center        try: [e-mail]
Div. Nuclear Medicine  POB 3949            dukeac!klg@ecsgate
Durham, NC 27710  919-681-2711x223      ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!klg                   fax: [phone]


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

From: [e-mail] (David A. Cantor)
Date: 25 Jan 89 11:17
To: [e-mail]
Subject: More pet peeves


In vol 9 iss 27, Ed Greenberg told us about some of his pet peeves.

Here's mine:

It's becoming common now for hotels to charge a flat amount for
any directory assistance call, and a surcharge for all other
long distance calls except 800 numbers.   The number 800-555-1212,
however falls into two categories:  800 numbers and directory
assistance.  ALL hotels I've stayed over the past two years
are now charging for calls to 800-555-1212 (directory assistance).

When possible, I use pay phones (even COCOTs) to place calls to
800 directory assistance when I'm staying in a hotel.

Dave C.

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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Scot E Wilcoxon)
Subject: How US West handles 976 Blocking
Date: 24 Jan 89 18:36:39 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>...
>2.  When we had finally were able to have 976 numbers blocked, our local
>    telco (General Telephone) informed us, IN WRITING, that, pursuant
>    to Federal law, it was not blocking out-of-state, long-distance 976
>    numbers.  Whether some individual long-distance services do so, I
>...

US WEST's 976 information says "The following type of calls are denied
access to Dial Data 976 Service." (then states sometimes it may not
be able to deny all of them...)

    Inter-LATA, Intra-LATA, Calling Card, Third Number Billing,
    Coin & Coinless Originated, Operator Assisted, Hotel Originated,
    WATS, Feature Groups ABC&D, Independent Originated.

So perhaps GT cannot block your attempts to call long-distance 976, but
the distant CO might block the call.  I guess the federal laws preserve
your ability to call anyone, but who you're calling can refuse to accept
your call.
--
Scot E. Wilcoxon  [e-mail]    {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress      UNIX masts & rigging  [phone]    uunet!datapg!sewilco
    I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Jan 27 01:54:23 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA12868; Fri, 27 Jan 89 01:54:23 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89  1:22:21 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #31
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Jan 89  1:22:21 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:

                          Re: Cellular Setup
                      International Calling Cards
                          Re: ATT commerical
                          Re: ATT commerical
                       Re: Nuisance phone calls
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 25 Jan 89 17:32:12 GMT


>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 24, message 4
>
>Question: How is phase shifting actually involved in communications between the mobile unit and the switching office ?
>
>Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio?
>
>Thanks for your help ..
>
>Perry
>
>Reply here on this newsgroup or e-mail to [e-mail] (arpanet)


To answer your questions as best as possible:

1) The "Phase Shifting" you refer to is in all probability referring to the
   modulation of the RF going from the mobile to the cell site. (I forget the
   actual emission designators) and is similar to FM.  Typically communications
   from the cell site to the cellular switching office are via T-1 pcm carrier
   systems.

2) Extremly improbable.  For the why, first let me describe the scenario of
   a modbile to land call set up.

   a) User enters phone number and hits send.
   b) Mobile listens to data stream on signalling channel, and checks busy/idle
      bits to see if another mobile has channel in use.  If idle, mobile sends
      request containing mobile Electronic Serial Number (manufactured into the
      radio), the mobiles phone number, and the called number.
   c) System receives request and sends data burst back to mobile confirming
      that request is received, and assigning a voice channel.
   d) Mobile changes frequency to voice channel, verifies SAT (sub audible tone
      used to verify that mobile has reached correct channel) and returns same
      SAT to cell site. Mobile also verifies DCC (Digital Color Code - like SAT
      but in digital domain) to confirm channel.  Mobile unmutes audio and call
      setup proceeds through switch.  At this point, all progress tones, etc
      heard from the mobile are coming from the land office, not the mobile
      switch.
   e) Call is now in progress.  While call is up, Cell sites constantly are
      scanning mobile signal strength.  If dips below threshhold for a certain
      (variable from system to system) number of scans, a handoff request is
      made.  Adjacent cells scan the mobile, and if signal is ABOVE threshold,
      the system initiates handoff.  A request is sent digitally to the mobile
      to mute audio, and change to the new frequency (also sent).  The mobile
      mutes, changes frequency, verifies SAT and DCC on the new channel and
      unmutes (all in about 50 ms or so, typically).  This handoff is generally
      inaudible to the user, but is what makes using cellular with modems a
      pain - no audio/data can be sent during this handoff.
   f) For call termination, mobile sends disconnect request to switch, and all
      facilities are idled.

As can be seen, this is not a trivial process.   The primary problem with
trying to defraud a Mobile system is that you have to know a valid mobiles
Electronic Serial Number/Mobile Number Combination or the system will deny
service.  You also have to be ablo to transmit and receive 9600 baud FSK
(to the best of my memory - my spec isn't handy) to the system in order to
determine what voice channel assignment has been made.  And you have to do it
FAST!  Most all call setup items described above must occur within very closely
difined time windows, or the system will fail the call.  Also, as soon as the
guy who gets stuck with the bill bitches, they will most likely change his
mobile number, or start tracing the calls and can determine who is the
fraudulent user based on who is being called quite easily.  This is one of the
big plusses of cellular telephony - if somebody steals a phone, their ESN
can be denied nationally, and they can't use it. It is not impossible to change
ESN in a phone, but is extremely difficult since it is manufactured physically
into the unit, and is not generally documented by the manufacturer is public
domain documnets for security reasons.

So what you would end up doing is basically redesigning a cellular mobile,
and  seriously doubt whether many people have the skill and knowledge to
even come close to being able to do so. Also, with the security provisions in
cellular systems, even if you could manage the hardware, the system software
would still make it highly unlikely that you could use it.
--
================================================================================
Tim Dawson (...!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim)  Motorola Computer Systems, Dallas, TX.
"The opinions expressed above do not relect those of my employer - often even I
cannot figure out what I am talking about."


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

To: ukc!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (John Pettitt)
Subject: International Calling Cards
Date: 24 Jan 89 10:34:07 GMT


Following on from the recent postings on use of calling cards and the
problems encountered please spare a thought for the poor users of non
US charge cards.

I have British Telecom phone credit card, which in the uk works very
well and has some nice features (3 wrong pin attempts cancels the card!)
but in the USA it's a pain.

There are two ways of using a BT card to call england from the US.

1) Call the operator, say you want to call a UK number and bill it to
a uk credit card, expalain the yes uk cards do work,  yes I know the number
starts 44M and calling cards dont start that way,  get supervisor, explain
again, get international operator,  recite card number (13 digits), number
to call (8 digits) and sometimes get connected.

or

2)  Call 1-800-4455667 and talk to a BT operator in london,  recite over
poor quality transatlatic line, card number, number to call, and number
of phone you are using,  repeat until operator gets all numbers correct.

or

3) Pay hotels rip-off phone rate and just dial the number . . .

John Pettitt
Specialix International
(Solution is to get calling card number for US office, now all I have
to do is sort out the internal accounting . . . .)
--
John Pettitt, Specialix, Giggs Hill Rd, Thames Ditton, Surrey, U.K., KT7 0TR
{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!pyrltd!slxsys!jpp            [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]       Fax: [phone]         Telex: 918110 SPECIX G
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Mike Palmer)
Subject: Re: ATT commerical
Date: 18 Jan 89 14:58:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>ATT is running a new set of commericals (I guess they got
>tired of the "slice of death" series).
>
>In one of the new commerials the guy says something to the effect
>"Yea, we cost more on the first minute, but how often do you make
>  one minute phone calls?"
>
>Do the rates really converge? Or are they trying to help people
>rationalize sticking with a more expensive service.

About a year and a half ago, the phone company sent me a notice about
having to choose my long distance carier along with all the option
in my area and their phone numbers.  I proceeded to call each one and
ask about their rates.  everyone of them asked me for a long distance
number that I called often and then quoted rates.  All the non-AT&T
companies also gave comparisons with AT&T for 2-4 minute calls.  As
I remember, AT&T's rates were something like 15 cents for the first
minute and 9 cents for each additional minute.  All the other companies
were 12 cents for the first minute and 10 cents for each additional
minute.  A little quick math and the realization that most of my calls
were of the 10 minute variety and my long distance carrier became AT&T.

>
>- Carl

--
======= Mike Palmer            {uunet,noao,yale}!hsi!palmer =======
======= Health Systems International    [e-mail]             =======



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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: ATT commerical
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 1988

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John N. Le) writes:
> Even if AT&T rates are higher in some cases, so what.  If you like
> to pay less, it's your choice, but I wish you luck if you try to demand
> from your LD company the same high quality service that AT&T are doing
> for yearssssss.

But now it's 1989, and the old stand-by reliable hissy analog
connections still provided by AT&T are a little passe. Occasionally, I
get a digital transcontinental connection from AT&T, but it's a small
percentage of the time and only to major metro areas. Sprint on the
other hand, seems to provide fast, reliable digital connections
virtually everywhere. I'd use them if their rates were higher, but
they're *lower*.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Godfrey Lee)
Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls
Date: 23 Jan 89 16:26:47 GMT


>>I believe the time has come to do something about nuisance phone calls.
>I found after I installed an answering machine, that junk callers
>usually hang up when they realize they got an answering
>machine.

Problem is that there are more and more automated phone solicitations. With
these you don't get the satisfaction of hanging up on them, and if you have
an answering machine, you get junk filling up your tape!

I do sense some consumer rebellion on this though, I got a few of them about
a year ago, but lately have gotten none, what is the situation in the rest
of Canada and in the U.S.?

--
Godfrey Lee                                            P.O. Box 9707
Cognos Incorporated                                    3755 Riverside Dr.
VOICE:  [phone] x3802   FAX: [phone]     Ottawa, Ontario
UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!glee                      CANADA  K1G 3Z4



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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Jan 27 02:52:19 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA16584; Fri, 27 Jan 89 02:52:19 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89  2:19:30 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #32
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Jan 89  2:19:30 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:

                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                 Re: Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application
              Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
                 Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
               determination of rates for overseas calls
                           Re: area code map
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: roy@phri (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 26 Jan 89 14:26:21 GMT



    My old 2nd line (i.e. modem) number used to differ by a transposition
(or some other small difference) from the financial aid office at New York
City Technical College.  This was no problem until they sent out a memo one
September to all their students with a typo on it.  Lots of wrong numbers all
of a sudden.  We eventually got somebody who was patient enough to help us
work out what happened ("where did you get this number", "it's on the memo",
"what memo?", "the memo I got in the mail", "would you please be so kind as
to read it to me", "...", "are you sure that's the number that's written on
the paper?", etc).

    Anyway, we called the financial aid office and complained.  It was
amazingly difficult to make them understand what had happened:

Me: Hi, you don't know me, but you sent out a memo telling people to call
your office and gave my number by mistake.

Them: What's your number?

Me: xxx-xxxx

Them: No, that's not our number, there must be some mistake.

Me: Yes, that's the point, you told people to call my number.

Them: No, I'm sorry, that's impossible, and we [getting a bit rude here]
really can't be responsible for people dialing a wrong number.

Me: Can you please go into your file cabinet and pull out a copy of the memo
and read it to me?

Them: I don't have a copy of it here, maybe you better talk to .....

    Eventually, I finally got some higher-up administrator to actually go
find a copy of the memo and read it out loud to me, taking her to task when
she read past the phone number, unconcously saying the correct number for the
financial aid office.  Long pause.  "Oh, we made a mistake".  No shit,
sherlock.  I eventually convinced her that it would be in both our best
interests' if she would send out a memo correcting the mistake: "Dear
student, please note that the phone number for the financial aid office is
xxx-xxxx, not yyy-yyyy as stated in the last letter.  She did so.

    Of course, next semester, some grunt took the memo out of the file
cabinet, xeroxed 100 million of them, and sent them out to all the students
again.  I'll leave it up to you to guess if they bothered to correct the
phone number before they did so.

    Eventually we took to leaving the modem on all the time.  Not really
very nice, but what could I do?  I would imagine I would be pretty frantic if
I got a memo saying "unless you call this office before next Friday, you'll
loose out on your financial aid" and every time I called the number, got
sombody screaching at me.  Could you imagine if you had a cellular phone and
paid for incomming calls and this happened?  The kicker to the story is a
little while after we took to modemizing people, we read in the paper that
some crazy person had walked into the financial aid office and started
shooting at random, killing several people.  Could it be that he was just
frustrated by getting a modem whistle at him whenever he called about his aid
package?  I hope not.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri![e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

[Moderator's Note: I had the identical experience in 1972. At the time, my
'second line' was actually my direct line. I lived in an apartment building
with a front desk/manual switchboard. I had a two line 'turn button phone'
with the switchboard line on one side and my private number HYde Park 3-3714
on the other side of the button. The Draper & Kramer Real Estate Company
sent out a memo to all tenants in a huge (500 units) highrise building telling
them how to reach the building engineer for maintainence requests, etc.
Guess whose number was given in error when some digits were transposed. I
fought with those people for a year!

I finally had success only by being *rude* to the callers; to wit if they
complained of no heat or no hot water I would cheerfully 'put them on hold'
for a minute and come back on the line to advise them according to my
records, 'the rent you are paying does not include heat or hot water'. After
D&K got an earful from angry tenants complaining about '...that rude janitor
you have working in the Fifteen-Fifty-Five Building' they decided to issue
a new memo. I called it my own version of 'gorilla' (guerilla) warfare! PT]
------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 26 Jan 89 18:18:43 GMT



Yes, I noticed that.  When I worked at a radio station we used
to get calls for Sears repair service all the time.

Me:  Good Morning, WJHU.

Caller:  Is this Sears?

Me:  Nope, it's a radio station.

Caller:  Well my washer stopped working.

Me:  Can't help you, this is a radio station.

Everyonce and a while I took parts orders.  It was easier than
trying to convince them they dialed wrong.  I also used to get
calls for Doreen (prounce DOUGH-REEENE).

Me:  (sleepily, its 2 AM)

Caller:  Let me speek to Doreen.

Me:  Doreen says she don't want to talk to you no more.
We're going back to bed now, so don't you call again.

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Richard Edell)
Subject: Re: Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application
Date: 27 Jan 89 01:08:02 GMT



One aspect not mentioned by the previous poster of interest to consumers is:
  9.5.3.A.2. Definitions
   Delayed Timing of Information Charge
    A product feature which delays commencement of billing of Information
    Charges to a Caller.  The purpose of the delayed timing option is to
    allow time for the Caller to hang up prior to connection to the program
    without being billed an Information Charge.

  9.5.3.C.1.a.3 Regulations; Utility Obligations; General
    The Utility will provide a period of 18 seconds for Delayed Timing of
    Information Charges.  If this period is exceeded, a Caller will be
    billed the Information Charge from the time of initial connection and
    the Transport Charges will be billed to the Information Provider
    and/or Sponsor from the time of initial connection.  If a Caller hangs
    up within this 18 second period, no Information Charge will be billed
    to the Subscriber and no Charges will be billed to the Information
    Provider and/or Sponsor for that call.

Further, the tariff specifically states that the Utility will disconnect
the Information Provider/Sponsor for violating the rules/regulations
of the tariff.  (Such as: program content matching the prefix of the
service's telephone number, proper disclosure of price, etc.)
The first disconnection would last at least one week, the second
disconnection would last two weeks, and the third disconnection would
be permanent.  Also, the reconnection charge (for first and second
violations) is $2,000.  Hopefully this section of the tariff addresses
the First Amendment rights problems Pacific Bell has faced when it tried
to disconnect "adult" services.

I should state that my business is a real estate loan referral program
offered through Pacific Bell's 976 service.

-Richard Edell (UCB Student)

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Richard Edell)
Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
Date: 27 Jan 89 00:37:46 GMT



According to a copy I have of "Regulation Z - Truth in Lending" (published
by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) public utility
credit is exempt from Regulation Z (Section 226.3.c); and it is this
regulation (Section 226.12 - Special Credit Card Provisions) that provides
the consumer protections we're talking about (card must be requested,
$50.00 limitation of cousumer libility, etc.).  If Regulation Z is the
only source of these protections and if public utility credit is exempt,
then these protections do not apply to consumer credit.  But, I guess you
can call Calling Cards credit cards.

(Note: this exemption only applies to public utility services (not equipment)
for which the charge are regulated by any government unit.)

-Richard Edell

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

To: [e-mail]
From: alliant!![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder
Date: 26 Jan 89 15:38:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Natalie) writes:
>  If I'm calling home, which I usually am, at least AT&T
>lets you hit just the pin after the DONG which is even faster.
>
>-Ron
>
>[Am I the only one that terminates the call with the # so I can
>tell the nice lady who says "You may dial another number now,"
>"No, thank you, I'm finished now."

Also note that you can hit # after entering your pin when only entering
the last 4 digits when calling home.  If you don't do this you have to
wait for the thing to time out and decide that you are only entering
four digits instead of the full 14.

Martin Harriss
alliant!harriss

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


To: amdahl!ames![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Karl T. Braun (kral))
Subject: determination of rates for overseas calls
Date: 25 Jan 89 01:54:35 GMT


How do the long distance companies determine rates for overseas calls?
Particularly, how do they determine when you are calling during non-peak
hours?  Is it from the time in the time zone the call is initiated, or
are there some funny games played due to international considerations?

(I suppose the same question applies to domestic calls made across time zones,
but somehow the fact that it is international seems to complicate it, in my
mind at least).

As stated above, I am not a regular reader of this group (I'm an irregular
reader?).  Please respond via mail.  Summaries upon request.


--
kral     408/647-6112            ...{ism780|amdahl}!drivax!braun
"To surrender is to remain in the hands of barbarians for the rest of my life;
 To fight is to leave my bones exposed in the desert waste"
        - ancient chinese poem

[Moderator's Note: But please carbon those responses here also. Thanks. PT]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (bruce nelson)
Subject: Re: area code map
Date: 26 Jan 89 19:17:52 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
>I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map?
>I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965.

There weren't any area codes before the 60's. To call long distance, you had
to tell the operator what city and number you were calling. Some of the phone
numbers in that book were of the form HArpersville 3C20. They were changed to
AC + 7 digits when DDD was introduced.

Bruce Nelson
Eastman Kodak Co.
(standard disclaimers)


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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Jan 28 01:11:47 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA20093; Sat, 28 Jan 89 01:11:47 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89  0:53:09 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #33
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Jan 89  0:53:09 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:

                              USA-Direct
                            Re: USA-Direct
                            Re: 1+areacode
                           Re: area code map
                        Re: Query about Telebit
                    Re: cheap & easy circuit backup
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 10:08:52 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: USA-Direct


The USA Direct service doesn't save you money, but it does have advantages. I
spent Sept-Nov last year in Australia, and used it frequently. Besides
bypassing the hassle of dealing with foreign operators and byzantine phone
systems (if you have MOUNTAINS of oversized Aussie coins, you theoretically
could dial direct, at prices very similar to USA Direct). The idea of phone
credit cards is not widespread. They had a few (10 in the whole country!)
special phones at airports that could charge onto your VISA card, I wish these
had been more widely available.
But I digress. The main advantage of USA Direct was to pre-screen the overseas
line quality.  You called 0014-xxwhatever, and were rapidly connected to an
AT&T operator over either a very good cable line (75% chance), or a really
crappy satellite link with echoes, maddening delays, etc. Clearly, you hang up
& try again in the latter circumstance, the experience costing nothing but the
time to redial the toll-free number.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 20:48:48 PST
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USA-Direct


> ...In November, AT&T announcd the addition of three new countries to its
> USADIRECT service. Now you can dial an access number from 51 countries
> to directly reach an AT&T operator in the US. In some countries you can
> dial from any residential, business, or public telephone. In others you
> must use a dedicated telephone located in hotels, airports and seaports.
> And you can use your AT&T card or make a collect call. There's no extra
> charge for the service. For more information, call [phone]."
> ***End of item***

> [Comments: I called the 800 number given and asked a couple questions.
> The man at the other end said that "no extra charge" in the above means
> that, though this service bypasses the foreign country's overseas
> operators, you are billed at the regular overseas-call rate for your
> call. It just saves you time and hassle to do it this way. They don't
> split the call charge into separate overseas-to-US and internal-US
> segments, charging separately for each, which is what I had first
> envisioned.]


Note:  I also called several different times and got several different
stories from your beloved AT&T.  One time I was told that the calls
had to be made from special phones; another time I was given a number
to dial; another time, the person did not know what I was talking
about.  USADIRECT?  What's that.

For the country I inquired about, it is the same price every minute
of every day.  That rate is fairly reasonable too (except for the
fact that there is no reason that there should not be off peak use
discounts) and the mandatory operator assisted charges.  By fairly
reasonable, I mean it costs less than the other country charges for
an *operated assisted* call.

Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra
charge' is just marketing hype.  They set the rates and then
they say there is no *EXTRA* charge.  The charges are definitely
not the same from X to USA as from the USA to X, even if both
are operated assisted.

I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle.  If you
have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither.  It
might save money, but it might not.  From the above country X, it is
possible to use a pre-paid phone card or coins at many phones to call
the U.S. at direct dial rates.  Depending on how long you talk, it may
be cheaper than USADIRECT.  (By the way, the cards are available every-
where, the foreign language name is phonecard, and the largest coin is
worth about $4.00, so it is not as if you have to have a stack of dimes
available although the marginal incremental cost is about one dime.)

The commercials for the service are hogwash as well.  I have never
tried to make an international call where the operator did not speak
English.  In many countries they start speaking in English.  Perhaps
they figure that since AT&T's operators do not speak German or Japanese,
foreign countries' operators do not speak English.

I suspect that the rules, prices, etc differ from country to country,
but I don't have any proof since I only inquired about one country.

David Gast
[e-mail]
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: 26 Jan 89 14:49:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
>
>                         ...............
>As I recall, all or part of areas 516 and 914 (these pick up NYC suburbs) have
>not required 1 before area codes, nor has Pittsburgh (area 412), and several
>years ago I dialed "800" from 3 pay phones in Delaware (prefixes 674,475,478)
>without the leading 1.  I don't know if any of these changed.

While the original reason (we were told) that 1+A/C calling was implemented
was to open up central office codes of the form N0N or N1N, and therefore
could be confined to places which needed these extra central office codes,
the posting of Area Codes a few days ago that showed that almost all
possible Area Codes are assigned reveals that a side effect of this
will be to open up Area Codes of the form N[2-9]N.  The detection of whether
the first three digits is an area code or central office is being changed
from looking for a 0 or 1 in the second digit to looking for a 1 as the
initial digit.

It's obvious we're running out of area codes, simply because new services
open up more phone numbers.  In the beginning, for example, there was
Centrex.  So, instead of a medium office building having 20 phone lines
(and phone numbers), with an operator switching calls in the building,
the building may still have only 20 phone lines to the outside, but
could be using 200 phone numbers for each of the inside phones.  And,
I just saw a new service advertised; it wouldn't give any more phone
lines, but it would allow homes to have extra phone numbers- a coded
ring would indicate what number was being called.  In this way, people
would know who the call was for before answering the phone.  This will
create a need for more phone numbers.

At least, when 1+A/C becomes the norm, about 4 times more Area Codes
than are currently available will become available.
--
Stan Krieger
Summit NJ


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: area code map
Date: 26 Jan 89 17:35:53 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
> I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map?
> I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965.

    When DDD came to Atlantic City, NJ in 1961, besides detailed
    instructions on how to use Area Codes, etc, we were told that
    Area Codes were not required to any call in NJ, although the
    map showed the 201/609 split.  There was one list of central
    office codes and the approximate name of the locality served.
    A few years later, we were told to start using 201 for calls
    to Northern NJ.

    I have since heard that the algorithm for Area Codes was orginally
    something like this-

       1.    States with one area code had its second digit as 0;
        states with multiple area codes had all its area codes
        with a second digit as 1.

       2.   Lower numbers were reserved for areas with a large
        number of phones, so the time to dial NYC (212) for
        example took less time than less populated areas
        (like the state of Wyoming).

    As I further heard, NJ was originally just one area code
    (201), but it got split before DDD really got moving.
--
Stan Krieger
Summit NJ


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

To: [e-mail]
From: David Herron -- One of the vertebrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Query about Telebit
Date: 26 Jan 89 16:30:30 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:

>  Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud.
>Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 +
>baud system that operates with a US robotics. US, has promised to upgrade
>their modems and promise compatibility. Without one, people will not be able
>to call your BBS, trust me, I use one, and run a bbs.


WHAT?!?!?!

I've had my trailblazer hooked to my amiga and it worked just fine thank you.
Perry, you're very very very confused ...

Now if what you were trying to say is that BBS owners generally have
US Robotics modems and if most of your business is with BBS's, then
yes I agree you should get one of those modems.  But my understanding
with US Robotics modems is that even though they use V.29 there's
a couple of funny things they do that makes the modem basically only
useful with another USR modem.

Of course I'm in nearly the same boat with my trailblazer, but I rest
confident in that technically (at least) I made a better choice.  Also,
I'm a Unix person and Unix sites tend to have trailblazers ...
--
<-- David Herron; an MMDF guy                              <[e-mail]>
<-- ska: David le casse\*'      {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, [e-mail]
<-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ...
<--          Stop!  Wait!  I didn't mean to!

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

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: cheap & easy circuit backup
Date: 27 Jan 89 02:26:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, sybase!calvin![e-mail] (ben ullrich) writes:
...
>we're looking for something that won't be too expensive, since we're something
>of a smallish operation (only 16 did's and 16 co trunks) and don't have a lot
>of money to dump into something we'll almost never need.
>
>one idea being kicked around is plain ol cellular phones...


The use of cellular portable phones as backups when your CO trunks
fail sounds like a good idea.  But before you invest in them
(approximately $1000 per telephone, and about $30/month per
telephone before you make the first call) make sure you have decent
radio coverage at your location.  A cellular dealer ought to be able
to demonstrate his product at your location.  Also, be aware that
conversations on such phones are public.  Eavesdropping on cellular
is illegal, but its also easy to do, and widely done, and the law is
hard to enforce.

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Jan 28 01:46:18 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA22315; Sat, 28 Jan 89 01:46:18 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89  1:31:49 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #34
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Jan 89  1:31:49 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:

                          Re: Cellular Setup
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                            Cellular Fraud
             Two parties calling each other simultaneously
                  My cordless remote stopped working
                Charging for international phone calls
                  UK and USA Telephone Calling Cards
                          old pay telephones
                         Age of area codes/NAP
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 26 Jan 89 19:45:48 GMT




   You mentioned that there are set guidlines to the frequenciest that
cellular phone services are allowed to use, however; when I had been
futzing with my police scanner I had been able to hear cellular phone
conversations. I am familiar with the laws that allow anyone to be able
to listen to radio waves via radio sets. But why would they allow
phone conversations to be set in these bands where anyone with a police
scanner can eavesdrop?

    [e-mail]




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

To: munnari![e-mail]
From: munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail] (Dave Horsfall)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 27 Jan 89 01:20:56 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:
|
| Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio?

Unlikely - amateur radio equipment doesn't cover the 800MHz cellular band
without heavy modification.  Then you'd have to spoof the ESN's etc.

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel-STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
    PCs haven't changed computing history - merely repeated it

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 20:52:51 EST
To: [e-mail]
Cc: att!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim
Subject: Cellular Fraud


     It is not impossible to change ESN in a phone, but is
     extremely difficult since it is manufactured physically into
     the unit, and is not generally documented by the manufacturer
     is public domain documnets for security reasons.

Well -- maybe it's harder today, but a couple of years ago the N.Y. Times
reported a fairly wide-spread business doctoring the id chips in phones.
They said that the oddest thing was not that it was happening, but that
it was decentralized -- lots of small-scale stuff, by lots of different
folks who knew how to operate PROM burners.  They didn't find what they
expected:  a few centralized shops with sophisticated crooks.

        --Steve Bellovin

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 14:12:07 EST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Tubbs)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Two parties calling each other simultaneously


My Dad swears that about 10 years ago, he was calling a salesman somewhere.
At the same time, the salesman decided to call my Dad.  Both had apparently
completed dialing, when their call "met in the middle" somehow!  Is this
really possible?  Or do you suppose one of them picked up and dialed without
listening for dial tone, when in reality he was dialing into the other guy's
ear?  My Dad seemed to think that each of them had  gotten dial tone and
dialed normally.

BTW, this was a long distance (cross country) call.

Any ideas?
Kevin Tubbs, 5152 Upson, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853  [phone]
[e-mail]  {uunet,rochester}!cornell!calvin!kevin

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

To: reed!tektronix!comp-dcom-telecom
From: apple.i.intel.com!marko (Mark O'Shea)
Subject: My cordless remote stopped working
Date: 24 Jan 89 16:10:25 GMT


I have a cordless remote phone from Sears (Too bad, I know).  A while back
it quit working.  I called Sears and they told me it would cost the same
amount to fix it as purchasing a new one-natch, the warranty was expired.
So I put it away in the closet that holds all the handy home gadgets which
need repair and I'll get around to someday...

Well, about three or four months ago I heard something about how the
batteries sometimes go bad and that could be the problem.  So, I stopped
off at my local Radio Shack and picked up a replacement set of batteries.
I removed the old batteries and soldered in the new ones and put the phone
on charge for 24-hours.

At the end of the 24-hour period I got a dial tone, before the battery
replacement there was no dial tone.  After a few tries to dial out-with
no luck-the dial tone went away.  I had my sister-in-law call me and I
tried to answer using this phone-no luck.  No sister-in-law jokes please,
I like mine.

Is there possibly a simple fix for this beast?  Is there a place that will
fix it for a reasonable fee(<$50)?  Shall I put it back in the handy gadget
closet, shall I use it for 6mm, 87 grain impact testing?

Thanks,
Mark O'Shea
SDA


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

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 14:39:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (Gihan Dias)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Charging for international phone calls


I have a question regarding how charges for international calls spanning
multiple rate periods are computed. Are the number of minutes in each period
charged at the appropriate rate, as domestic calls are, or is the whole call
chared at the rate corresponding to the beginning of the call?

for example, if the economy period extends upto 6.00 pm, followed by the
standard rate period, How would I be charged for a 10 minute call starting at
5.56?

Does anybody know if the charge computation is performed in different ways by
different L.D. carriers, in particular, AT&T and MCI, or for different
destination countries?

Thanks,

Gihan Dias
<[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 27 Jan 89 18:07
To: [e-mail]
Subject: UK and USA Telephone Calling Cards


>There are two ways of using a BT card to call england from the US.
[Horror stories]
>Solution is to get calling card number for US office, now all I have
>to do is sort out the internal accounting . . . .

It was recently announced on the AT&T news line that U.S., U.K., and Japan
calling cards were about to become interchangeable, by some time in March.

This would theoretically mean that you will soon be able to dial 01-44+ and
just enter your U.K. card number at the tone, and away the call would go.
The number to be used is just the domestic number (no 1M or 44M) with PIN.

It may (I'm not sure) also mean that you will be able to use your U.K. card
for domestic (0+) and possibly other international calls while in the U.S.,
and not just for calls back home as it is now.

Is there an automated system being introduced within the U.K. for making
calling card calls?  DTMF pay phones seem to be being rapidly introduced.

/john

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

From: xrtll![e-mail]
To: yunexus!telecom
Date:     Fri, 27 Jan 89 18:00:35 EST
Subject: old pay telephones



I'm interested in buying an older style pay telephone.  I'm talking about
the all metal black ones with the three chrome coin slots protruding from
the top.

The only ones I have seen were from this antique dealer and were very
expensive ($300 cdn).  These had been repaired and looked like new and
were obviously targetted at people with no knowledge of phones.  I am
willing to fix one myself as long as the basic unit is in good condition
Unfortunately, I can't figure out where all of these units went to.

Thank you in avance for you help.

Stephan Deschenes
WCOM Toronto


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

Subject: Age of area codes/NAP
To: uunet!bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 20:46:12 EST
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@cucstud>


I remember seeing (on a 'personal' directory given
away by Ohio Bell) that area codes would take effect
on 1 January 1955. Can anybody else remember this date?
Cleveland had 6 digit (or really two letter CO+4 digit)
number asssignments just prior to then.

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 27 Jan 89 18:59:32 GMT



My favorite is that we had a close number to the pre-equal-access
Sprint access number.  It was one of our modem lines and we used
to hear people dialing up and pushing touch tones trying to make
long distance calls on our modem.

-Ron

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

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (XMRH6-L.CHESAL)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 27 Jan 89 18:18:06 GMT



I recall reading a story (in the Miami Herald Sunday magazine, I think)
about a sportswriter who moved to a new town and as soon as he arrived, he
got a call from a bar where someone asked him to settle a bet about the
winner of the 19xx World Series or something. He was flattered, gave the
right answer, hung up, and then couldn't figure out how they knew he was the
new sportswriter in town. He then began getting calls asking for
stuff like the average winter temperature in Brazil, the distance to the
moon, and the genus and species of endangered animals. Turns out his new
phone number was the same as the (recently changed) Reference section of the
Public Library.

Larry Chesal    [phone]        att!mtuxo!larryc

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Jan 28 15:40:35 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA05993; Sat, 28 Jan 89 15:40:35 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 15:19:01 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #35
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Jan 89 15:19:01 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:

                            AOS Experiences
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                        Re: Query about Telebit
                           Re: area code map
                            When DDD Began
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: AOS Experiences
Date: Fri, 27-Jan-89 10:15:23 PST


Had an interesting experience with a hotel phone the other day on
a trip to Colorado Springs.

Needed to make a few phone calls on my company credit card. Didn't
have the numbers, so I was going to dial directory assistance on
the card. Phone instructions say to dial 8+0+ for long distance
(collect or credit card) calls. No problem thinks I, so I dial
8+0+616+555+1212. Get recording (lousy computer voice) saying number
invalid. Try again after verifying that calls were authorized from
room. (Many hotels disable calls when room is empty). Still get
recording, so I dial 8+1+616+555+1212 and get through. Figure call
will be billed to room.

Now try to make call (8+0+616+xxx+xxxx) but notice that credit card tone
was not AT&T tone. Wait for a few seconds and get recording "For Cheapest
Rates, have your Mastercard or VISA number ready!" Thinking that I wasn't
going to fall for this, I wait some more. Person comes on line and says
"Long Distance Operator, May I Help You?" I said I wanted an AT&T operator
and she put me through.

Next call, same routine, except that AOS operator asks what hotel I am staying
at. I tell her and she says to dial 8+00+. I tried this and was able to dial
AT&T calls, including my card number with no intervention or problem.

Interestingly, this technique was not posted anywhere in the room. I didn't
bother asking what the AOS rate would have been, since I know it would have
been a rip off.

By the way, the AT&T operator volunteered that I would get the direct dial
rate if I mentioned what I did to get through to AT&T. No surcharge...
Moral: Ask for AT&T or hang up.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 28 Jan 89 13:35:22 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Owens)


When my wife and I moved into our apartment in January, we got a number
that had been recently given up by Jartran truck rental, who had closed
their local office.  To make things worse, the number had been Jartran's
recently enough to be in the current phone book, published in January,
just *after* we moved in.  So, naturally, we got large numbers of calls
asking if we could rent trucks.

After we moved into our house (the apartment was temporary), we
decided to go ahead and get the redirect intercept, so people could
find us.  [We had moved four times in four years; at one point, I
could follow a chain of three old numbers where all the redirects were
still in place.]  Naturally, we still got calls for Jartran truck
rental.  Typical conversations:

Caller: I'd like to rent a truck.
Me: I'm sorry, you have the wrong number.
Caller: Is this xxx-xxxx?
Me: Yes it is, but that's the wrong number.
Caller: But I got it from the recording.
Me: Well, actually, the number you called to get the recording was wrong.
Caller: How do you know what number I called?
Me: It used to be our number.  [Of course!]
Caller: But it says right here in the phone book that yyy-yyyy is the
Jartran number.

Usually, of course, I wasn't this patient.  One day, my wife was sick
and stayed home from work.  She got almost twenty calls for Jartran
that day!  [She said she doesn't know why they closed the office; they
had plenty of potential business!]  So she decided to do something
about it, and called the local telco.  They suggested redirecting to
the special operator, who would ask who was being called and play
either the redirect or a disconnect message.  This worked out well,
and we stopped getting calls for Jartran.

A few months later, I got a call from an old friend who said he had
had a terrible time trying to get my number.  Every time he'd call the
old number (long distance), he'd get the special operator, who'd ask
who he was calling.  He'd try to tell her, but she couldn't hear him,
and would hang up.  He finally got a local (to him) operator who knew
what was happening: the LD company wouldn't open the voice path in the
other direction until it got answer supervision and could start
charging.  She was able to force the path open, and he finally got the
number....

One Bell System: it worked.

--
John Owens        [e-mail]        uunet!jetson!john
[phone]        [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: It sure did work. If they wanted to open the market to
a variety of long distance companies, that's fine with me. But why the
judge felt he had to bash the smithereens out of the Bell System in the
process is beyond me. PT]

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

To: ingr![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Guy Streeter)
Subject: Re: Query about Telebit
Date: 27 Jan 89 17:13:01 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 26, message 8
>
>  Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud.
>Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY!...

I fail to comprehend these statements.  Perhaps you mean to say that some
piece of software you are running assumes it is talking to a USR modem, and
is also incapable of >9600 baud?  Nothing about the Amiga, hardware or system
software, prevents th use of its serial port at higher speeds, or requires
the use of a USR modem.

--
Guy Streeter
b11![e-mail]
...uunet!ingr!b11!guy


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

Date: Sat Jan 28 02:48:19 1989
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: area code map
From: zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)


On Jan 26 at 19:17, bruce nelson writes:
> There weren't any area codes before the 60's. To call long distance, you had
> to tell the operator what city and number you were calling.

Excuse me. The NPA was established in about 1951. I happen to have a
local 1956 telephone directory with an area code map and long distance
dialing instructions. I remember that Grandma's phone number was
preceded by "816" (she lived in Independence, MO) and then, as now, a
"1" was not dialed before long distance. The operator was used only for
collect, third party billing, and person to person calls.

There certainly were area codes before the sixties!

--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 14:51:59 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: When DDD Began


In the message just before this, John Higdon disputes a comment by another
user regards the beginning of DDD (Direct Distance Dialing). He is partly
correct, and partly wrong. Like all major improvements to the telephone,
DDD was phased in across North America over several years, beginning, as
Mr. Higdon points out, in the early 1950's.

Area codes and prefixes were assigned everywhere -- even in communities which
still had all manual service -- in the late forties, or by 1950 at the
latest. Area codes and prefixes were used by rate/route/billing operators
long before anyone could actually punch the corresponding buttons to place
the call.

A good telecom trivia question might be which community was the first to
be able to place/receive DDD calls? Higdon is probably correct it was in
1951 or thereabouts; although I am not sure *who* they could dial until at
least a few other communities were 'on-line'.

During the early to middle fifties, there were some communities 'advanced
enough' to have DDD available to them while other communities were still
operating a manual exchange. The 'most advanced' DDD-equipped exchanges still
had to use operator intervention to call manual systems or other dial systems
not yet brought into the DDD program.

Then there were communities which had dial service, but the numbering was
not standardized. Fort Wayne, IN and La Fayette, IN were two example which
come to mind. Typically, it was some GTE operating company whose numbering
scheme was out of synch with AT&T's idea of how things were to be numbered.
Northern Indiana has been 219 since the beginning; and central Indiana has
always been 317; yet until around 1970 or so, long after we here in Chicago
could direct dial 90 percent of North America, to place a call to Lafayette
we still dialled "211" and passed the request to the operator. She likewise
dialed nothing, but instead, plugged into a circuit and waited patiently
until someone at the other end screamed "Lafayette!" at her. And Lafayette
had local seven digit dialing at that...but no DDD because the local telco
there resisted changing the way things were done.

Lafayette's telco had a special arrangement with Purdue University: Purdue
had automatic dialing on their campus before the town of Lafayette had
dial service. In those days you just lifted the receiver and asked for
Purdue. From a Purdue extension, dialing "9" brought a click, and silence
until a Lafayette operator answered to place the local call, etc.  Once
Lafayette went dial, seven digit numbers were used with one exception: To
reach Purdue you dialed "90" to reach the Purdue operators, or "92" plus
the desired five digit extension on campus.

Due to local politics, Lafayette would not change Purdue's main number from
"90" to a more conventional seven digit number. Until they *did*, they could
not have DDD and expect to reach Escanaba, MI or Memphis, TN or anywhere in
Alaska with the same ease they reached the Student Union Building.

Finally they came around, as did Fort Wayne and a lot of other cities who
had all sorts of albiet convenient, but out of synch dialing routines. By
the middle 1960's more and more telephone subscribers were able to DDD with
fewer and few exceptions. When the original message writer said "...before
1960 you placed your calls with the long distance operator..." he may have
been right in the context of *his* telephone exchange.

Remember, Richmond, IN and Crown Point, IN went dial for the first time
only in 1963. While Chicago started converting to dial in 1939, the job
was not complete until 1951 in the city proper, and not until *1960* if
you count all the suburbs. We dialed "711" to get northern Indiana suburbs
still on manual service (getting an operator in Whiting who finished the
job), and "911" to get an operator in the northern suburbs for communities
like Fox Lake, IL which finally cut to dial in the early 60's.

I guess saying that '...we had area codes and DDD in 1951...' depends
entirely on what telco you were on. The first references to it in the
Chicago phone book were 1956; and then in a limited way. An area code map
was printed, but with the notation that not every place listed could be
dialed direct at that time.

I think it is safe to say by the middle sixties DDD was pretty much a part
of American telephony. With the exception of Nevada toll stations, of
course, and the one place in Maine which kept its old fashioned service
for a few more years.

Patrick Townson

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Jan 29 00:17:31 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA03460; Sun, 29 Jan 89 00:17:31 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89  0:02:27 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #36
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Jan 89  0:02:27 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:

         "Please press pound sign to disconnect your call now"
              Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
                       Re: Kredit Kard Kwestions
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                    Re: AT&T 1300 Answering system
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 28 Jan 89 16:53:46-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Please press pound sign to disconnect your call now"
To: [e-mail]
From: "Robert Gutierrez / MCI ID: 367-9829" <[e-mail]>


(I lost the original message about the person that used his calling
 card, and when using the pound, got disconnected from his call &
 was promped to dial another call.)
                       ----------------------

It seems that the calling card switch that the caller was going
through did not receive the signal that the call had been answered
(answer supervision), and such, the switch rec'd the pound touch-
tone, and disco'ed the call.

Even though the terminating switch received answer supervision (which
is all that matters for the billing computers), apparently the
terminating switch did not pass it up the line to the calling card
switch, and such the card switch still thought the call had not been
answered.  With calling card switches, it is critical that answer
supervision be monitored closely, or you run into problems like this.
(doesn't AT&T have CCS-6???, or are some AT&T switches still using
in-band signalling???). We had the same problems when a lot of our calls
terminated onto Feature Group-A circuts, where we had to rely on our
switch to monitor the call for ringing tones and telco announcements
(alert tones, then the call progress announcement), but now that we
terminate onto FG-B & FG-D circuts, that problem was history.

Try explaining this to an AT&T billing rep when you get your bill. I'm
sure they'll take the call off your bill (it will be obvious, X amount
of calls were 1 min, and the last was over 1 minute), but it is a
hassle that you have to do that in the first place.
                                                       ________
(Lick and place "The Usual Disclaimers" stamp here ===>|Place  |
                                                       |Stamp  |
                                                       |Here   |
                                                       ---------

     Robert Gutierrez
     MCI Telecommuncations
     Western Region Trouble Management Center
     Hayward, California.
     <MCI Mail: 367-9829>


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

To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
From: comdesign!ivucsb![e-mail] (Stevie Lemke)
Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
Date: 28 Jan 89 21:02:53 GMT


Sorry if this has already been discussed (don't know how I could've missed
it, but anyway...):

Is the four digit PIN on a calling card computed from some sort of algorithm
or is it randomly assigned for each phone number?  It just seems strange that
just about any phone anywhere can instantly tell if you dialed the correct
PIN that corresponds to your calling card number.  I realize computers are
really fast these days and all, but I just thought it might be some sort of
algorithm or something.  However, that brings up the issue of what happens
when someone discovers your number and you have to request a new one, so they
can invalidate the old one.  I've never had this happen, so I'm not sure what
the procedure is.  The only thing that got me thinking about this was this:

I have a calling card from GTE for my home phone.  I recently called AT&T to
ask them for one of the magnetic (plastic) cards since my paper one doesn't
work in the neat AT&T phones with card readers.  I gave the AT&T employee my
phone number, but not my LD PIN.  She said the card that would be sent to me
would have the same PIN as my GTE card.  I was wondering if this was some
sort of "PIN-sharing" they have worked out, or if they use this "algorithm".
I guess it must be a database, but does anyone have any more positive info.
on this?

----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!"
----- Internet: [e-mail]                    AppleLink:  Lemke
----- uucp:     apple!comdesign!ivucsb!steve         CompuServe: 73627,570
----- Quote:    "What'd I go to college for?"   "You had fun, didn't you?"

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

To: ucbvax![e-mail]
From: ucla-an!denwa![e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Kredit Kard Kwestions
Date: 28 Jan 89 17:17:59 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black) writes:
>
>  First, a comment on the PIN brouhaha: AT&T cards (and BOC cards) always have
> had your PIN number right on the card, but as it's a 4-digit number, most

I like the way New York Tel does it (I think it's the only thing I like
about them).  Their calling card has ONLY the PIN on it, at least in
cases where the first ten digits are the same as your phone number.
This makes the most sense.  You already know the first ten.  And if
someone finds the calling card, with just the PIN it's worthless to
them.


>   I'm a bit perplexed by the 'international' number
> on the bottom: 1M,<10-digit phone no.>,<1 digit>. It seems pretty easy to
> guess or 'exhaustively' determine the digit for anyone, if it only takes a
> maximum of 10 tries!

True.  It follows a check-digit system like calling cards used to.  It
_is_ rather easy to figure out (given a few different cards to look
at), but it can only be used from outside the US so the potential for
abuse is minimized.  Though I guess you _could_ hack up a similar
number for the country you wanted to call to from here.


>   A mundane question: I have a Sprint FON card. It gives the 800-877-8000
> number to access the service, but no mention of a 950-1022 or whatever

Sprint has eliminated their 950 numbers for calling card use.  It is
now only for those poor slobs without Equal Access.
--
Jim G.        E-Mail: <[e-mail]>  or  <[e-mail]>
^^^^^^    V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

To: gatech!comp-dcom-telecom
From: wa4mei![e-mail] (Randy Jarrett WA4MEI)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 28 Jan 89 15:18:47 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 24, message 4
>
>Question: How is phase shifting actually involved in communications between
>the mobile unit and the switching office ?
>
>Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place a
>fraudulent call with a ham radio?
>
>Thanks for your help ..
>
>Perry


I can't be much help in answering your first question but I would like to
say something about your second question.

There are authorized Amateur Radio (ham) frequencies that are near to
the cellular phone channels but the equipment required to access cellular
telephone services are very specialized and very different from ham radio
equipment.  It is probably not possible for a ham to use his equipment
to access the cellular services but it would be possible for anyone with
the proper knowledge to make changes to cellular phone equipment and make
it look (respond with the proper digital codes) like someone elses.

So I guess that the bottom line is that no, it is not possible to access
cellular channels and place fraudulent calls with ham radio.


--
Randy Jarrett  WA4MEI
UUCP  ...!gatech!wa4mei!rsj        | US SNAIL: P.O. Box 941217
PHONE [phone]           |           Atlanta, GA 30341-0217

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (J Gotway)
Subject: Re: AT&T 1300 Answering system
Date: 27 Jan 89 19:09:31 GMT


> We received an AT&T 1300 answering machine for Christmas.
> I am happy with the machine, but do not like how many rings
> it waits until it answers (about 6).  If I had saved all receipts
> and boxes and stuff, and if it had been gotten at an AT&T phone
> store, I could have gotten an upgrade to one that adjusts the number
> of rings until it picks up.
>
> Anyway, is it possible through a chip or some other modification, to
> modify my machine to answer on fewer rings?  I realize that my warrenty
> would be void, but if it is simple, I'd like to try it.


The Answering System 1300 is a basic answering system with a fixed
ring setting.  It will answer after the 4th ring is received.
This is programmed into the microprocessor software, and it cannot
be bypassed or changed without coding up a new microprocessor.

The only situations that might cause a report of the machine answering
after more than 4 rings are:

1)  The first ring in the house is really an abbreviated ring (less than 500
    msec), so it is not recognized/counted by the machine.  Then, the AS1300
    will answer on the 5th ring rather than the 4th.

2)  The customer is listening to the ringback over the telephone line, and
    that ringback is not synchronized with the local ringing.  Over the
    line there might be fewer or more than 4 ringbacks, before the
    machine answers.

3)  The customer's particular unit is defective.  In this case it should
    be returned to the AT&T phone center or other retailer for replacement
    with a new unit.

All of the other AT&T Answering System products have a ring select option
(usually 2 or 4 rings with toll saver option).  The new AT&T 1330 Answering
System has a customer programmable ring select from 1-9 rings.


--

Jerry Gotway
AT&T Consumer Products Labs.
P.O. Box 1008
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
inuxa!gotway
[phone] or CORNET 338-4523

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

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

From [e-mail]  Mon Jan 30 02:37:26 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA15685; Mon, 30 Jan 89 02:37:26 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89  1:07:01 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #37
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Jan 89  1:07:01 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:

               A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
                        Equal Access? My Foot!
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
Date: 28 Jan 89 22:17:04 GMT

[Moderator's Note: The information which follows, up to the next
note from myself, was provided by Starlink, and Denia Bennett-Howard
(Portal handle: 'pooka'). My thanks for this detailed chart. PT]

             A COMPARISON OF STARLINK AND PC PURSUIT

The following list compares STARLINK's outdial access points
with those of Telenet.  These are the actual cities you can reach
by accessing your local dial-in node and issuing the outdial
command. As you can see, there are many more STARLINK outdials
than there are Telenet outdials.  In addition, with STARLINK, you
are not restricted to the actual outdial city.  You can precede
the number to be dialed with a "1" and call any BBS in that area
code.  You will be billed for the long distance call from the
outdial port to the host computer at the local phone company's
rates.

Outdial Host Numbers Sorted by Time Zone, State,

Eastern Time Zone -----------

State/              Tymnet        Outdial       Telenet Node
   City             Host #        Area Code     Access Point
---------------     ------        ---------     ------------
Connecticut
  Bloomfield        9128          203
  Hartford          9128          203           D/CTHAR/12
  Stamford          9129          203

D.C
   Washington       2262          703           D/DCWAS/3/12/24

Florida
   Fort Lauderdale  7123          305 m
   Jacksonville     5797          904 m
   Longwood         7096          305 m
   Miami            6582          305           D/FLMIA/3/12/24
   Orlando          7096          305 m
   Tampa            5518          813 m         D/FLTAM/3/12/24

Georgia
   Atlanta          8795          404           D/GAATL/3/12/24
   Doraville        8795          404
   Marietta         8795          404
   Norcross         8795          404

Indiana
   Indianapolis     9349          317

Maryland
   Baltimore        4600          301

Massachusetts
   Boston           8796          617           D/MABOS/3/12/24
   Cambridge        8796          617

New Jersey
   Camden           8693          609 m
   Englewood Cliffs 6319          201 m
   Newark           7618          201           D/NJNEW/3/12/24
   Pennsauken       8693          609 m
   Princeton        8920          609
   South Brunswick  8920          609


New York
   Albany           9192          518 m
   Buffalo          9194          716 m
   Melville         8811          516 m
   New York         1059          212           D/NYNYO/3/12/24
                                                 (for 718, must use 1718
                                                  + phone number)
   Pittsford        6019          716
   Rochester        6019          716
   White Plains     8571          914

North Carolina
   Charlotte        6793          704
   Research Triangle Park, NC     919           D/NCRTP/3/12

Ohio
   Akron            8740          216 m
   Cincinnati       1785          513
   Cleveland        4222          216           D/OHCLE/3/12/24
   Columbus         9347          614
   Dayton           9511          513 m

Pennsylvania
   Philadelphia     9581          215           D/PAPHI/3/12/24
   Pittsburgh       7408          412

Rhode Island
   Providence       9130          401

Virginia

   Alexandria       2262          703           D/DCWAS/3/12/24
   Arlington        2262          703           D/DCWAS/3/12/24
   Fairfax          2262          703
   Midlothian       7339          804 m
   Norfolk          6986          804 m
   Portsmouth       6986          804 m



Central Time Zone -----------

Alabama
   Birmingham       4101          205

Illinois
   Chicago          8257          312           D/ILCHI/3/12/24
   Glen Ellyn       8944          312 m         (for 815, must use
                                                 1815 + phone number)
Kansas
   Wichita          8013          316 m

Michigan
   Detroit          8794          313           D/MIDET/3/12/24

Minnesota
   Minneapolis      3494          612           D/MNMIN/3/12
   St. Paul         3494          612

Missouri
   Bridgeton        8978          314
   Independence     8615          913
   Kansas City      8615          913           D/MOKCI/3/12/24
   St. Louis        8978          314           D/MOSLO/3
                                                 (for 618, must use
                                                  1618 + phone number)
Nebraska
   Omaha            2521          402 m

Oklahoma
   Oklahoma City    9165          405
   Tulsa            6605          918

Tennessee
   Memphis          1551          901 m
   Nashville        9141          615


Texas
   Arlington        9337          817
   Dallas           2948          214           D/TXDAL/3/12/24
                                                 (for 817, must use 817
                                                  + phone number)
   Fort Worth       9337          817
   Houston          4562          713
   San Antonio      9169          512

Wisconsin
   Brookfield       9167          414
   Milwaukee        9167          414           D/WIMIL/3/12/24


Mountain Time Zone ----------

Arizona
   Mesa             9532          602
   Phoenix          9532          602           D/AZPHO/3/12
   Tucson           4751          602 m             & SpStnaJct calls must
                                                    use 1 + phone number
                                                    [see coverage.txt])
Colorado
   Aurora           2584          303
   Boulder          2584          303
   Denver           2584          303           D/CODEN/3/12/24

Utah
   Salt Lake City   ----          801           D/UTSLC/3/12/24



Pacific Time Zone -----------

California
   Alhambra         9204          818 m
   Anaheim          9184          714
   Colton, CA       ----          714           D/CACOL/3/12/24
   El Segundo       9203          203 m
   Glendale, CA     ----          818           D/CAGLE/12
   Long Beach       9205          213 m
   Los Angeles, CA  ----          213           D/CALAN/3/12/24
   Newport Beach    9184          714
   Oakland          8963          415           D/CAOAK/3/12/24
   Palo Alto, CA    ----          415           D/CAPAL/12
   Pasadena         9204          818 m
   Pleasanton       9202          415 m
   Sacramento       9179          916           D/CASAC/3/12/24
   San Diego, CA    ----          619           D/CASDI/3/12/24
   San Francisco    9533          415           D/CASFA/3/12/24
   San Jose         6450          408           D/CASJO/12
   Santa Ana, CA    ----          714           D/CASAN/12
   Sherman Oaks     9206          818 m
   Vernon           3173          213
   Walnut Creek     9202          415 m

Oregon
   Portland, OR     ----          503           D/ORPOR/3/12

Washington
   Bellevue         9170          206
   Seattle          9170          206           D/WASEA/3

FOREIGN ACCESS:

The following countries have direct dial-in access to STARLINK:

CANADA

ALBERTA:Calgary
BRITISH COLUMBIA:Burnaby,Vancouver
ONTARIO:Kitchner,Ottawa,Toronto,Windsor
QUEBEC:Montreal,Quebec City, Ville St. Laurent
   (Off peak rates from these cities is billed at $4.00 per hour.)
      (Other Canadian cities can reach STARLINK via DataPac.)

UNITED KINGDOM: (Via Mercury) London
    (Off peak access from London is billed at $10.00 per hour.)

For more information about STARLINK, call 804-495-INFO by modem or
804-495-4693 by voice.

[Moderator's Note: As you can see, there are several places reachable via
Starlink/Tymnet not reachable by PCP and vice versa. PCP seems to be
especially heavy in California, where Starlink has somewhat less coverage
in that state. However, Starlink allows calls to Canada and the UK,
something Telenet absolutely forbids.

The folks at Starlink operate their own Information Service/BBS/Chat at
the 804-495-INFO number. One nice thing about it is they give UPI at no
extra surcharge. They also offer hookups to Reuter News Service, the
Official Airline Guide and a travel/hotel/car rental reservations system.
My understanding is that the $10 per month or $25 per month fee, which
allows purchase of Starlink at $1.50 per hour or $1.00 per hour respectively,
also gives you a certain amount of free time on their own system. Of
course, you have to use Starlink to call them, and pay for the Starlink
time.

Another point which troubles me a little is their use of somewhat misleading
or out of context statements describing the cost of their service versus the
new rates at PCP. In messages which discuss 'how much you will save' by
using their service at $25 plus $1 per hour versus PCP, they are saying that
PCP will charge $4.50 per hour after 30 hours, which is only correct if you
do not purchase *multiple accounts from Telenet at 30X30*. Quite obviously,
two or three accounts from PCP at 30X30 is only $60 or $90 per month. The
same 60 hours at Starlink would be either $10+(1.50x60=90)+$100 per month
or $25+(1x60=60)=$85 per month, depending on how you pay for it. 90 hours
per month would be $10+(1.50x90=135)=$145 per month or $25+(1x90=90)=$115
per month.

For heavy users then, multiple accounts with Telenet would still be cheaper
than Starlink at $60 on PCP versus $85/$100 on Starlink. The latter is only
a bargain for the very casual user of less than around 20 hours per month
or the user who wishes to call Canada or the UK. I will get a Starlink
account as a supplement to my PCP account and use it for places not served
by PCP. And of course, Tymnet/Starlink addressing is much easier; just a
four digit number gets your connection versus the longer Telenet scheme.

Finally, Starlink allows the placement of calls via an outdial modem to
a point outside the local calling zone. Telenet does not. With some clever
planning, you can use a nearby outdial to call anywhere. Starlink told me
the surcharge for this would be 110% of telco. Starlink versus PCP? You
will have to decide, based on your own use and applications. P. Townson]


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

To: [e-mail]
From att!ihwpt!peter
Subject: Equal Access?? My foot!!
Date: 27 Jan 89 15:54:59 GMT

                 Should I ask Harold Green For $30.00?
                 =====================================

Here is a tale of woe.
We were in Florida on vacation when I tried to make a call
from the hotel room phone to Chicago. Wanting to use the AT&T as
a long distance carrier (I am an employee plus I get a discount),
I dialed an operator and got an "International Telecharge" operator
somewhere in Texas. When I asked to be connected to an AT&T
operator, the reply was "we cannot do that" (!!). So I went to a payphone
on the street and got exactly the same result!!! The "equall access code"
(i.e. 01-288) did not work either. So I asked the ITI
operator how can I go about making a long distance call using AT&T,
her answer was that if I dial direct using my AT&T credit card, the
call would be automatically billed to AT&T. Somehow that did not sound
right to me, but I went ahead and dialed DIRECTLY using AT&T card.
What choice did I have at that point anyway?

Well, you may have guessed it. When the bill came, all the calls were
billed as International Telecharge Operator Assisted (!!) calls. The price?
About $1.25 a minute for a late evening call from Florida (Marco Island)
to Chicago. I can call Europe for less than that!

I called Illinois Bell and Southern Bell consumer affair departments
and basically their answer was, sorry, but that is the way it is.
I guess I am out of 30 bucks and somewhat wiser. But if this is what
the deregulation was all about, I think it stinks.

        Peter Pavlovcik,
        att!iexist!peter

[Moderator's Note: Yep, that is what degregulation is all about. Why
don't you write Harold Greene and tell him what a mess he has made of
the phone network. Share his response with us, if he deigns to answer you.]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 02:09:57 PST
From: Keith Brown <harvard!cs.utexas.edu!killer!ames!uunet!reed!keithb>
To: lll-winken!ames!killer!vector!telecom-request
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers

Along these same (wrong number confusion) lines...  A local fraternal
organization (which should remain nameless except they're probably most-
known for their in-lodge bar rather than community efforts) has a number
just like our's except for the rolled last digit pair.

Well, we're used to the "Is Harry there (spoken just like your grandfather
would 'bark' it when he felt ornery at not being able to find his buddy)?"
But one day a couple of years ago, one of our local matrons called us
accidentally; and in a very stuporous state, wanted all kinds of company.
I'd even do, it didn't matter that this wasn't the lodge, or that I didn't
belong to the lodge, or that I was, oh, 30 years her junior.  As the
Teaneck or Brentwood of Oregon, this just isn't what I'd expected from
our locals.  Oh well, I'd seen The Graduate.

-Keith

Keith Brown
UUCP:  {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!keithb
BITNET: [e-mail]       ARPA: [e-mail]
CSNET: reed![e-mail]     CIS: 72615,216
------------------------------

To: gatech!comp-dcom-telecom
From: ut-emx![e-mail] (Rick Watson)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 30 Jan 89 02:48:49 GMT

We used to have 454-1212 (remember what 555-1212 is).  We got pretty
good at just looking up the number in the book for the unsuspecting
caller.  My roomate would look up the number and then see how much
time he could spend getting the caller to talk about the weather in
their part of the country, etc.

Rick Watson
University of Texas Computation Center
 arpa:   [e-mail] (128.83.1.26)
 uucp:   ...cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!rick
 bitnet: watson@utadnx
 span:   utspan::watson (UTSPAN is 25.128)
 phone:  [phone]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Tue Jan 31 04:12:11 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA24385; Tue, 31 Jan 89 04:12:11 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89  3:57:50 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #38
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jan 89  3:57:50 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:

                            Re: USA-Direct
                            Re: USA-Direct
              Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
              Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards
                      Re: Excuses instead of info
                       More Thoughts on Starlink

[Moderator's Note: system 'dockmaster' seems to be gone. With it went
three users: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; neufeld@
dockmaster.arpa. In addition, system 'pioneer.arc.nasa.gov' has been
unreachable in recent days. From there we have lost a user: jerry@
pioneer.arc.nasa.gov. Will anyone familiar with these users please
notify them to contact me with a new address. Thank you. P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 22:13:06 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: USA-Direct


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Gast) writes:
>I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle.  If you
>have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither.  It
>might save money, but it might not.  From the above country X, it is
>possible to use a pre-paid phone card or coins at many phones to call
>the U.S. at direct dial rates.  Depending on how long you talk, it may
>be cheaper than USADIRECT.  ...

I guess you've never tried to make a credit card call from Country X (which,
for the purposes of argument, we'll call France.)  You pick up the phone, then
you dial 19-3311 to make an operated assisted call to North America.  (This is
in the phone book, but if you have trouble reading French or your hotel room
doesn't have that volume of the phone book, that might not be much help.)  An
operator answers, and you explain what you want, in French, repeating
everything about three times if you have an American accent like mine.  Fine,
they say, we'll call you back.  Wait about 1/2 hour.  They call you back, then
your call is completed.  With USA Direct, I dial 19-0011 from any phone and
three seconds later a voice says "AT&T, may I help you."

You can indeed use a phone card, but the standard 40 unit phone card is only
enough for about three minutes and I don't believe you have the opportunity to
stick in a fresh card when the old one runs out.  You can use 10 franc coins,
but the phones don't make change* so if your call costs 11 francs you lose the
other nine.  It's true that calling card calls from France aren't discounted
by time of day (a holdover from the bad old days, these days in France you get
the evening rate even from noon to 1PM because everyone's at lunch) and the
direct-dial evening rate may be slightly cheaper, but USA Direct is so much
easier, particularly if you're traveling on business and can get reimbursed
for calls if you have a recipt, that I'll never use anything else.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

* - In Germany, if you use a large coin to make a cheap call, there's a
button on the phone you can push, put in the actual amount the call cost, and
get your large coin back.  Only in Germany do they expect people to understand
that.


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

From: rja <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Jan 89 12:19:41 GMT
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USA-Direct


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Gast) writes:
[ stuff deleted here for bandwidth ]
> For the country I inquired about, it is the same price every minute
> of every day.  That rate is fairly reasonable too (except for the
> fact that there is no reason that there should not be off peak use
> discounts) and the mandatory operator assisted charges.
> [ more stuff deleted here]
>
> Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra
> charge' is just marketing hype.  They set the rates and then
> they say there is no *EXTRA* charge.  The charges are definitely
> not the same from X to USA as from the USA to X, even if both
> are operated assisted.
>

For USA Direct calls placed from Hong Kong, the call is billed at the
US rate meaning the same cost as if the call had been placed from the
receiving US number, including any time-of-day discounts.  This can be
a big savings in HK since all calls originating in HK are billed at the
'standard' rate otherwise.  The HK Telco is also prone to lie and say that
it is cheaper to call from HK to the US than from the US to HK.  For
16 hours a day calls from the US are cheaper than calls from HK, and for
the remaining 8 hours the cost is the same either way.  Moreover, since
HK is 12 hours away then afternoon phone calls from HK get billed at
the midnight-7am night US rate if you use USA Direct -- this is great
for FAXes.

My experience is that it is cheaper to use USA Direct during most of the
day than it is to call the US directly (whether by cash or phonecard).
As an aside, the HK Telco is the least helpful of any Telco/PTT I've
had to deal with anywhere in the world.  I suspect that each country
overseas imposes slightly different rules on AT&T so that looking into
each country's situation would be advisable.

______________________________________________________________________________
         [e-mail]      or      ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja
     via Internet (preferable)          via uucp  (if you must)
______________________________________________________________________________

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

To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jan 30 09:36:21 1989
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards


In article <[e-mail]> comdesign!ivucsb![e-mail] (Stevie Lemke) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 36, message 2
>
>Sorry if this has already been discussed (don't know how I could've missed
>it, but anyway...):
>
>Is the four digit PIN on a calling card computed from some sort of algorithm
>or is it randomly assigned for each phone number?  It just seems strange that
>just about any phone anywhere can instantly tell if you dialed the correct
>PIN that corresponds to your calling card number.

A few years back I knew a person who had a matrix (on paper) of the mapping
for these numbers.  It was _SIMPLE_; only one or two digits of the "PIN"
controlled whether the number you entered worked, and those digits mapped to
your phone number.  The algorythm was also 'dense' in that more than one
mapping was valid (I got curious about the table and mapped my own phone
number -- the number calculated did NOT match the one the Telco had issued
but BOTH worked!)

Thus it was possible (but highly illegal) to bill calls to numbers like
"1-555-000-0000"!   These calls would COMPLETE -- who knows where the bill
went to.  I assume that eventually these calls would end up in the "no such
account" bin, and someone would get interested in them.....

The worst part of this, of course, is that given a person's phone number you
could bill calls to their line (!)

Supposedly the information came from a group of people at a local university
that had done a computer analysis on a large number of valid CC #s to derive
the algorythm.  Who knows if that part was true..... or where they got the
"large number of valid CC#s" to start with..... for all I know he figured it
out himself.

I've no idea if this kind of thing is possible anymore - - but some years
ago it certainly was!  I would assume the telephone companies have something
better than a simple digit-mapping scheme now if it is still based on an
internal computation at all.

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], ddsw1!karl)
Data: [[phone]], Voice: [[phone]]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.        "Quality solutions at a fair price"


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

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 22:24:49 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards


In article <[e-mail]> comdesign!ivucsb![e-mail] (Stevie Lemke) writes:
>Is the four digit PIN on a calling card computed from some sort of algorithm
>or is it randomly assigned for each phone number? ,,,

It's random.  My cousin who runs a little telco in western Vermont had to
write a program for his computer to make up PINs for his few customers who
want calling cards.  The PINs are all stored in a huge replicated data base.
He said that there is a very complicated multi-step procedure to get his
updates into the data base.

As has been noted before, AT&T shares calling card numbers with the local
operating companies, other LD companies generally don't although they are
starting to now.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]


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

To: ulysses!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (James Harvey)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 30 Jan 89 13:26:36 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, childers@avsd writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> mcgp1![e-mail] (Donn Pedro) writes:
>
> >If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would
> >not be available for our use for testing. People used it to
> >busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed.
>
> Can you document this, or is this what your supervisor told you to say ?
>
> >    Donn F Pedro  {the known world}!uw-beaver!tikal!mcgp1!donn
>
> -- richard

YES, supervisors tell you to say this, it's TRUE.  More
frequently, people use the ringback numbers as an intercom, (call
ringback, wait till somebody upstairs picks up extension, talk).
--

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           |

ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh


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

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 03:02:20 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: More Thoughts on Starlink


Actually, after 'putting the Digest to bed' early Monday morning with issue
37, I did some more thinking about the pricing. I did this after getting
ready for bed when I had my shoes off so I could count higher than ten by
using my toes.

If you consider strictly the dollar amount -- no other factors -- then
Starlink becomes more expensive than Telenet PCP after about 12 hours per
month. I would not recommend it to anyone merely as a way to 'save money
on data calls'. I'd say the only advantage to Starlink is if you find a
place on the chart published yesterday which is not served by PCP which you
call regularly. Or, if you want to make use of their own service including
the links to the various news services, etc. Your $10 or $25 per month fee
is not purely an administrative charge: they do give you time 'for free'
on their own system to offset the monthly fee.

I'd like to hear the experiences of some of you who subscribe to Starlink
after a month or so of using it. They also claim their 'throughput' is
much faster than Telenet, meaning you would probably spend less time on line
each day. Who knows, maybe you could get done in 12 hours what formerly took
30 hours on PCP?

Patrick

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

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

From [e-mail]  Tue Jan 31 04:43:51 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA26465; Tue, 31 Jan 89 04:43:51 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89  4:25:00 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #39
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jan 89  4:25:00 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:

                        Re: Query about Telebit
                            Re: 1+areacode
                            Re: 1+areacode
                          Re: When DDD Began
                      Info on Cellular Telephones
              Cellular Data Comm. from a stationary phone
                    Phones in the movies and on TV
                     Ringback that just won't quit
                       Don't blame Judge Greene
                     Re: Victims of wrong numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: Query about Telebit
Date: 30 Jan 89 19:31:09 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:
>
>>  Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud.
>>Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 +
>>baud system that operates with a US robotics.
>
>[...] But my understanding
>with US Robotics modems is that even though they use V.29 there's
>a couple of funny things they do that makes the modem basically only
>useful with another USR modem.

US Robotics COURRIER HST modems use a proprietary modulation scheme
which looks like V.29 in the forward direction with a tiny bit of
bandwidth down around 300 Hz for a 300 bps reverse channel without
echo cancellation. (a scheme like this has been proposed for
standardization, and has gone under the temporary name V.asm - asm for
asymmetric.) It runs a hacked version of MNP, which you don't really
want to turn off.

It sounds like a good idea, but it loses because MNP, even for single
characters, is just too slow  over the 300bps channel. Telebits or
ping-pong V.29 modems will give you much better response time. With
the Telebit, it can spoof Kermit or UUCP, instead of having MNP
fighting your transfer protocol to slow things down.

There are a lot of things I haven't explained in this article, but I
didn't want to write 5 or 10 pages. E-mail me if you want more
discussion on the technical (as opposed to practical :-) merits of
various modems.

                Peter Desnoyers

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: 30 Jan 89 21:33:06 GMT



> It's obvious we're running out of area codes, simply because new services
> open up more phone numbers.  In the beginning, for example, there was
> Centrex.  So, instead of a medium office building having 20 phone lines
> (and phone numbers), with an operator switching calls in the building,
> the building may still have only 20 phone lines to the outside, but
> could be using 200 phone numbers for each of the inside phones.

What you're describing is NOT Centrex.  Centrex runs a line from the
CO to each phone.  You are describing the traditional PBX with DID.


-Ron

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: Mon Jan 30 19:25:12 1989
From: tanner@ki4pv (Dr. T. Andrews)


The explanation that the "1+" enable distinguishing between area
codes and exchanges is nice, but not entirely clear.

Consider North Jersey.  One site I call there has an exchange of 615.
Another site I call has an area code of 615.  (From here, no problem.
I supply the area code before the 615 exchange.)

In NJ but out of the local area for dialing exchange 615, what happens
when the machine dials 1+615 ... ?  Does it ring through after 4 more
digits, or does it wait for 7 more?  (Does it have a time-out in case
only 4 follow?)
---
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner


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

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 22:21:02 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: When DDD Began


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>I think it is safe to say by the middle sixties DDD was pretty much a part
>of American telephony. With the exception of Nevada toll stations, of
>course, and the one place in Maine which kept its old fashioned service
>for a few more years.

I thought that Catalina Island, offshore near Los Angeles, had a manual
exchange until about 1978.  It was reputed to be the Bell System's last
manual exchange.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: I don't know when Avalon, CA (the town on the island)
went dial. Was it as late as 1978? What about Martha's Vineyard, MA and
Nantucket Island, MA? I know Vineyard Haven and Edgartown had manual
service until sometime around the early seventies.  PT]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Linas P Dauksa)
Subject: Info on Cellular Telephones
Date:     Mon, 30 Jan 89 20:47:50 EST



I am preparing a presentation on Cellular Telephones and am having difficulty   finding technical information on the subject. The purpose of my presentation
is to explain to a "layman" how a cellular telephone and the cellular network
function. I would appretiate any references to books or periodicals that
may be out there. Any information would be greatly appretiated.

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

To: husc6![e-mail]
From: soi![e-mail] (Sam Lipson)
Subject: Cellular Data Comm. from a stationary phone
Date: 30 Jan 89 05:36:36 GMT



    I've read the discussion of cell-switch delays that was
recently posted to this group,  and I'm wondering what guarantees
you have when you're stationary that you won't get switched to another
cell.

    Presumably if there's no cell switching going on,  you should
be able to use a normal (i.e. not designed for cellular use) modem to
send bits.

    Would this work?  Is signal strength a good indication of whether
you're safe from hand-off?

    Please send replies by mail,  I'm suumarize if there's interest.

        Sam Lipson
        Software Options

harvard!soi!sam
soi![e-mail]



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

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 12:28:58 PST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Phones in the movies and on TV


I saw something interesting in a TV show the other day. A lawyer,
finding his client dead of a drug overdose didn't pick up the
phone and dramatically say ``Operator, get me the police'' - he
dialed 911 instead. This was the first time I've ever noticed a
movie or TV character do this. Could this be the result of phone
company pressure? I find it difficult to believe that producers
would voluntarily give up a few seconds of drama unless they were
forced to.

The subliminal advertisers who place products in movies (e.g.
Reese's Pieces in _E.T._) seem to be missing out on a new gold
mine. Imagine the possible effect on AT&T's long distance
business if the hero in a hit movie could be (conspicuously) seen
dialing 10288 in the course of phoning somebody...

- laura

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 08:20:12 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Ringback that just won't quit


10 or 15 years ago, in a suburban boston exchange, a friend and
i discovered ringback codes...  981-xxxx worked in our area...
here's where things get strange:
sometimes the ringback just would not stop.  you could pick up
the phone, leave it offhook for a minute, hang up -- and the
ringback would start again...
and even stranger:  sometimes, the ringback would be a continous
ring -- not the normal intermittent bell.  this didn't happen very often...

steve elias
([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 09:39:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Don't blame Judge Greene


Peter Pavlvcik complains about ITI providing misleading information regarding
pay telephone charges and service and the Moderator suggests Peter write to
Judge Greene.  Don't waste your time.  The outrageous charges are the result of
policy decisions taken by the FCC prior to divestiture (e.g. deregulating
resale).  If you want to complain to anyone, it should be to the FCC or to the
local PUC.  I note that ITI has been banned from operating in Ohio by the Ohio
PUC because of the type of misleading practices Peter describes.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University
internet:  [e-mail]
bitnet:    ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB

[Moderator's Note: But it was Harold who opened the door to this kind of
abuse. Certainly the FCC played a role in it; but everyone, including the
FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 01:01:28 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Re: Victims of wrong numbers
To: [e-mail]



In our town there were two exchanges, 655 and 653.  After having one of
our numbers for 9 years, we suddenly started getting numerous wrong numbers.
It turned out that a new catalogue showroom store had just opened and had
the 653 number corresponding to our 655 number.  When I complained to the
store manager, he suggested we change our phone number.  I told him that
we had been using our number for 9 years and he had been using his for two
weeks but this failed to convince him to change his number.  I also pointed
out that he would be loosing a lot of business if many of his calls were
routed to an unfriendly phone number.  Nothing changed his mind.

Many of the calls were similar to ones reported in previous Telecom Digests
and I did find myself takeing phone orders for merchandise.  Usually I
just told people that we don't take phone calls and hung up.  Finally, I
changed the message on our answering machine to a very generic one and
left the machine on all of the time.  One of the funniest messages that I
ever got was from one of the store's employees saying that he would not
be into work that day.  After two years of this the store went out of
business.

All was quiet for a year or so and then we started getting a lot of calls
for Tommy.  The calls came at strange hours, the people sounded kind of
spacey, and even though there seemed to be a wide variety of people calling
when I answered the phone, no one ever left a message on the machine.  I
came up with a theory that Tommy must be a drug dealer.  For a while when
people called for Tommy, I told them that he wasn't in and asked them if
they wanted to leave a message.  No one would ever leave a message.  Then
the calls died down and I forgot about Tommy until this week when we found a
message on the machine saying "Tommy, this is your mom, please call me.".
You would think that Tommy's mom would be able to tell that the voice
on the tape was not Tommy's.

Ken Levitt
FidoNet: 1:16/390 (Mail accepted 01:30-07:00 est)
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Feb  1 02:17:14 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA12299; Wed, 1 Feb 89 02:17:14 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89  1:15:31 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #40
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Feb 89  1:15:31 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:

              General purpose, programmable phone switch
                  Re: Alternative Operator Services?
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                            Re:  1+areacode
                            Ringback-a-rama

[Moderator's Note: Yesterday I mentioned that 'dockmaster' seems to be
history. I'd like to reconnect with those users if anyone knows how to
reach them otherwise. Now today I find via half a dozen mail-daemons
(automated postmaster replies) that 'decwrl.dec.com' is troubled. That
is the location of long-time user Mr. Covert and the distribution list
he carries. Let's hope they will be back on line soon! P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 30 Jan 89 18:07:05-CST
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: General purpose, programmable phone switch
To: [e-mail]


More and more often over the last several months, we have seen
messages to TELECOM inquiring whether or not a box exists which
will do "x", where x is some function dealing with counting
the number of rings on a line, connecting two lines together
in various configurations, automatically answering, automatically
dialing, etc.

It seems clear that a good market exists for a general purpose,
programmable phone system which would allow the user to implement
custom versions of all the "x"es mentioned above.  Consider a
system which you could connect to two or more phone lines, together
with a processor and a programming language which would direct
the system to perform various "primitive" actions such as:

    . pickup line n
    . hangup line n
    . wait for line n to ring k times
        . wait for k rings on line n
    . connect line m to line n
    . input a tone sequence from line n
    . output a tone sequence to line n
    . wait for dialtone on line n

and possibly even:

    . input sound-bite a from line n
    . output sound-bite a to line n

    etc.

Such a system would allow you to implement various customized
call screening functions, call forwarding functions, call-back
functions, etc.  Here are some brief sketches of sample tasks,
leaving out most of the gory details:

Call screening:

    Silence bell; Wait for line 1 to ring 5 times; pickup line 1;
    input tone sequence;  if tone sequence equals xxxxxxx, activate
    bell with ring pattern y.

Remote calling function (insecure version):

    Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; pickup
    line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; connect line 2 to line 1.

Remote calling function (more secure):

    Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; input tone
    sequence from line 1; if tone sequence = yyyyyyy then:
        pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2;
        connect line 2 to line 1.

Remote calling function (very secure, with call-back):

    Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; input tone
    sequence from line 1; if tone sequence = yyyyyyy then:
        hangup line 1; pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on
        line 2; send tone sequence abcdefg to line 2;
        wait for 3 rings on line 2; pickup line 1; wait
        for dialtone on line 1; connect line 1 to line 2.


The above examples are very sloppy, but you get the idea.  There would
have to be mechanisms to detect busy signals, etc.  (One thing I'm
not sure about is how to detect when a remote phone hangs up; is there
an in-band signal for this?)

I suspect that all of this functionality exists in one form or another
in various answering machines, automatic dialers, call screening
boxes, etc.  The question is, has anybody thought of putting it all
into a single box and making it programmable by the user?

There.  Now I've added my own "Is there a box which will do x?"
question to the list!  :-)

Clive Dawson
-------

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (USENET manager)
Subject: Re: Alternative Operator Services?
Date: 30 Jan 89 15:54:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Prescott) writes:
>The problem at hotels isn't that you might get routed though some bozo LD
>company but that the hotel is a reseller of telephone communications and
>can thus charge whatever they want to.  One of the more obnoxious setups
>that I know of is charging customers 175% of the AT&T day rates for all
>guest calls while placing the call with the hotel's low-cost WATS lines.
>Even calls that don't cost the hotel anything (locals, credit card, reverse
>charged etc.) can get a surcharge tacked on.
>

The problem that I have had is that even the lobby phone might be passed
through one of the dippy LD companies.  The only clue that you might get
is that the 'thank you' message doesn't say the whole string of 'thank
you for using AT&T' - just the thank you part.

The only technique I've found is to wait after the tone and force a human
operator to come on the line - at that point I can usually insist on getting
an AT&T operator.  At least the call is only billed at operator assisted
rates and not the horrible surcharge some of the LD resellers will apply.

BTW - if you want to see some *really* horrible phone charges I've got
some old hotel bills from a trip 2 years aro in Germany.  The room charge
was about $100.00 a night - my 40 minute call to the U.S. cost $400.00.
I fought it and won back the hotel charge - all $350.00 of it.  I think
that the German PTT has modified some of its rules since then - but I
seldom call from a hotel - and only long enough to pass a message and
have the other end call back.

--
Russ Kepler - system admininstrator for bbx - Basis International
SNAILMAIL:  5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
UUCP:  {backboneishsite}!unmvax!bbx!russ    PHONE: [phone]


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

To: ulysses!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (James Harvey)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 31 Jan 89 17:46:55 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, cucstud![e-mail] (David Lesher) writes:
> The classic had to be Mike Royko, columnist for the [Chicago Tribune].
> AT&T had new 800-xxxxxxx customer service number. Alas, Mike's home phone
> was 312-xxxxxxx. He wrote a nice piece about how he was going to tell all the
> people calling they didn't deserve service and he would see to it they were
> disconnected, and various other threats. Seems to me Ma ended up taking out
> an ad in his paper, next to his space to beg forgiveness.
>
>
> [Moderator's Note: Actually, it was his office phone. The [Chicago Tribune]
> centrex is 312-222. His private number 312-222-3xxx was commonly dialed by
> people wanting AT&T at 1-800-222-3xxx. These were people who failed to dial
> the 1-800 first. AT&T frequently advertises in the Chicago papers, but their
> ad in this instance was to remind people to 'dial 1-800 first, when calling a
> toll-free number.' I think the easiest telephone number to remember in the
> world must be the Tribune classified ad-takers: 312-222-2222.  P. Townson]
>
> -----------------------------
>

I thought this number was disconnected in most areas.  The reason
I heard was that there is a defective dialer chip that is/was
very popular in cordless phones with automatic redial function,
memory etc.  The defective chip would fail in such a way that it
would take the phone off hook and start dialing twos all by
itself.

--

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           |

ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh

[Moderator's Note: It is still listed in large, colorful bold print on
the front page of the advertising tabloid they insert in the paper each
day. "Dial 222-2222 to place your ad now!" The number and whatever it
hunts to terminates in an ACD in the Classified Ads Department. 3000-4000
phone calls are received daily at 35 'advertising counselor' positions, so
it is possible they would not recognize a wrong number if they got one. PT]

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


To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 31 Jan 89 21:01:57 GMT



Because the EPCA is a crock, that's why.  Just because they pass a law
doesn't mean people will stop doing it.  Actually, in all likely hood
if you are probing the police bands what you probably detected is the
cheapo cordless phone frequencies in the 46 and 49 MHz range.  Real
Cellular calls are in the 800 MHz range.  Very few scanners actually
cover this.  A few have had this range specifically blanked out (like
the Radio Shack, but it's just a matter of pulling a diode out to
get them back).

You don't even need a scanner, just tune an old UHF TV set up to
Channel 81-83.

-Ron

[Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as well as
one of the radios which play television audio only. In this country you
can buy them for the VHF channels, but I beleive they are illegal per FCC
rules where UHF is concerned. A company in Toronto makes the kind which
cover the UHF band, and specifically covering channels 80-83 or thereabouts.
But their mail order advertising clearly states 'not for sale in the United
States. We cannot fill orders to the USA'. They were selling them here like
hotcakes for awhile, until Uncle Sugar put the heat on the Canadian govern-
ment to help enforce FCC rules down here. PT]

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

Date:     Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:04:14 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  1+areacode


To answer Tanner:

To reach the 201-615 prefix from anywhere in the 201 area (even if long
distance), you would dial only 615-xxxx.  This is not confused with calling
area 615 in Tennessee, because that requires 1-615-xxx-xxxx.  On direct
dial calls, you apparently NEVER depend on timeout.

In some areas, you dial (or used to dial) 1+number to call long distance
within your areacode.  This held for Maryland (also in 703 area in Va.)
outside the DC area, but now there are N0X/N1X prefixes in the Washington
DC area, so that usage of 1+number was changed to 1+areacode+number, using
your own areacode.  (DC and suburbs had used areacode+number for long distance,
even within 301 or 703, but this also changed to 1+areacode+number.)

In areas NOT having 1+number usage, the leading 1 means that what follows is an
area code.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 09:49:23 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Ringback-a-rama



May I politely request that the moderator suspend the discussion on ringback
codes (or at least excise references to specific numbers).  The number in the
following message (Jan 31 digest) is a working exchange in Suburban Boston.
I know that, because it's mine!  With that complaint, my childhood ringback in
Philadelphia (20 yrs ago!) was 579-(wait for dialtone)-6-(hang up).

>>From: [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
>Subject: Ringback that just won't quit
>
>10 or 15 years ago, in a suburban boston exchange, a friend and
>i discovered ringback codes...  981-xxxx worked in our area...
>here's where things get strange:
>sometimes the ringback just would not stop.  you could pick up
>the phone, leave it offhook for a minute, hang up -- and the
>ringback would start again...
>and even stranger:  sometimes, the ringback would be a continous
>ring -- not the normal intermittent bell.  this didn't happen very often...

[Moderator's Note: You're right. It has really been milked enough. PT]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Feb  2 02:51:03 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA29382; Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:51:03 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89  2:26:27 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #41
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Feb 89  2:26:27 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:

                          Re: Cellular Fraud
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                          Re: Cellular Setup
                          Re: Cellular Setup

[Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is devoted entirely to the
mail I've received on cellular phones and some of the problems involved
with them. Part two of the Digest for 2-9, to be issued in a few minutes
will continue discussing the problems encountered when attempting to use
AT&T long distance service from hotels and payphones, etc.   P. Townson]

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


To: mcsd!killer!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud
Date: 1 Feb 89 19:21:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 34, message 3
>
>
>     It is not impossible to change ESN in a phone, but is
>     extremely difficult since it is manufactured physically into
>     the unit, and is not generally documented by the manufacturer
>     is public domain documnets for security reasons.
>
>Well -- maybe it's harder today, but a couple of years ago the N.Y. Times
>reported a fairly wide-spread business doctoring the id chips in phones.
>They said that the oddest thing was not that it was happening, but that
>it was decentralized -- lots of small-scale stuff, by lots of different
>folks who knew how to operate PROM burners.  They didn't find what they
>expected:  a few centralized shops with sophisticated crooks.
>
>        --Steve Bellovin

Steve:

I made this statement based on having primary exposure to Motorola cellular
phone equipment where:

1) The prom with the ESN is potted into the radio cabinet.  Therefore you
   cannot tell what kind of prom is in use.

2) The leads coming off the prom come out on a ribbon cable in random order
   to plug into the motherboard, so you can't necessarily determine how to
   access/read the prom.

3) The format by which the data is blown into the prom is also undocumented.

This prom (at least on Motorola phones) is NOT the same chip as the NAM which
is readily available/documented to the world.  Are you sure that the above
comment did not refer to changing the Mobiles phone number, which is stored in
the NAM, not with the ESN??  Also, on newer phones the ESN is burned into a
prom area in the Logic Module in the phone, which is a custom LSI which handles
all the functionality of the phone, making it virtually impossible to change
since these devices are not alterable or available to the general public.  Heck,
even if somebody DID get a hold of one, they would be stuck with the ESN blown
into it at manufactuing, since they are built with an ESN in them.

Once again let me state that I do not know how other vendors of cellular
equipment handle this, since my only knowledge base is having worked for
Motorola in the Cellular product area.

Also, as an additional side note, cellular systems (Motorola again) are
typically set up to reject or flag multiple calls from the same ESN or Mobile
number, since this an impossible situation with the concept of the unique
ESN.  Hence, the system operators get informed of this type of fraud in a
pretty big hurry if the questionable unit is used much.  Once again, I have
no idea about what other vendors of Cellular Equipment do or do not do, so I
could be all wet as for as they go.

--
================================================================================
Tim Dawson (...!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim)  Motorola Computer Systems, Dallas, TX.
"The opinions expressed above do not relect those of my employer - often even I
cannot figure out what I am talking about."


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 1 Feb 89 16:03:29 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Natalie) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 40, message 4
>
>Because the EPCA is a crock, that's why.  Just because they pass a law
>doesn't mean people will stop doing it.  Actually, in all likely hood
>if you are probing the police bands what you probably detected is the
>cheapo cordless phone frequencies in the 46 and 49 MHz range.  Real
>Cellular calls are in the 800 MHz range.  Very few scanners actually
>cover this.  A few have had this range specifically blanked out (like
>the Radio Shack, but it's just a matter of pulling a diode out to
>get them back).
>


    Actually, when I picked up phone conversations over the police scanner
before the call was initiated I heard a series of tones, beeps, and rings.

The call was made and I heard the conversations. I know it was from mobile
phones, nothing can convince me other wise. I know all this since particular
conversations said theat they were in their car, or wherever.

  if this is all true? then there is a possible dangers that these tones
could be recorded and broadcasted over the same band width with a little
electronic experience and high quality recording equipment.

  That can't be right that would be too simple.


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 1 Feb 89 19:09:12 GMT



> [Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as well as
> one of the radios which play television audio only. In this country you
> can buy them for the VHF channels, but I beleive they are illegal per FCC
> rules where UHF is concerned.

This comment tacked on to my posting is wrong.  Those radios usually have
the same piece of crap receiver for the audio that most TV's have.  Receivers
covering that band are not illegal.  The main reason is that it is expensive
to add the expanded UHF feature to these cheap radios.  However, many
manufacturers shy away from putting the cellular bands in their radios now
either fearing law suits or that they are manufacturers of cellular equipment.

Calling the EPCA an FCC rule is a bit inaccurate.  It's congressional
tomfoolery.

POSTERS NOTE:  It would be much nicer if Pat had something that it would
be enclosed as a seperate "message" in the digest rather than tacking on
comments to other people's messages.

[Moderator's Note: Your suggestion is well taken. It is not the 'piece of
crap audio' that mattes so much as it is that the circuitry in televisions
is different that the circuitry in radios. Yes, EPCA is one thing, and
FCC rules are another. The telcos have repeatedly complained to the FCC
about people listening to cellular phone calls. PT]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Dave Fiske)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 1 Feb 89 19:23:15 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:
>
>    You mentioned that there are set guidlines to the frequenciest that
> cellular phone services are allowed to use, however; when I had been
> futzing with my police scanner I had been able to hear cellular phone

Chances are you were hearing conversations being made with a CORDLESS
phone, as opposed to cellular.  The cordless phones use frequencies in
the 40-50 MHz range, which most scanners cover.

> conversations. I am familiar with the laws that allow anyone to be able
> to listen to radio waves via radio sets. But why would they allow
> phone conversations to be set in these bands where anyone with a police
> scanner can eavesdrop?

There was a court case which decided the issue of privacy of cordless
phone conversations.  These guys were arrested, having been overheard
by police arranging a drug deal using a cordless phone.  Their attorney
argued that this constituted eavesdropping by the police, but the judge
ruled that they should have known they could be overheard.  Cordless
phone conversations are not considered confidential.  Since this case,
there has been a bit more publicity and manufacturers' warnings about
the lack of privacy when using cordless phones.

When I lived in an apartment complex, I was setting up the frequencies
for my scanner, and found someone talking on the phone once.  (I don't
recall the precise frequencies right now, but all you have to do is
look in the descriptions of the cordless phones in the Radio Shack
catalog.)  Once in a while I would check to see if anybody was talking
on the phone, but most of the time it was just teenagers chatting,
until, inevitably one of them would say they were coming right over to
the other's apartment.  If they had done that first, they could have
saved a phone call!

In reality, most people's phone calls are pretty boring, so the novelty
of listening in wears off quickly, and this is probably as effective as
any regulation would be in keeping eavesdropping to a minimum.  :^)

Also, keep in mind that it hasn't been all that long since people had
party lines, where eavesdropping is as simple as lifting the receiver.
--
"FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW           Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 13:59:23 PST
From: Jeff Woolsey <hplabs![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Natalie) writes:
>You don't even need a scanner, just tune an old UHF TV set up to
>Channel 81-83.

>[Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as
>well as one of the radios which play television audio only. In this
>country you can buy them for the VHF channels, but I believe they are
>illegal per FCC rules where UHF is concerned. A company in Toronto
>makes the kind which cover the UHF band, and specifically covering
>channels 80-83 or thereabouts.

I have an old Pioneer TVX-9500 TV Sound Tuner that gets those
channels.  At first I didn't know what I was listening to up there, but
it was interesting.  This same tuner also gets NOAA weather stations
when channels 7, 8, 9, and 10 are all selected at the same time.
--
--
When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest.  -- Bullwinkle J. Moose

Jeff Woolsey  [e-mail]  -or-  [e-mail]

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Feb  2 04:11:50 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA04734; Thu, 2 Feb 89 04:11:50 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89  3:22:10 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #42
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Feb 89  3:22:10 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:

                Ripped off by the long distance carrier
                     Hotel (and pay-phone) Horrors
                     Re: Equal Access?? My foot!!
                     Internat'l calling card woes
                           A Modest Proposal
                     Re: Don't blame Judge Greene
                        A Response to Mr. Sirbu

[Moderator's Note: This is part two of the Digest for 2-2-89. I've
grouped together several messages from readers complaining of thier
difficulty in making a straight-forward long distance call. I am
also pleased to share a letter recieved from Marvin Sirbu criticizing
my earlier comments on the MFJ. Mail continues to run heavy; I am
about two days behind in postings. Bear with me.   P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:21:42 EST
From: [e-mail] (Andy Behrens)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Ripped off by the long distance carrier



On a recent trip to Connecticut, I made several phone calls from my
hotel, charging them to a calling card.  I didn't think to ask which
long distance carrier would be used.  (Yes, I should have known better).

I got my phone bill today.  One of the calls would have cost about $6
if I had placed it through an AT&T or Sprint operator -- and even less
if I had dialed it directly.  Telesphere/T.E.N. charged me $18.45.

Do I have any recourse?

What happens if I tell my local telephone company that I won't pay
that portion of the bill?  (They are billing me "as a service to
Telesphere").  For that matter, does anyone know the address of the
Connecticut Public Utilities Commission?

--
Live justly, love gently, walk humbly.
                    Andy Behrens
                    [e-mail]

internet: [e-mail]
uucp:     {harvard,decvax}!dartvax!coat!andyb



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

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 12:34:53 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Hotel (and pay-phone) Horrors


Yes, hotel thievery for LD calls is a time-honored tradition, e.g.,

>The problem that I have had is that even the lobby phone might be passed
>through one of the dippy LD companies.  The only clue that you might get
>is that the 'thank you' message doesn't say the whole string of 'thank
>you for using AT&T' - just the thank you part.
>
>The only technique I've found is to wait after the tone and force a human
>operator to come on the line - at that point I can usually insist on getting
>an AT&T operator.  At least the call is only billed at operator assisted
>rates and not the horrible surcharge some of the LD resellers will apply.
>
This is why it's not such a bad idea to get a credit card from one of the
LD companies which is accessed through an 800-number.  Most major hotel chains
charge ->ZERO<- for 800- calls.  Most (yes, I know, not all) COCOTS will let
you get through free to 800- numbers.  The most nasty COCOTS kill the tone
generator after the call, so if you're not carrying a DTMF beeper (does anyone
out there? They cost a few bucks.) you can wait for the Sprint (or whomever)
operator to answer, so you pay normal op-assist rates.  Much better than hotel
or COCOT rates.  There are a few 'can't-get-there-from-here' situations, like
those nasty COCOTS at highway (GOTCHA!) rest areas, but in general, a little
flexibility (and patience) pay off.



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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea)
Subject: Re: Equal Access?? My foot!!
Date: 1 Feb 89 15:52:44 GMT



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

>Well, you may have guessed it. When the bill came, all the calls were
>billed as International Telecharge Operator Assisted (!!) calls. The price?
>About $1.25 a minute for a late evening call from Florida (Marco Island)
>to Chicago. I can call Europe for less than that!
>

 I was in the same situation when I tried using my ATT calling card from a
phone up in Minneapolis. THe phone was assignbed to the MCI long distance
service..

 I never made the call and just quietly charged the guys house for the long
distance call. ( He's my best friend, so he expects me to pull stunts like
that).

  I couldn't understand why it was so hard to dial a 1800 and enter a calling
card number from an MCI phone?


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

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: harvard!gatech!ihlpb.ATT.COM!kerns (Kerns)
Subject: Internat'l calling card woes
Date: 1 Feb 89 22:42:24 GMT



I had another problem with International Calling Cards.

While in Europe last month, I had no trouble using a
public telephone in France and Germany - and getting
connected to a US operator using my trusty AT&T calling
card.  In Switzerland, you can't use a public phone on
the street, but must go to a PTT office where they can
connect you.

But Austria was a different story.  On a public phone
on the street I couldn't use my calling card, because
the operator had to call me back - and there are no
numbers on public phones.  So I went to the PTT office
and explained that I wanted to call a US number using
my international calling card.  They claimed there was
absolutely no way they could do it.  (They were willing
to collect the call charge right there, or make a
collect card.)  So I called from my hotel, and was hit
with a 300% surcharge when I checked out.  $70 for my
hotel bill, $90 for my phone call - about 15 minutes worth.

Last time I call anyone from a hotel, especially in Europe.

John Kerns
AT&T Bell Labs

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

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 10:59:17 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Modest Proposal
To: [e-mail]


    It seems to me that:

    (1) Many people want to use AT&T Calling Cards from various
            places but cannot
    (2) AT&T is losing revenue because of (1)

    It does not take an MBA to figure out that it would be the
advantage of both frustrated users and AT&T if a universal,
non-blockable means of dialing an AT&T operator existed.  How?,
a Local Exchange Number ala FG A?, a 950- FG-D number?,  800 ?,
900?. ??????

    The problem is not just that some AOS are crooks, it is also
that AT&T is as imaginative in its services as the water company.

-------

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:13:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Don't blame Judge Greene


PT-

How could Harold have "opened the door to this kind of
abuse" if it was authorized by the FCC prior to any act taken by
Judge Greene?

To assert that "everyone, including the
FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene" is to ignore the fact that
it was  in 1969--five years before the Antitrust suit heard by Judge
Greene was even filed!-- that the FCC authorized competition in long distance,
and 1980, more than a year before the decision to break up AT&T was made, that
unlimited resale was authorized, opening up the market for alternative operator
services companies.

Remember also that the Modification of Final Judgement is a Consent Decree.
That means, it is a decision which was agreed to by the parties (the Justice
Department and AT&T) and presented to the court for its approval.  Judge
Greene never proposed divestiture, Assistant Attorney General Baxter, and AT&T
President Charles Brown did.  And they did so not under pressure from Judge
Greene, but in order to derail legislation then pending in Congress which would
have been even worse! (See for example Temin, Peter, "The Fall of the Bell
System," (Cambridge University Press:  Cambridge, 1987).

There are many things one can blame on Judge Greene (continuing restrictions on
RBOC participation in information services, for example), but there are many
parties in the story of telecommunications policy evolution:  and the FCC,
the Justice Department and the Congress have been messing around since long
before Judge Greene got involved.

You do a great service in moderating the telecom digest, but please, check your
facts before flaming.

Marvin Sirbu
Professor of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University

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

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 03:19:41 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: A Response to Mr. Sirbu


Dear Mr. Sirbu,

Your participation in our little Digest is deeply appreciated. Persons with
your background in telecom are always valued resources in discussion groups
such as comp.dcom.telecom/[Telecom Digest].

But I think you misunderstood me. I have NEVER spoken against competition in
long distance services. Some of them are woefully inadequate for my needs;
many of them promise 'savings over AT&T' which never actually materialize.
But so be it. Nor have I ever objected to the *right* of AOS companies to
operate, as worthless as they are, and as deceptive as they are in their
operations.

Yes of course the FCC approved alternative LD services in 1969. I remember
well that MCI's first application to Illinois Bell was fraudulent on its
face; claiming they wanted merely to have 'limited service between Chicago
and St. Louis for a few selected customers'. But I digress: all are free to
compete, but why did Judge Greene feel that AT&T had to be broken up in the
process?

A built in bias against AT&T was prevalent throughout the procedings. You
rightly noted the end result was a Consent Decree. Are you forgetting that
if I held a gun to your head you would 'consent' to anything I requested?
It has been claimed that AT&T signed off on the decree because they wanted
to go into the computer business. A casual glance at that side of the
business today would show that it has been a miserable failure for the
company. Either some very poor business judgment was used to 'decide to
enter the computer business' or else there was more to it than my former
neighbor Charlie Brown wanted to discuss. You reference Peter Temin's
account, and while it is comprehensive, Mr. Temin was not without his own
axes to grind. I should talk, huh! Perhaps you saw my essay on the subject
which appeared in [Telephony Magazine] and [EMMS Newsletter] at the time.


As to the exact chronology of events, I don't think it is all that important
which came first and which came later. A word from Harold Greene at any
phase of the proceedings carried a lot of weight. And the word from Harold
was you can dump on AT&T with impunity in his courtroom. Even the largest
corporation in the world deserves to be treated ethically and fairly.

Again, my thanks for your participation here.

Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator


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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Feb  3 02:04:36 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA08488; Fri, 3 Feb 89 02:04:36 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89  1:45:22 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #43
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Feb 89  1:45:22 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:

                 Subscriber's Line Cross-connected
                            Re: 1+areacode
                            Re: 1+areacode
                            Re: 1+areacode
              Info on Spectrum products: Bridge and Span
                    Re: cheap & easy circuit backup
                          re: Cellular Setup
                    Re: Info on Cellular Telephones
                      Re: Excuses instead of info

[Moderator's Note: This is part one of two parts for Friday, 2-3-89. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Watkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 07:09:09 EDT


Having just received my ATT phone bill, I note there were
10 long distance calls that I didn't make...matter of fact,
this second phone line has never had a "phone" on it....just
my modem (and I only call one number).

ATT service insisted that I or my wife made the calls, and even
if we didn't, they couldn't do anything and referred me to
New England Telephone.  NET service was extremely helpful and
even called those numbers (asking if they received a call from
us...no, they don't know us...etc), thus NET belives that my
wires are "cross connected" somewhere...

My question is..if I "cancel" this number and get a new
number...would that correct the cross connection at the central
office (if the cross connection is there)...and if the problem
persists (perhaps we notice that next month the same phone
numbers are on the bill) then does it show that the cross
connections is in the lines running down the street ? (dividing
the problem in half).

I was only concerned because NET said the problem is very
hard to find and it could persist for months....

I live in Boxboro MA and I'm not even sure where my service
comes from...

thank you
Ron



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

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:40:17 EST
From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+areacode


I think there may have been another reason for prefixing area codes with '1'.
On exchanges which were not register controlled, it was neccesasry to
discriminate between a local and long distance call at the beginning of
the dialled number.  On a step by step strowger switch, for instance, you
would dial 1 and be stepped to the 1st level.  Connected to this level
would be trunks to your LD switching center which would suck in all
the subsequent digits and route the call appropriately.  This scheme would
also work for calls within your area code which were not local.

I'm not sure under what circumstances this was done,  but I'm pretty sure
that it did happen sometimes.  Perhaps someone on this newsgroup knows more?

Martin Harriss
{linus,mit-eddie}!alliant!harriss

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

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: 3 Feb 89 02:47:17 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, tanner@ki4pv (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
> The explanation that the "1+" enable distinguishing between area
> codes and exchanges is nice, but not entirely clear.
>
> Consider North Jersey.  One site I call there has an exchange of 615.
> Another site I call has an area code of 615.  (From here, no problem.
> I supply the area code before the 615 exchange.)
>
> In NJ but out of the local area for dialing exchange 615, what happens
> when the machine dials 1+615 ... ?  Does it ring through after 4 more
> digits, or does it wait for 7 more?  (Does it have a time-out in case
> only 4 follow?)


A reply from North Jersey:

>From anywhere in the 201 (North Jersey) area code, to anywhere else
in the 201 area code, we dial only 7 digits.  So if I were calling
that site from here, I'd dial 615-xxxx, even though it's a toll call
to Middletown from Warren.  If I were trying to call area code 615,
I would have to dial 1+615-xxx-xxxx.  For an operator-assisted call
to Middletown, NJ, I'd dial 0+201+615+xxxx.  There is nothing
ambiguous, and nothing requiring a time-out.  If it begins with 1
or 0, it has ten more digits.  If it begins with 2-9, it has six
more digits.  This is the dial-plan recommendation for all of the
North American numering plan --- but some places don't do it yet,
because they don't need to, yet.

In most of the United States, 1+ is permitted, even where it is not
required, for all area-code calls.  (What is going away is 1+7 digits
for intra-npa toll calls, as that _is_ ambiguous.)

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Feb  2 11:21:16 1989
From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Subject: Re: 1+areacode


tanner@ki4pv (Dr. T. Andrews) writes,

>The explanation that the "1+" enable distinguishing between area
>codes and exchanges is nice, but not entirely clear.

>Consider North Jersey.  One site I call there has an exchange of 615.
>Another site I call has an area code of 615.  (From here, no problem.
>I supply the area code before the 615 exchange.)

>In NJ but out of the local area for dialing exchange 615, what happens
>when the machine dials 1+615 ... ?  Does it ring through after 4 more
>digits, or does it wait for 7 more?  (Does it have a time-out in case
>only 4 follow?)

The North American Numbering Plan specifies that "1+" indicates that
an area code is coming, NOT a toll call.

Some telcos used 1+ to indicate TOLL coming, because stepper switches
could simply cut through to a smarter toll switch when 1 was dialed.
But that custom was never followed in New Jersey.  If I pick up a phone
in NJ and dial 907-9971, I get Teaneck.  1907 gets Alaska.  Easy, no?
Never a timeout.

Hence 1615 will always wait for 7 more digits, while 615 will wait for
4 more digits.

-----

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

To: mit-eddie!comp-dcom-telecom
From: mit-amt![e-mail] (Jim Davis)
Subject: Info on Spectrum products: Bridge and Span
Date: 2 Feb 89 00:53:12 GMT



I am considering buying a cellular telephone modem made
by Spectrum Cellular of Dallas Texas.  This modem,
called "the Bridge" uses a propriatry error correction
protocol (SPCL) and is capable of buffering and retransmission.

If it works, it will be worth it, since thus far I've
had nothing but trouble using ordinary modems with
cellular phones.  Cellular phone lines are noisy
and subject to unpredicatable brief drops in audio.
Even 300 baud modems (ick) are subject to noise.

I'd like to know if anyone out there has experience
with this product.  Spectrum says that some of the Bell
companies are reselling this technology under the Bell
name.  That's a nice endorsement, but I've never seen
an independant product review.

I would be grateful to hear your comments.  If mail
does not work, I'll take collect calls at 617-253-0314
--
Internet: [e-mail]
Phone:    [phone]
USMail:   E15-325, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Prices For Cellular Phones
Date: 30 Jan 89 21:37:16 GMT



Your prices for Cellular telephones are a little inacurate.
A luggable, as opossed to handheld, telephone is only about $500.
The phone service here is only about $11 for the yuppie plan.

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

From: [e-mail] (L Judice / 201-562-4103 / DTN 323-4103)
Date: 2 Feb 89 10:51
To: [e-mail]
Subject: re: Cellular Setup



In regards to the write who found mobile telephone calls in the VHF-HI
band, these are probably IMTS calls (Improved Mobile Telephone Service,
the pre-cursor to cellular).

IMTS operates in the 152 Mhz band, and I believe in one or two UHF
and VHF-LO bands.

/ljj

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

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Info on Cellular Telephones
Date: 3 Feb 89 02:56:17 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Linas P Dauksa) writes:
> I am preparing a presentation on Cellular Telephones and am having difficulty   finding technical information on the subject. The purpose of my presentation
> is to explain to a "layman" how a cellular telephone and the cellular network
> function. I would appretiate any references to books or periodicals that
> may be out there. Any information would be greatly appretiated.


The Bell System Technical Journal (now called AT&T Technical
Journal) Vol 58, No 1, Part 3, January 1979, is an entire issue
devoted to Cellular Telephony - then known as AMPS (Advanced Mobile
Phone Service).  It explains the theory, the development history,
the initial service tests, and the hardware.  This volume is
probably orderable from:

    The AT&T Customer Information Center  1-800-432-6600


--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Dave Fiske)
Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info
Date: 2 Feb 89 18:53:50 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Harvey) writes:
< In article <[e-mail]>, childers@avsd writes:
< > In article <[e-mail]> mcgp1![e-mail] (Donn Pedro) writes:
< >
< > >If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would
< > >not be available for our use for testing. People used it to
< > >busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed.
< >
< > Can you document this, or is this what your supervisor told you to say ?
< YES, supervisors tell you to say this, it's TRUE.  More
< frequently, people use the ringback numbers as an intercom, (call
< ringback, wait till somebody upstairs picks up extension, talk).

In Connecticut, back in the '60s, we used to dial 1199 to make the phone ring
to be able to talk to someone who was upstairs, etc.  My father used to like to
do this, and put on phony voices to try and fool other members of the family.
I myself once came up with the idea of, as the family was leaving to go
shopping, dialing the ringback number as I left the house.  An hour later, when
we returned, I watched in glee as the rest of the family rushed to unlock the
door.  "Hurry up!  The phone is ringing."

It never occurred to us that we might be tying up phone company resources, so I
can imagine, with lots of people doing this wantonly, it could easily become a
problem.

Even now, a friend of mine leaves his phone off-hook if he leaves the house
while he's expecting a call.  He seems to figure that if people get a busy
signal they're more likely to call back than if they think he's not home (?).
He did this once when I was there, and the phone started making all its
electronic barking noises, then the recording, and I said something about it.
His attitude was that it couldn't possibly hurt anything, which doesn't explain
why the phone company has gone to such trouble to put all those warnings on
there.
--
"FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW           Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

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

From [e-mail]  Fri Feb  3 02:42:20 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA10879; Fri, 3 Feb 89 02:42:20 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89  2:29:46 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #44
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Feb 89  2:29:46 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:

                  Re: Phones in the movies and on TV
                  Re: Phones in the movies and on TV
                 David Letterman's Use of 900 Service
                            Call Restricter
                          Re: When DDD Began
                         Wrong Number Problems
                          Coming This Weekend

[Moderator's Note: This is part two of two parts for Friday 2-3-89. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phones in the movies and on TV
Date: Thu,  2-Feb-89 19:23:15 PST


Laura Halliday wrote:

H> I saw something interesting in a TV show the other day. A lawyer,
H> finding his client dead of a drug overdose didn't pick up the
H> phone and dramatically say ``Operator, get me the police'' - he
H> dialed 911 instead. This was the first time I've ever noticed a
H> movie or TV character do this. Could this be the result of phone
H> company pressure? I find it difficult to believe that producers
H> would voluntarily give up a few seconds of drama unless they were
H> forced to.

Some comments:

1.  The use of 911 got the attention of Hollywood in large part from
Richard Dreyfuss's frantic "Call 911!  Call 911!" in "Down and Out in
Beverly Hills" when he discovers Nick Nolte attmpeting suicide in their
pool.

2.  The writers and producers of the show Ms. Halliday saw might be too
young to remember days when one asked the operator for the police, even
if they are old enough to remember dialing seven digits for them.

3.  The lost "few seconds of drama" can be recovered easily by having the
character search for the phone or get an uncooperative 911 operator.

4.  911 is so widespread now that asking the operator might seem
anachronistic.  Moreover, it might be that the particular scene was set in
a large city with many viewers who would write in that there is 911 service
there and that the character should have known it.

5.  Maybe the days of 555-NXXX are going the way of KLondike 5 before it.
On a recent episode of a syndicated sitcom (the sort of pap I thrive on),
the lead character was trying to get through to a woman he had dated twice
but who had been hanging up on him all week.  His ex-wife was visting and
offered to try calling her for him.  The dialogue continued like this:

Ex-wife: "What's her number?"
Protagonist: "Press `redial'."

[e-mail]   ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Dave Fiske)
Subject: Re: Phones in the movies and on TV
Date: 2 Feb 89 19:05:52 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> I saw something interesting in a TV show the other day. A lawyer,
> finding his client dead of a drug overdose didn't pick up the
> phone and dramatically say ``Operator, get me the police'' - he
> dialed 911 instead. This was the first time I've ever noticed a
> movie or TV character do this. Could this be the result of phone
> company pressure? I find it difficult to believe that producers
> would voluntarily give up a few seconds of drama unless they were
> forced to.

My guess would be that they figure 911 is universal enough now that people will
understand what is being dialed.  If the guy just dialed the regular number for
say, the LA Police Dept., people not from LA might not realize it.  Hence, "get
me the police."  Another technique for letting the audience know what is going
on is that callers generally say "Hello, Police Department?"  Of course, in
real life, we wait for someone to answer on the other end before we say
anything, plus a phone in any sort of office is usually answered with some
identifying phrase (not just "hello") so the caller knows at once who they have
reached.

I also saw a comedian on TV recently who pointed out a bit of phone behavior in
the movies.  If someone gets hung up on, they always hold the receiver and give
it a real puzzled or disgusted look.  Has this ever been observed in real
life?

--
"FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW           Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

To: [e-mail]
From: decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa![e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: David Letterman's Use of 900 Service
Date: 1 Feb 89 04:11:26 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kurt A. Geisel) writes:
> Pretty soon, they may try to get us to pay to find out how the story
> ends.

The one that makes me maddest is the way they go about using (900)
service on "Late Night With David Letterman."  They use AT&T's mass
announcement (900) service with a feature that allows a small number of
calls to be answered live.  But since everyone is calling to get on the
air, not to hear the "You didn't get through" recording, this feature
shouldn't be used.  The result is that people are charged 50 cents for
each ATTEMPT.

They should instead use a regular number or an (800) number, so that
viewers do not have to pay for busies.
--
Jim G.        E-Mail: <[e-mail]>  or  <[e-mail]>
^^^^^^    V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 10:21:50 EST
From: harvard!cs.utexas.edu!cos.com!mgrant (Michael Grant)
To: bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Call Restricter


Somone was looking for one of these a while ago to keep his kids from
abusing the phone.  I think this is probably what you need.

Hello Direct in San Jose California is marketing a call controller
which disallows calls to certain programmable numbers.  Here's what
it says under specifications:

"Factory settings:
  Disallows: 976, 1 or 0 followed by 976, area code + 976.  900, 1 or
  0 followed by 900.  1 + area code (long distance).  411; 1 followed by
  411, 555; 1 or 0 followed by 555; 1 or 0 followed by area code and 555
  (directory assistance)."

"Major Features:
  - All factory settings are user reprogrammable
  - Single line unit: allows/disallows up to 23 idfferent phone
    numbers of 21 digits, or other combinations of phone numbers up to
    484 digits.
  - Remote Programming with user-selectable security codes.
  - Time Limit set by user to limit calls from 1 to 15 minutes
  - 5-digit security passcode set or changed by user, remotely or
    on-site, protects Call Controller programming.
  - Override passcode: Confidential 4-digit code that your selected
    personnel enter to override restrictions on individual calls.
  - Touch-Tone or Rotary programmable."

The single line unit is contained in a small unmarked box approximatly
1.5 x 2 x 1 inchs (4 x 5 x 2.5 cm).

The price is $129 Quantity 1.  They also have 30 line and 120 line
capacity models which block even more numbers.  Contact Hello Direct
at 1-800-444-3556 or 1-408-435-1990 for more info.

I am not connected with this company in any way.

-Michael Grant

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Re: When DDD Began
Date: 30 Jan 89 17:15:14 GMT


      As many telecom readers probably know, area codes and direct dialing
were originally implemented so that the originating toll operator could set up
the call and have it routed automatically, rather than manually dealing with
distant toll boards to set up the circuit.  But Direct Distance Dialing was
only offered to subscribers after AT&T Long Lines had most of its system
automated.  Thus, when DDD did appear in a locality, one could generally
call most places in the Bell System immediately.

      The accounting system for DDD originally involved paper tape punches
(the "Automatic Accountant"), a very special purpose electronic calculator
that took in the paper tape, computed the toll, and punched a standard
IBM card, and large farms of IBM tabulating equipment to sort the cards and
generate the customer bills.

                    John Nagle


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

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Wrong Number Problems
Date: Thu,  2-Feb-89 15:40:54 PST


Recently, a company competing with our local operating company
published a phone book. As an inducement to use the directory, they
created a "free" service, similar to 976 service. That is, you dial
a local number, wait for an answer, then dial any one of 1000 different
codes to get a short recording with movie schedules, nationwide
weather, tv schedules, etc.

Today, the local paper reported that people are skipping the middle
digits. Instead of 957-4468 <wait> 1000, they dial 957-1000. This of
course is driving the people with the more popular numbers (such as
Joke of the Day and All My Children Update) up the wall. We are talking
over 50 wrong numbers a day! Of course, the company has volunteered to
pay the costs of changing the person's number, but noone wants to do
that. I expect things will die down as people learn how this works, but
for the time being, it's a real hassle. It's also funny, if you aren't
on the receiving end:

"A local casket company, for instance, has been getting errant calls
from users looking for updates on "All My Childre." I talked to a man
at the casket company, who didn't want himself or the business identified.
But he told me, in so many words, that when he answers the phone, the line
goes dead.

I'm sorry. That's not funny."


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

Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 02:26:54 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Coming This Weekend


I have three excellent items planned for weekend issues of the Digest tomorrow.

1) MCI Horror Story: Is MCI in cahoots with a shady AOS secretly, without
   their subscribers knowing about it?

2) David Tamkin further evaluates Starlink, the new alternative to Telenet PCP.

3) Another round in the Judge Greene vrs. Telecom Moderator saga.

Plus information on the AT&T 'rate cap' plan; and one user's response to
rude telemarketing services.

Distributed at various times on Saturday.

Patrick

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Feb  4 00:25:36 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA13084; Sat, 4 Feb 89 00:25:36 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89  0:11:51 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #45
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Feb 89  0:11:51 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:

                           MCI Horror Tales
                 Moderator's gratuitous Greene-bashing
                     Re: Equal Access?? My foot!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:12:11 EST
From: ll-xn!columbia!dasys1![e-mail] (Eric Corley)
To: bu-cs.bu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: MCI Horror Tales

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS REPRINTED FROM THE WINTER 1988-89 EDITION OF
2600 MAGAZINE, A PUBLICATION THAT DEVOTES MUCH OF ITS SPACE TO THE STUDY OF
COMPUTER HACKERS. QUESTIONS CAN BE DIRECTED TO [e-mail] or 2600,
POB 752, MIDDLE ISLAND, NY 11953, OR 516-751-2600.

It all started with what sounded like a friendly phone call in October:
"Hello, this is Patricia from MCI. We noticed that you presently have an
account with MCI and we wanted to let you know that we'll be offering 'one
plus' service in your area starting December 10th. We'd like to verify your
address."

The nice lady then read us our address, which was one hundred percent correct.
She then said another person would call us to confirm this information. That
call came within minutes and was almost identical in content.

A couple of weeks later we got another one of those calls on another of our
lines that had an MCI account attached to it. But this time the second call
never came.

In early December, equal access came to our phone lines. We decided to check
the status of those two lines that had gotten the calls. We dialed
1-700-555-4141. And guess what? They had both been claimed by MCI. Surprised?
We weren't. In fact, when those calls come in, we EXPECTED them to try and
pull this scam we'd heard so much about. They made one big mistake though --
they tried it on us.

We always listen very carefully when phone companies call us. And we can say
very definitely that MCI never asked us if we wanted to choose them as our
long distance carrier. All they asked us to do was to verify our address.
OK, so it was a sloppy representative. Maybe even a corrupt one. How can you
condemn an entire company because of the actions of one person? That's quite
easy. It happened more than once. Different representatives called different
phone numbers and gave the same little speech. And we've found out that other
people have gotten the same treatment. This indicates to us that these
representatives are reading a script that tells them NOT to ask the customer
whether they actually WANT MCI's "one plus" service. Address verification,
after all, is a much less controversial issue.

Perhaps MCI feels they're taking a calculated risk here. They only seem to make
these calls to people who already use MCI in some form. Maybe they feel these
people won't raise a fuss when they discover who their long distance company
is. In fact, they may never even discover that MCI is their carrier since they
most likely have been getting MCI bills in the past. Remember, these are
people who have already been using MCI's services.

Regardless of whether or not it pays off, it's distressing to see such
dishonest tactics on the part of a major company.

This isn't our only gripe with MCI. We had been using an account on MCI's
950-1986 dialup. In November we paid the bill a few days late (it was under
$10). Well, lo and behold, they disconnected our code without ANY warning.
When we asked them to reconnect it, they said they would have to handle our
payment for 10 days first. Ten days went by and the code was still down. We
asked again. This time, they said they were phasing out that service, so they
couldn't reconnect us. But they came up with a bright idea. We could use our
14-digit MCI Card code instead of our old 5-digit code. "It's just as easy to
remember," they said.

Clearly, they have the right to phase out their services and replace them with
less desirable ones. But once again, it's the way in which they did it. MCI
jumped at the first opportunity to take away our old code instead of being up
front and letting their customers know that as of a certain date this service
would be terminated. Being sneaky about it doesn't do anyone any good.

The Real Scam

We've saved the best for last. When we discovered that MCI had selected
themselves as our long distance carriers, we decided to experiment a little.
One of our experiments involved trying to make an operator assisted call
("zero plus") on an MCI line. MCI doesn't offer operator assisted services. So
we were curious as to what would happen when we tried to do this.

What happened was a big surprise. We got the same little fading dial tone that
we got on AT&T -- in other words, the prompt to enter our AT&T calling card
number. We entered the card number and were astounded to hear a recording say,
"Thank you for using NTS."

NTS? Who the hell were THEY?! And what were they doing accepting AT&T calling
card numbers on MCI lines?

We'll skip all of the drama and simply tell you what we found out. NTS is an
Alternate Operator Service (AOS) company. They handle calls from hotel rooms
and privately owned payphones. Their rates are often double those of AT&T. And
it seems that in various parts of the country, MCI has a clandestine
relationship with these people. We say clandestine because we're in the habit
of reading all of the literature from every phone company that serves our
area. And nowhere has this little "service" been mentioned. We have yet to
find anyone in MCI who is even aware of this arrangement. On the other hand,
NTS (based in Rockville, Maryland) is quite proud of the MCI connection. All
of the NTS operators (who can trick anyone into believing they're really from
AT&T) are aware that they provide service for MCI "zero plus" customers.

Why does MCI use an AOS? We can't imagine. But we can tell you the effects. If
you decide to call someone collect from your phone and MCI happens to be your
long distance carrier, the person who accepts on the other end will wind up
with one hell of a surprise when they get the bill. You'll be the one getting
the surprise if you forget that MCI doesn't have operators and you attempt to
place an operator-assisted or calling card call through them. The most likely
scenario, though, would be something like this: you visit a friend and need to
make a phone call from his house. Since you don't want to make your friend
pay, you dial it "zero plus" and bill it to your calling card. How are you to
know that your friend selected MCI as his long distance carrier and that
you've just been swindled by an AOS? Perhaps MCI's new slogan can be: "We
bring the thrill of hotel phones right into your own home!"

Now we should point out that this "NTS Connection" doesn't work everywhere. In
some areas you get recordings when you try to make "zero plus" calls using
MCI. We need to know where it does work. You can find out at no charge by
dialing 10222-0 followed by a ten digit phone number (you can use your own).
If you hear a fading dial tone, it means you're about to be connected to NTS.
You can stay on and ask a whole lot of questions if you want. Let us know if
it works in your area. (You can do the above even if MCI isn't your primary
carrier -- the 10222 routes the call to MCI. You must have equal access in
your area in order to try this.)

There's really not much more to add. We are demanding a public statement from
MCI addressing the issues of signing up unsuspecting consumers and billing
their own customers exhorbitant rates for operator-assisted calls without
telling them. We don't expect to ever get such a statement.

Several years ago, we printed a story about MCI's electronic mail system, MCI
Mail, which had a policy of terminating accounts that had received mail not to
MCI's liking. We called it a flagrant invasion of privacy to peruse the mail
of their own paying subscribers. The president of MCI indicated that he
couldn't care less.

So all we can say right now is that it would be a very good idea to boycott MCI
for all of the above reasons. A company that resorts to such devious methods
of making money and that treats its customers so shabbily is not worthy of the
historical significance its founders achieved.

We would appreciate it if this article was spread around in whatever ways
possible.

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


From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 2 Feb 89 09:35
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Moderator's gratuitous Greene-bashing


Time to set flame on.

>From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Don't blame Judge Greene

>Peter Pavlvcik complains about ITI providing misleading information regarding
>pay telephone charges and service and the Moderator suggests Peter write to
>Judge Greene.  Don't waste your time.  The outrageous charges are the result
of policy decisions taken by the FCC prior to divestiture (e.g. deregulating
>resale).  If you want to complain to anyone, it should be to the FCC or to the
>local PUC.  I note that ITI has been banned from operating in Ohio by the Ohio
>PUC because of the type of misleading practices Peter describes.

Marvin knows what he's talking about!

Unfortunately, a young whippersnapper who has nicely volunteered to
moderate this newsgroup has totally confused cause & effect with the
following gratuitous bash at his Honor, Judge Harold Greene:

>[Moderator's Note: But it was Harold who opened the door to this kind of
>abuse. Certainly the FCC played a role in it; but everyone, including the
>FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene.  PT]

Let's get the facts straight.

The FCC ordered AT&T to remove its tariff prohibition against sharing
and resale in the late 1970s.  This led to the immediate elimination
of Full Business Day WATS and (with some struggle) Telpak.

The Department of Justice sued AT&T for antitrust violations in the
1950s.  A 1956 Consent Decree forced Western Electric out of commercial
markets but left the "Bell System" monopoly intact.  AT&T was not happy
with this as they wanted to sell 3B computers, etc.

The DOJ reopened the AT&T case in the late 1970s because AT&T was
still displaying questionable behavior vis a vis antitrust law.  The
Reagan administration, ideologically motivated, allowed AT&T to
put on its "Bre'r Rabbit" hat and dictate the terms of its being thrown
into the briar patch.  AT&T got rid of the marginally-profitable (then)
BOCs and was freed to sell all the 3Bs they could.  (Turns out the briar
patch was pretty dead, but that's justice.)

Judge Greene changed the agreement to make it better for consumers.
He allowed the BOCs to keep yellow pages.  He allowed the BOCs to sell
equipment.  He made sure that the BOCs and consumers had a fighting
chance.

The BOCs were allowed to perform billing on behalf of long distance
carriers, as they had done all along for their previous-parent, AT&T.
In fairness, any LD carrier could pay for billing service.

The FCC and NOT the Judge permitted totally unregulated resale.  The
FCC authorized AOSs.  The FCC authorized COCOTs.  Since COCOTS could
use AOSs, and anybody could pay the Bells to bill (this was meant for
MCI et al), unregulated AOSs put obscene charges on your phone bills.

Some states prohibit BOCs from putting bills for unauthorized vendors
on their bills.  Complain to your state DPU/PUC/whatever.  The FCC
should put a stop to it, but they won't so long as the current regime
is in control and there's no pressure.

The Judge is the only defense we have.  STOP BASHING HIM!
        fred

(I speak for me.)


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

To: [e-mail]
From: claris![e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Equal Access?? My foot!!
Date: 3 Feb 89 02:30:39 GMT



... posters tale of trying to get the AT&T operator deleted

>(i.e. 01-288) did not work either. So I asked the ITI
>
>        Peter Pavlovcik,
>        att!iexist!peter
>

Peter,

Next time, please try 10288 rather than 01288.
                    -edg
--
{decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg    Ed Greenberg
    -or-                        3Com Corporation
{sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg                Mountain View, CA
                            415-694-2952

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sat Feb  4 01:37:59 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA17812; Sat, 4 Feb 89 01:37:59 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89  1:05:16 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #46
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Feb 89  1:05:16 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:

              Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
              Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
              Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit

[Moderator's Note: The phone numbers to call for information/signup at
Starlink are (voice) 804-495-4693 and (modem 3/12/24) 804-495-INFO. In
case you missed the earlier message in the Digest on Monday, 1-31-89,
Starlink brokers Tymnet circuits with a program much like PC Pursuit.
Their rates are $10 per month plus $1.50 per hour or $25 per month plus
$1.00 per hour. It seems to be a good bargain for the very casual (less
than 13 hours per month) user.  P Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
Date: Thu,  2-Feb-89 19:05:29 PST


Patrick Townson commented on Nia Bennett's comparison of Starlink and PCP:

B> You can precede the number to be dialed with a "1" and call any BBS in that
B> area code.  You will be billed for the long distance call from the outdial
B> port to the host computer at the local phone company's rates.

Is the 1 needed for Starlink or is Ms. Bennett thinking of how things work
in area code 804, where telcos require it for non-local intra-NPA calls?

B> Outdial Host Numbers Sorted by Time Zone, State,

They still copy Tymnet Information's error in placing Detroit in the Central
Zone.  I've pointed that out to Nia.

B> California
B>    Alhambra         9204          818 m
B>    Anaheim          9184          714
B>    Colton, CA       ----          714           D/CACOL/3/12/24
B>    El Segundo       9203          203 m
B>    Glendale, CA     ----          818           D/CAGLE/12
B>    Long Beach       9205          213 m
B>    Los Angeles, CA  ----          213           D/CALAN/3/12/24
B>    Newport Beach    9184          714
B>    Oakland          8963          415           D/CAOAK/3/12/24
B>    Palo Alto, CA    ----          415           D/CAPAL/12
B>    Pasadena         9204          818 m
B>    Pleasanton       9202          415 m
B>    Sacramento       9179          916           D/CASAC/3/12/24
B>    San Diego, CA    ----          619           D/CASDI/3/12/24
B>    San Francisco    9533          415           D/CASFA/3/12/24
B>    San Jose         6450          408           D/CASJO/12
B>    Santa Ana, CA    ----          714           D/CASAN/12
B>    Sherman Oaks     9206          818 m
B>    Vernon           3173          213
B>    Walnut Creek     9202          415 m

The California list seems to show a lot of gaps for Starlink, but notice
that the Vernon and El Segundo outdialers cover the territory of CALAN;
that Alhambra/Pasadena and Sherman Oaks cover that of CAGLE; that Anaheim and
Newport Beach cover that of CACOL and CASAN; that CAPAL's territory is
reachable from the Walnut Creek Tymnet outdialer.

There are, to my knowledge, only four PCP cities not covered by Tymnet's
outdialers: NCRTP, UTSLC, ORPOR, and CASDI.

T> However, Starlink allows calls to Canada and the UK, something Telenet
T> absolutely forbids.

Starlink allows calls *from* Canada via Tymnet Canada's indials and *from*
the UK via Mercury's indials.  They also take calls from ConnNet indials
to Tymnet, so they are a local call everywhere in Connecticut.

Nia has told me that a Starlink account can access any domestic DAF connected
to Tymnet (though you may get a separate billing from the DAF provider).  I
don't know whether international addresses are surcharged or locked out.

T> My understanding is that the $10 per month or $25 per month fee, which
T> allows purchase of Starlink at $1.50 per hour or $1.00 per hour respectively
T> also gives you a certain amount of free time on their own system. Of
T> course, you have to use Starlink to call them, and pay for the Starlink
T> time.

Galaxy BBS charges $2 per hour, but the first two hours each month are free
for Starlink customers.  Their explanation is that two hours is an allowance
for Starlink customers to check their current billing and keep up with news
and announcements.  PCP gives no way to check on running usage.

Another point Starlink advertises is that they can get you a new password
in fifteen minutes. (It would be better yet if Starlink account holders could
log into Galaxy BBS and change their own passwords, but it's still an
improvement over PCP, except that PCP staffers frequently bend the rules and
give you a new password, for better or worse, over the phone.)

T> Finally, Starlink allows the placement of calls via an outdial modem to
T> a point outside the local calling zone. Telenet does not. With some clever
T> planning, you can use a nearby outdial to call anywhere. Starlink told me
T> the surcharge for this would be 110% of telco.

100% or 110%?  There is a discrepancy here.  At any rate, *Tymnet*, not
Starlink, appears to restrict these to calls within the area code, since
Tymnet Information's description of the outdial service states that you must
use an outidaler in the same area code as the number you want to reach.

[e-mail]   ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin

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

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 23:27:19 EST
From: David A. Kingsland <kings@utflis>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit


I would take exception to the moderators comment about "Starlink
allowing calls to Canada and the United Kingdom"  Tymnet (and so
Starlink) allows calls *FROM* Canada and the UK *TO* anywhere in
the 48 states.  We have not implemented the outdial service here
in Canada because there hasn't been enough demand.
------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 01:00:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit



Both Mssrs. Tamkin and Kingsland pointed out something which I missed in
my initial, admittedly quick evaluation of Starlink: International calls
can be made *from* the UK and Canada, not *to* those countries.

Tamkin asks for clarification on the surcharges for calls made from the
Tymnet outdialers: Several months ago I made a call to Tymnet when I was
considering signing up with them. At that time, their sales representative
discussed the use of the outdialers with me, and quoted me the 110% of
telco rate. He said I would pay for the phone call, and a 'surcharge' for
the billing and extra record keeping which had to be done.

When I was in chat last Sunday morning with the fellow at Starlink, we
discussed the outdialers, and he said Starlink customers would be billed
for any phone calls made from the outdialers outside the local calling
area. I briefly mentioned to him my conversation of several months earlier
and the 110 percent quote from Tymnet, and if I am not mistaken, he
responded by saying, 'Tymnet may put some small surcharge on the phone
call'. Using that as my authority, and remembering the earlier comments
of the Tymnet representative, I beleive the effective charge will be
110 percent, that is, unless Starlink has some other arrangement with Tymnet
on this point allowing phone calls to be handled at no extra surcharge
above the cost of the call itself.

A problem I see with the use of the outdialers to make extended area calls
is that only on rare occassions is an intra-state call going to be less
expensive than an interstate one. That is, a call from San Jose to a
nearby (but considered long distance) town in California will easily cost
me the same thirteen cents per minute that calling from Chicago via Reach
Out would cost. And, I would be paying for the Tymnet circuit also. I think at
the very least you could expect charges of 10-15 cents per minute on any
intra-state call. My reaction is that this 'feature' of Tymnet's service
is not particularly valuable, considering how inexpensive long haul interstate
calls have become at night.

The $10 minimum fee per month on Starlink is attractive for persons who use
this type of thing no more than 12-13 hours per month. As I pointed out in
my previous message, 60 hours on PC Pursuit is $60; the same 60 hours on
Starlink is either $85 or $100, depending on the package you choose. If
international calls outbound from the States were allowed -- apologies for
my earlier misreading of this! -- then Starlink's 'pay per hour for what you
use' plan would be valuable, since Telenet does not offer international
calls to PC'ers regardless of what we are willing to pay. To access my
mailbox on West Germany's [Tele-Box Mail Service], I now dial direct via
AT&T. Likewise, for my occassional visits on Mercury, I dial direct to the
UK. Too bad neither Telenet nor Tymnet will market this service; they certainly
have the circuits available.

Without the international access to UK and Canada, Starlink actually becomes
less valuable to me, and as I said earlier, dialing an intra-state call
from an outdialer is not where one will find any savings.

I'm still waiting for my package to show up from Starlink (it has been a week),
and when it arrives I will sign up, but probably confine my usage to the
places not served by Telenet.

Again, those phone numbers to call for more information or to signup:
Voice 804-495-4693   Modem 804-495-INFO

They bill to various credit cards, and they also offer a 'check-free' option.
The fellow I spoke with last Sunday was most cordial, and spent  about an
hour in chat with me, discussing Starlink.

Patrick Townson

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Feb  5 00:12:08 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA02848; Sun, 5 Feb 89 00:12:08 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:03:11 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #47
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:03:11 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:

         FCC Report:  Cable/Telco competition, Gateway trials
                   AT&T Rate Cap Decision Postponed
                       Re: Nuisance phone calls
                     Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 11:46:40 PST
From: harvard!ames!well!rh (Robert Horvitz)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: FCC Report:  Cable/Telco competition, Gateway trials



FCC Commissioner Patricia Diaz-Dennis charmed about 100
Washington lawyers, reporters, trade association representatives
and consumer activists at a "brown bag lunch" Thursday (2 Feb) as
she argued that the American public would benefit from
competition between cable-TV and telephone companies in the
development of broadband services.  She may not have changed
many minds, though, because fundamental questions about how such
competition would be structured were left unanswered.

At least initially, "video services are the most promising area
of competition" between cable and telcos, the Commissioner
asserted.  "For consumers, the promised land would be video on
demand" - no need to rent tapes or wait for the network to
schedule a particular program.  One-way broadband delivery
coupled with 2-way narrowband signalling thus might be the way
such systems would start off.  But Ms. Diaz-Dennis wouldn't
predict the kinds of services that might prove popular later on.

The FCC should encourage cable systems to experiment with optical
fiber, she said, to start validating the predictions made by
the industry in numerous filings at the Commission.  On the other
hand, telcos shouldn't be allowed to enter the broadband service
field simply by buying existing cable systems, she cautioned.
She favors requiring telcos to build new systems from
scratch.  She also felt that telcos entering the broadband field
should be required to operate as common carriers, and to the
extent that broadband services are unregulated, the system costs
should not be added to the phone system rate-base.

During the question period following her presentation, Gene
Kimmelman, head of the Consumer Federation of America, asked
if cable TV companies offering competing broadband services would
likewise have to act as common carriers.  Ms. Diaz-Dennis said
she'd reached no conclusion on that yet, but recognized it
would be a big change in the way cable systems operate.  Would
prices for broadband services be regulated or set by
competition?  Would they be allowed to subsidize - or be
subsidized by - other communications services?  Would channels
have to be set aside for community organizations and free public
access, as most cable franchises now require?  What about the
impact on over-the-air broadcasting and FCC spectrum allocation
decisions generally?  These questions were addressed -
inconclusively.  They are, of course, difficult ones, with no
clear consensus yet on the proper answers.  We'll just have to
wait for the results of the Commission's current inquiry on
telco entry into the field of cable.

In other FCC news, NYNEX has petitioned for a ruling on whether
the company's proposed gateway, "INFO-LOOK," can be considered as
a "basic service."  NYNEX had listed it as such in its Open
Network Architecture plan last winter, and recently tested it
successfully in Vermont.  The NYNEX petition, filed on 17 January
1989, argues that INFO-LOOK is different from other proposed
gateways, (which are generally considered "enhanced" rather than
"basic" services), and is more analogous to existing "basic"
network services such as directory assistance.  Should the
Commission not rule on this issue, NYNEX asks permission to
conduct a 3-year trial of its "basic gateway" anyway.

Finally, the Commission approved a waiver request by Southwestern
Bell, to allow market trials of enhanced voice and data gateway
services in Houston, Texas for approximately one year starting 1
March 89.  The Commission added that other Bell regionals can
conduct similar trials in their service areas if they meet these
conditions:  the trial lasts less than 8 months;  costs are
allocated according to the approved Cost Allocation Manuals;  end
users must be informed that prices and services available during
the trial may not be available later on;  competing enhanced
service providers (ESPs) must receive equal access at equivalent
prices for all basic services used in the trial;  ESPs are
informed of the trial's start at least 90 days in advance;  and
CPNI and network disclosure rules must be observed.  The Bell
companies must also notify the Commission 90 days before
commencing a trial, describing the service and how the above
conditions will be met.  For more information, see "Memorandum
Opinion and Order," CC Docket No. 88-616, released 30 January 1989.


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

Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 23:35:44 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Rate Cap Decision Postponed


A decision by the Federal Communications Commission on a rate-cap method of
pricing for AT&T long distance services had been scheduled for last week,
but after getting pressured by a few congressmen, Commissioner Dennis R.
Fitzpatrick has decided to defer action on the proposed changes for at least
two months.

Since the early 1960's, the government has allowed AT&T a certain profit
beyond its costs. The FCC had proposed replacing this 'rate of return'
regulation with one which would place absolute ceilings on the cost of calls
via AT&T. The new plan would have also been used by the seven Bell companies
as well. Under the new plan, AT&T and the Bells would have been allowed to
raise or lower their rates at will. Raises would have been limited to an
amount 3 percent less than annual inflation. In return, the companies would
have been allowed to keep any internal cost-cutting as profit.

The FCC believes that this plan will encourage greater efficiency and
innovation in the telephone industry. Other carriers besides AT&T/Bell would
be invited to set their rates by the same formula, and the Commission
believes that if all the carriers opted for this method, the savings to the
customers would be about $1.6 billion over four years.

AT&T had been strongly hoping for a decision one way or the other this past
week. In a press release, they expressed their disappointment and frustration
at Dennis Patrick's latest decision to wait at least until March before
ruling. Patrick admitted earlier this week he had been approached by 'some'
members of Congress and strongly urged to defer any decision on changes.

Now why do you suppose 'some' members of Congress would feel so strongly
against the plan?  Perhaps some of you can tell me.

Sign me a curious young whippersnapper,

Patrick Townson

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Gary Delong)
Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls
Date: 31 Jan 89 16:16:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Godfrey Lee) writes:
> >>I believe the time has come to do something about nuisance phone calls.
> >I found after I installed an answering machine, that junk callers
> >usually hang up when they realize they got an answering
> >machine.
>
> Problem is that there are more and more automated phone solicitations. With
> these you don't get the satisfaction of hanging up on them, and if you have
> an answering machine, you get junk filling up your tape!
>
> I do sense some consumer rebellion on this though, I got a few of them about
> a year ago, but lately have gotten none, what is the situation in the rest
> of Canada and in the U.S.?

I too think it's time to do something about unsolicited calls from both
machines and humans.  I firmly believe that "blind calls" should be
prohibited.

How about a statute that would prohibit anyone from using the phone to
solicit business, contributions, or any other support from anyone unless
the person or organization being called was either a) presently doing
business with the caller or b) had shown positive interest in the caller's
organization within the last six months.

I know that this is really very wishfull thinking, but wouldn't it be nice?

Presently I respond to automated solicitations in one of two ways.

 1) Since most of the machines use a VOX to control the recording of
    the victim's responses, I let them listen to a local radio talk
    show until their system times out.

 2) I leave EXTREMLY obscene messages  for whoever gets to transcribe
    the victim's responses for followup.  Such messages usually suggest
    unique things that they might attempt with their automated equipment.

I've even thought about renting some of this equipment and having it call
all the state legislators' work and home numbers repetitively until they
get the message.

Any other ideas?

--
  _____
 /  \    /   Gary A. Delong, N1BIP        [e-mail]
 |   \  /    COMPUTERVISION Division          {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong
 \____\/     Prime Computer, Inc.        [phone] x 261


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

To: rutgers![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ed Ravin)
Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers
Date: 4 Feb 89 05:38:42 GMT


Numerous messages have been posted to TELECOM about what happens when by
coincidence misprinted, mis-announced or common dialing errors produce
telephone numbers that arrive at some undeserving victim's home instead.

One thing I didn't see posted was what happens when someone calls a BBS and
say  "Hey, man, great new board at 123-4567.  Call it now!" and mistypes a
few digits in the process.  Whoever lives at the wrong number gets a
mountain of modem calls, usually at 3 AM or whenever the BBS junkies are
awake.

Alas, there is a malicious variation of this, where someone posts a number
and claims it is a new BBS when it is really the home phone of someone they
want to harass.  This happened in New York several years ago by a fellow
nicknamed "the wimp" who had a hobby of trying to crash BBS's and harass
sysops.  The most diabolical twist was a message he posted one day under a
false name that said "New hacking/phreaking bbs!  Call 123-4567.  First
twenty callers get a working CompuServe account".  The number posted was
the home phone of a sysop this guy didn't like.  Responsible sysops do not
let messages from unknowns get posted without validation, and usually call
the proposed number to see if it is really a bbs before allowing it to be
visible to the users, but not all bbs's are so responsible.

--
Ed Ravin                  | cucard!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing
(BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| [e-mail]   | to waste-- boycott TV!"
--------------------------+----------------------+-----------------------------
Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article.

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Feb  5 00:56:50 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA06153; Sun, 5 Feb 89 00:56:50 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89  0:30:48 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #48
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Feb 89  0:30:48 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:

                 numbers in use but not recognized yet
                   modems over cellular connections
                         the "$11 yuppie plan"
                          1199 in connecticut
                                curious
                             timeout on 0+
                              1+Area Code
                         Ringback as intercom
                               Starlink
                     Re: More Thoughts on Starlink
                      Large coins and cheap calls
                            Re: USA-Direct

[Moderator's Note: I call this issue 'cleaning out the mbox' because I
have deliberatly gone through the mailque and selected *lots* of short
items which had been waiting for processing. In doing so, I've cut the
TELECOM Digest mail backlog down and given you a very wide range of
subject matter in this issue. For next: A little later today you will
receive a special mailing from me. It will not be under the TELECOM
Digest banner for reasons which will be apparent when you recieve it. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 3 Feb 89 10:36:13 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  numbers in use but not recognized yet


A reader previously wrote of being in a new area code (508 in Massachusetts)
and learning that some people in distant areas could not yet call 508 area.

This apparently also happens with prefixes.  Once in Maryland before 0+number
went away, I attempted to dial 0-850-xxxx and it got rejected; 850 was a
rather new prefix in the Baltimore-Washington Int'l airport area.  And
someone else in Maryland could not call 202-994 prefix (long-distance, to
DC).  (I.e. both calls required help from a human operator.)
Was there a similar experience with people on N0X/N1X prefixes?  (I.e. some
people in distant areas had calls to such prefixes rejected by their local
equipment?)

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

Date:  Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:12:59 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: modems over cellular connections


I would advise against using modems on Cellular phones. The "unpredictable
brief drops in audio" are the cells switching off (which can sometimess happen
when you are stationary).

There was alot of push in the early days about cellular computer technology,
but right now it is alot of wind.

If you do want to try the modem, make damn sure you can return it if it
doesn't work.

--jsol

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

Date:  Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:14:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: the "$11 yuppie plan"


That doesn't count usage.

My "yuppie plan" costs $0.00/month, and $0.65/minute for usage.

Needless to say if you use it alot it can get very expensive.

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

Date:  Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:18:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 1199 in connecticut


On Step-by-Step exchanges in CT, 119X was the ringback (you got
different rings depending on which digit you dialed last. 1192 gave
you continuous ring, for example).

On ESS and crossbar it was something else, I believe 99X-XXXX where
XXXX was the last 4 digits of your number, and the X in 99X was an
arbitrary check digit on a per prefix basis.

My best friend had the best of me for years. He lived in Bethany which
was crossbar, and all I had was step. Then we moved to Hamden and I got
my very first ESS line (it was a #1ESS). CT has a package named Totalphone,
which is speed-calling 8, call waiting, call forwarding, and 3-way calling.
I won the feature-game with that one (smile).

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

Date:  Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:21:19 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: curious


If people are so sure that 1+number is going away, can they explain how
Step switches will handle that?

I believe that the 355A Step machines in Central and Western Mass aren't
being replaced anytime soon, so this is a real question.

We just had an area code split here 617/508, so I'll bet 1+number will go
away in 617 but that's because all the switches are electronic (or crossbar).

I believe the 355A step machines will have equal access too, but that won't
require modification to the machine, only an interface to the toll switch.

--jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon, a/k/a jsol, was formerly Moderator of [TELECOM
Digest], and the founder of this journal in 1981.]

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

Date:     Fri, 3 Feb 89 12:46:02 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  timeout on 0+


On direct-dial, you apparently NEVER depend on timeout.
But on some cases of 0+, you do:

0 by itself will time out and call your local operator.
I noticed 0+number in use, according to the phone book, in 213
area after introduction of N0X/N1X prefixes and before the 213/818
split; only the timeout distinguished between, say, 0-413-xxxx
and 0-413-xxx-xxxx (this was just about my very first note to
Telecom!), and this is still in use, right?

The 2nd area to get N0X/N1X prefixes was New York City (then all in
212), and in late 1980 I noticed that 0+ within 212 now required
0+212+number (area code 212 was printed on the instruction card for
this).  The explanation received via Telecom was that some of the
New York equipment couldn't handle the 0-xxx-xxxx stuff via timeout,
so the area code requirement was put in for areacode-wide uniformity.

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

Date: 3 Feb 89 10:52:17 PST (Friday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 1+Area Code
To: [e-mail]


On a local radio news report about the upcomming addition of 1+area code to
ac 415, the reoprter said that this leaves area code 408  (southern part of
San Francisco pennsula +) the only area in the US that does NOT require
1+area code.  Is this correct?

Bob Swenson
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David A. Cantor)
Date: 3 Feb 89 23:43
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Ringback as intercom


In Vol 9 Iss 38, James Harvey ([e-mail]), referring to ringback
codes, writes:

>...More frequently, people use the ringback numbers as an intercom, (call
>ringback, wait till somebody upstairs picks up extension, talk).

In the bad old days (mid-50s, Everett, Mass.), I recall the phone book
had a paragraph which said to call the business office for
instructions for calling another party sharing your party line.   I
had a friend who had a party line, and did just that.  Guess what code
they gave him.  Ringback (911-wait for tone-6-hang up).   (That's how I
learned about the ringback code and how I got interested in this sort
of thing.)

Years later, when moving from one part of Arlington to another, I had
"duplicate service" (same phone number at two addresses
simultaneously) for a few days.  I talked the phone company
representative into giving me the code I could dial so that I could
speak to a roommate at the other residence.  They gave me the ringback
code and asked me not to use it except for the purpose of calling
someone at the other residence.

Dave C.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 21:51:16 HST
From: kahuna![e-mail] (Mike Newton)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Starlink



Starlink claims one small advantage over PCP for a small population --
PCP refused to allow calls from Hawaii, while Starlink claims they do.

Starlink, however, did not serve the city i was interested in, so Reach
Out America is still the cheapest for me.

- mike

([e-mail]   CSO Observatory, Hilo Hawaii    808 935 1909)

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

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: van-bc![e-mail] (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: More Thoughts on Starlink
Date: 3 Feb 89 18:01:01 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>I'd like to hear the experiences of some of you who subscribe to Starlink
>after a month or so of using it. They also claim their 'throughput' is
>much faster than Telenet, meaning you would probably spend less time on line
>each day. Who knows, maybe you could get done in 12 hours what formerly took
>30 hours on PCP?

I havn't used either in the past few years, but Tymnet used to have a
reputation for pumping data a bit more efficently than Telenet.

As I remember Tyment is *not* an X.25 network internally.

Does anyone out there have some uptodate info?


--
[e-mail] {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Date:     Sat, 4 Feb 89 02:53:45 EST
Subject: Large coins and cheap calls


> * - In Germany, if you use a large coin to make a cheap call, there's a
> button on the phone you can push, put in the actual amount the call cost,
> and get your large coin back.  Only in Germany do they expect people to
> understand that.

The newer coin phones in Britain, which in the cities means most of them,
also have this feature.  However its use in this way is not documented;
you have to figure it out.  Is this a case of expecting people to understand
it, or expecting people not to understand it?

(The button is marked "follow-on call" and the documentation says it is
to let you make an additional call or calls on the same deposit of money.
However, it is also noted that when you hang up you get back the largest
amount of your unused money that can be made from the coins you deposited,
and that you can add additional coins at any time.  Hence, the button can
be used in the manner described for the German phones.)

Of course, this is never a problem in either the US or Canada, because
in neither country do the phones take coins above 25 cents ... not even
now that we have a circulating $1 coin in Canada.

(Well, no phones that I've ever seen, anyway.)

Mark Brader            "'You wanted it to WORK?  That costs EXTRA!'
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         is probably the second-place security hole
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]     after simple carelessness."    -- John Woods

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

To: [e-mail]
From: decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa![e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: USA-Direct
Date: 4 Feb 89 01:11:54 GMT



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Gast) writes:
> Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra
> charge' is just marketing hype.  They set the rates and then
> they say there is no *EXTRA* charge.

I think what they mean is that you _know_ what the rate will be.  You
don't have to worry about any local surcharges.


> I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle.  If you
> have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither.

I have found it to be wonderful, especially when I did not know my AT&T
International Calling Card number.  If you call collect or
person-to-person, you can leave a easily leave a message.  Foreign
operators may know phone lingo, but try conveying a message.  You can
use your regular Calling Card number.  And, as previously mentioned,
you can check the quality of connection before proceeding (this was
often necessary when calling from Australia).  And then, sometimes it's
just nice to speak fluent English to someone (we're not talking
Australia here).
--
Jim G.        E-Mail: <[e-mail]>  or  <[e-mail]>
^^^^^^    V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Feb  5 02:43:24 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA13207; Sun, 5 Feb 89 02:43:24 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89  1:36:44 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Special Announcement
To: [e-mail]


Special Announcement      Sun, 5 Feb 89  1:36:44 EST    Telebit Modems

Today's Topics:

                 Re: Telebit Solution to Rate Increase

[Moderator's Note: I tossed around what to do with this item for quite
awhile, and decided even though it is basically advertising for Telebit
Modems, it is something readers should be aware of. Its size would
have required an entire Digest, something I was unwilling to give it
when you consider the commmercial nature of the product. Many of you
may have not known that Telebit has restarted its offer to sysops and
will find the message which follows to be important.

I specifically did not number this mailing, so that if you consider it
the essence of 'junk mail' you can stop reading now and pitch it out,
without having a missing issue of the Digest. If you want to keep this
for further reference, then you can do that also. I am passing along the
message I received from Mr. Lawrence intact. I -- and I assume Mr.
Lawrence -- have no financial interest in the product. This special
mailing is simply FYI. If you already know about it, then pitch this.
Patrick Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 1:40:24 CST
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telebit Solution to Rate Increase
From: wpg![e-mail] (Russell Lawrence)


I received the following (long-delayed) announcement from Telebit
several days ago.

In view of the PCP rate increase, I had to take a long hard look at the
projected news feed costs at my site and have decided that a TB+ modem
will pay for itself in a few months...  especially at half price.  For
anyone who's serious about the news, this new Telebit promotion should
take most of the sting out of the PCP rate increase.
--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans [phone]
{uunet,killer}!wpg!russ


==============================================================================
    Telebit Corporation           Revision 1.00                  01 JAN 1989
==============================================================================

/*******     TELEBIT/UUNET INTERNET DOMAIN NAME DISCOUNT PROGRAM     ********/
                                   (IDNDP)

The Telebit Corporation, in conjunction with UUNET Communications
Services, is offering a special 50% promotional discount off the list
price of TrailBlazer Plus modems to qualified organizations using
Internet domain names.  Networks like Usenet and BITNET where domain
names may not be the precise addressing scheme may also qualify.

Telebit has demonstrated its commitment to the UNIX marketplace with
its specific support for the UUCP protocol and the support of
TrailBlazer modems on the USENET.  This announcement signals Telebit's
extended support for the use of its products in dialup TCP/IP
environments.

UUNET Communications Services will be assisting Telebit with the
program's administration as well as the distribution of dialup TCP/IP
software.

/***********************
*  WHO CAN PARTICIPATE?
***********************/

Any autonomous organization legitimately participating on the Internet
by use of Internet domain names can qualify.  The organization must be
physically located within the 50 United States or Canada.  One or two
Telebit TrailBlazer Plus modems may be purchased at a 45% or 50%
discount off the US or Canadian list price.  Discount levels are
determined by payment method and will be explained below.

PTT restrictions and distribution contracts prohibit Telebit from
directly selling modems outside the United States.  Telebit
Technologies of Canada, has agreed to extend the terms of the Internet
discount program to all Canadian sites.  Other international users are
encouraged to contact Telebit Inc. for local distributor information.
A similar program may be offered through local distribution on a per
country, per demand basis.

For the sake of this program, Internet participation will be defined
by an organization's participation in the Domain Name Service.  Any
organization with a registered domain name advertised by a network
name server will be immediately qualified to purchase a total of two
Telebit TrailBlazer Pluses.

In addition all UUNET members immediately qualify to purchase modems
as long as they have not previously purchased 2 modems on the Telebit
Usenet Discount Program.

Autonomous organizations residing as third level sub-domains, nodes or
some other form of demarcation not directly reachable via an Internet
Domain Name Server may also qualify for the program by demonstrating
on their applications the nature of their autonomy and their
relationship to a second level domain reachable via a domain name
server.



                                      [2]

/*************
* For example:
**************/

A large university may list a single second level domain (foou.edu) as
the only way to reach all campus machines.  However, within that
campus domain there potentially exist multiple autonomous
organizations, i.e. College of Computer Science (cs.foou.edu), Dept.
of Engineering (eng.foou.edu), Department of Foo (foo.foou.edu), etc.

In the case of a very large company with internal, autonomous
divisions, each could qualify under the program rules.  However, it
must be shown that the division operates as a completely separate
entity.  For instance, the Chevrolet and Pontiac divisions of General
Motors, (chevrolet.gm.com, pontiac.gm.com).

Two pseudo domains exist on the Internet that do not fit exactly into
the Domain Name structure.  They are Usenet (UUCP) and BITNET.

In the case of BITNET, individual node sites that constitute an
autonomous organization would qualify under the program.

In the case of Usenet, organizations that HAVE NOT previously
purchased 2 modems on the Telebit Usenet Discount Program may qualify
by reporting their existing domain name or by registering a domain
name for their site.  UUNET provides a low, fee based service for the
the registration of a domain name.  If you are a UUCP site without a
domain name and would prefer registration be taken care of for you,
contact UUNET at the below addresses.

The program is designed as a promotion. This allows individual
organizations an opportunity to experience Telebit's TrailBlazer Plus
high speed modems at an attractive price.  It is not designed as a
mechanism to fulfill an organization's entire modem requirements.

If your organization resides as a third or lower level domain and
gains access to the Internet indirectly via a higher level
organization you must supply the nature of your organization's
autonomy and describe the relationship to that higher level domain.

A brief explanation of your organization's autonomous relationship to
a second level domain should suffice.  Telebit reserves the right to
validate each application using the criteria described herein,
granting or refusing sale accordingly.  A total limit of four (4)
modems per second level domain may be enforced if it is deemed by
Telebit that all autonomous organizations within that domain have been
satisfied.



                                      [3]

/******************************
*  THE TELEBIT TRAILBLAZER PLUS
*******************************/

The Telebit TrailBlazer is the most advanced dialup communications
technology on the market today.  TrailBlazer offers compatibility at
300, 1200 (V.22 and Bell 212), and 2400 bps.  In high speed (PEP
mode), the TrailBlazer can operate at 18,000 bps on ordinary dialup
phone lines, (over 16,000 bps throughput).  TrailBlazer's patented
multicarrier technology dynamically adapts to phone line quality and
delivers the highest throughput possible for each individual line.  In
August 1987, Telebit announced enhanced features that are designed to
allow the TrailBlazer to work optimally with UUCP, Kermit, XMODEM, and
YMODEM protocols.

In addition, the modem may be configured, by use of an S register, to
perform the compress/decompress algorithms (based on Unix's 4.0
compress) in real time, WITHIN the modem.

/************************
*  Standard Dialup TCP/IP
*************************/

With the release of Berkeley 4.3, a framing protocol known as Serial
Line Internet Protocol (SLIP) has spread throughout the Internet.
Several System V, VMS, MAC and PC vendors have picked up on the
protocol and are supporting it as well.  The protocol is documented in
RFC 1055.

Basically the protocol specifies a method for framing IP packets with
a magic character and escaping that character and the escape character
in the data stream.  The protocol does not address issues of
connection establishment, host authenticity, or things like data
integrity or data compression techniques.

However, execution of SLIP across high speed dialup modem links has
proven very useful to a number of IP users.  FTPs can deliver
1000-1600 characters per second (cps).  Performance depends on your
system and the version of TCP that you are running.  SMTP runs quite
well.  Interactive applications, telnet and rlogin, perform with
noticable character delay, the result of very large packet sizes
associated with each character typed.

/*******************
* New Dial Up TCP/IP
********************/

The good news accompanying this announcement is about the recent work
to produce a new dialup IP protocol that employs header prediction and
compression techniques.  This code dramatically reduces the packet
overhead associated with small, interactive packets like those
produced by telnet or rlogin.

At the time of Release 1.0 of this document the public availability of
this new code is undefined.  However, it is the intention of Telebit
and UUNET to make available all known working versions of standard
SLIP.  In addition it is our intention to demonstrate and serve to
distribute all new dial-up IP source code as soon as it becomes
available.

Further we will provide documentation and installation instructions
for all versions that we distribute.  Please mail to Telebit or UUNET
as instructed below to acquire the latest information regarding these
developments.



                                      [4]


/**************************************************
*  TRAILBLAZER PRICES, DISCOUNTS AND RESTRICTIONS:
***************************************************/



PRODUCT NAME        MODEL#   LIST PRICE   PREPAY/COD PRICE   NET 30 PRICE

TrailBlazer Plus    T2SAA      $1345          $672.50            $739.75

Those purchasing the modems on COD or pre-payment terms are eligible
for a 50% discount off the list price.  Those who wish to pay on 30
day payment terms will receive a 45% discount off list price.

Each autonomous site may purchase a maximum of two (2) units at this
special promotional price.

Government or Educational institutions with tax exempt status will be
excused from sales taxes.  However, as these units are not designed
for resale, no resale numbers can be accepted in lieu of sales tax.

Sales tax must be collected in all states where Telebit has sales
offices.  These include MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, VIRGINA, GEORGIA,
ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, TEXAS, and CALIFORNIA.

A $20.00 shipping and handling charge per unit is added to all orders.
Delivery is 30 days ARO.

Telebit reserves the right to substitute functionally equivalent
products for those ordered on this program.




/*****************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
******************   THIS OFFER WILL EXPIRE APRIL 30, 1989  ******************
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************/



                                      [5]

/************************
* HOW TO PLACE YOUR ORDER
*************************/

Orders are accepted by filling out the enclosed order form along with
one of the following:

  1) your purchase order indicating Net 30 terms

OR

  2) your purchase order and indication of type of prepayment (check,
     credit card or indication to pay C.O.D.)

     This option enters the order, but if it is not C.O.D., the modem(s) will
     not ship until prepayment has been received.
OR

  3) your prepayment or indication to pay C.O.D.
     (this option enters the order and will ship as soon as modems are ready)

and mailing it to:

Telebit Corporation
ATTN:  IDNDP Program Coordinator
1345 Shorebird Way
Mountain View, California  94043-1329
Voice phone:  [phone]
FAX Number:   [phone]

or sending a copy of the form below, via email, to:

      Internet mail address: [e-mail]
      UUCP mail address:  {uunet,sun,pyramid,ames,hoptoad}!telebit!idndp

Orders will be shipped 30 days ARO.



ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO UUNET COMMUNICATIONS.

However, information about this program or other UUNET services may be
requested from:

      UUNET Communications Services
      P.O. Box 2685
      Fairfax,VA 22031-0685
      [phone]
      [e-mail] or [e-mail]
      uunet!idndp or uunet!uunet-request


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

               INTERNET DOMAIN NAME DISCOUNT PROGRAM (IDNDP)
                               ORDER FORM


COMPANY NAME:________________________________________________

YOUR NAME: __________________________________________________

STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________________

CITY: _____________________STATE:_______________ZIP:_________

VOICE PHONE NUMBER:_____________________________


CORPORATE HEADQUARTER'S ADDRESS AND PHONE (if different from above)

STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________________

CITY: _____________________STATE:_______________ZIP:_________

VOICE PHONE NUMBER:_____________________________


YOUR ORGANIZATION'S
INTERNET DOMAIN NAME:_________________________________________________

    (If not a second level domain, please provide a brief explanation as to
     your organization's autonomy and relationship to the second level domain).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________


YOUR INTERNET MAIL ADDRESS (for email):

______________________________________________________________________________


METHOD OF PAYMENT:(Check one)  C.O.D.____ Prepay ____ Net 30____

Product Name                     Model#    Qty.  IDNDP Price     Total Price

______________________________  ________   ____  _____________   _____________

______________________________  ________   ____  _____________   _____________


                                         Tax                      ____________

                                         Shipping (Qty x $20.00)  ____________

                                         Total Balance Due        ____________




--------

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

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

From [e-mail]  Mon Feb  6 00:41:48 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA25025; Mon, 6 Feb 89 00:41:48 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89  0:16:15 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #49
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Feb 89  0:16:15 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:

            Starlink/Tymnet vrs. PC Pursuit: Plot Thickens
              Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
            Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch
            Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch
                         Looking for good DISA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 23:58:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Starlink/Tymnet vrs. PC Pursuit: Plot Thickens


Well, I got the Official Agreement in the mail over the weekend. There were
a few 'minor points' I had not known about, and will discuss them in this
message. Nothing is quite as simple as it seems.

1. SIGN UP FEE: Starlink gets $50 to sign up. I was advised to enclose a
   check for that amount when I returned my check-free authorization form.
   This is in addition to the $10/$25 per month maintainence fee.

   Telenet/PC Pursuit charges $30 to sign up for *new* users. If you are
   an existing user, the fee to open additional accounts between now and
   May is waived. As pointed out earlier, the '$4.50 per hour after 30
   hours' charge on Telenet is only if you don't buy adequate bundles of
   time to begin with. You have from now until May to decide how many such
   accounts, or bundles of time are appropriate for your use.

2. CALL DETAIL: Starlink will post a message for you on their bulletin board
   system telling you the *total amount* to be charged to your account each
   month. Call detail costs $5 extra per request. I do not know if the call
   detail then comes in printed form, or simply as another email message.

   Telenet/PC Pursuit will provide call detail free of charge to all users
   who exceed their monthly allowance, be that 30, 60, 90 hours or whatever.
   It will come in printed form in the mail as a credit card debit advice
   prior to the charge going through. Call detail will not be available
   until April or May, however overtime won't be billed until May. Between
   now and then, users can adjust their account status as they see fit.

3. PASSWORD/ID CHANGES: Starlink charges $20 for each time this is done.

   Telenet/PC Pursuit does not charge for password/user id changes at the
   present time, according to a lady I spoke with in their Customer Service
   group on Sunday night at 10 PM.

4. ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL: Starlink will give two hours of free
   time each month to access Galaxy BBS; to read your account status and
   I assume conduct other business with them. After that, the charges are
   $2 per hour, plus $1/$1.50 for the obligitory connection via Starlink.
   In my chat a week ago, I was told the DDD lines into Galaxy will be
   discontinued soon, and all calls will have to come via Starlink.

   Telenet/PC Pursuit gives free access at all times to the Net Exchange.
   Admittedly, Net Exchange is not in the same league as Galaxy, but you
   would think the folks at Galaxy might figure out a method to accept
   collect calls via Starlink specifically to deal with Starlink user
   enquiries. That, or leave their 804 numbers open for calls via PC Pursuit
   or DDD.

5. MINIMUM USAGE PER CALL/GRACE PERIOD: Starlink has a five minute minimum
   connect time with an outdialer. According to the Agreement, if you
   connect to an outdialer and disconnect without connecting to a host
   computer, five minutes will be charged. Apparently the fact of the BBS
   or whatever you are calling being busy is not relevant. I do not know
   how, or if they plan to adjust the billing for out of order telco lines
   and out of order modems, etc.

   Telenet/PC Pursuit understands that there are frequent problems in
   connecting from an outdialer. Per their memo in mid-January, an automatic
   forgiveness of one minute will be applied across the board on all outdial
   connections. If the modem is out of order; the telco line is down; or
   the remote host is busy/having snit fits or whatever *IF YOU DISCONNECT
   WITHIN ONE MINUTE YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED. This is reminiscent of the
   way Sprint/MCI handle things, lacking the call supervision ability of AT&T.

6. ABOUT THOSE TELCO CHARGES FROM THE OUTDIALER: Starlink was originally
   advertised saying that 'calls outside the local area' of each outdialer
   would be accepted and billed to your account at telco rates. I noted that
   in a conversation with a Tymnet sales rep several months ago, I was quoted
   110 percent of telco; the surcharge covering billing administration, etc.
   David Tamkin questioned this in an article a few issues ago; and it is
   still unresolved.

   But the Agreement said a little bit more on the subject: Here is just the
   way it reads:

      "In some cities, there are surcharges imposed by the local telephone
      company called MESSAGE UNITS. *These charges are also billed to you.*
      You are responsible for all long distance charges made from the outdial
      port to a host computer."

      End of quote. No kidding! Any telco NOT charging message units now?

    So now we find we will not only pay for long distance (or one plus, or
    whatever) made from the outdials at 100-110 percent of telco rates,
    but we will also pay for local message units on local calls if it is a
    community which has them. If Tymnet was not able to convince the local
    telco that they were really using residence service  (ha ha!) then the
    outdialers are business lines, subject to business rates.

    In Chicago, business telephones pay units on a minute by minute basis
    even for local calls. Units cost 4-5 cents each here. If a call goes
    to a suburb, then it may cost 3-5 units *per minute* -- or about 12-20
    cents *per minute*.

    I can call via Reach Out America anywhere for 13 cents a minute without
    having data network charges on top of that!!

    Telenet/PC Pursuit makes no charge for calls from the outdialers. They
    are careful about where they let you call, but using Chicago as the
    example once again, a call from downtown to Oak Park, which is dialable
    through a PC Pursuit outdialer, is timed, with so many units per minute.

    This is perhaps the most damning aspect of the Starlink plan: I have to
    assume the agreement means what it says: Subscribers will pay for local
    unit charges in communities were they are charged. And whose word do we
    take on that: Tymnet of course. Not that they are dishonest; not by
    any means. But lines have been known to not get disconnected properly,
    and telcos have been known to incorrectly bill these things.

My thinking now is that unless you are a *very, very casual user* of
data networks, you would be best to stick with Telenet. And don't think for
one minute that 'being able to make extended area calls via the outdialers'
is going to be any bargain.

Patrick Townson

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

From: ki4pv![e-mail]
To: uflorida!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom
Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit
Date: Sat Feb  4 08:52:41 1989


The area codes shown on the comparison appear bogus.  Neither
Longwood nor Orlando are in 305 any more.  The northern part of 305
got split off and is now 407.

                    Dr. T. Andrews, Systems
                    CompuData, Inc.  DeLand
PS: Longwood?  Come on, why not just say Sanford.  No one outside
of the area is likely to know where Longwood is.
---
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner


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

To: [e-mail]
From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch
Date: 3 Feb 89 04:49:33 GMT



A recent article in this group asks about a general-purpose
programmable telephone switching system.  Basically, a PBX designed
to let the end-user design the call-processing features.

Check out Redcom (they're in New York state, but I've forgotten the
city, and I don't have the info handy).  They sell building blocks
of the kind described...  A general-purpose programmable digital
switch, implemented as a backplane with available trunk, station,
and other interface modules.  An RS-232 interface is available.  If
your computer is connected to that interface, it can receive a text
message for every event detected by the switching machine (every
switchhook state-change, touch-tone detected, trunk ring or seizure
signal, etc.).  By sending messages to the switching machine, your
computer can control signalling and switching functions.  Basically,
a PBX in kit form, with an external call-processor.  Check it out!

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.        The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

To: watmath!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch
Date: 4 Feb 89 05:00:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clive Dawson) writes:
>More and more often over the last several months, we have seen
>messages to TELECOM inquiring whether or not a box exists which
>will do "x", where x is some function dealing with counting
>the number of rings on a line, connecting two lines together
>in various configurations, automatically answering, automatically
>have to be mechanisms to detect busy signals, etc.  (One thing I'm
>not sure about is how to detect when a remote phone hangs up; is there
>an in-band signal for this?)

there is a device made by Mitel Datacom called the SMarT-1 (sic) which has
precision tone detectors, DTMF generators, DTMF recievers, control (loop or
ground start), as well as a bidirectional rs-232c port. it is quite flexible in
programming and could be used to help you accomplish many different ideas.
it was designed to handle complex routing situations using varied carriers.

as for the 'detect when a remote phone hangs up' question, this is called CPC
or 'Calling Party Control' and is often found on normal loop start lines.
when a caller hangs up the circuit to the phone that was rung is reversed in
polarity for a short period of time (milliseconds). many answering machines
watch for this and reset when a caller hangs up.  the trouble is that it is'nt
part of a normal tarriffed service so you can't count on it.  on a ground start
line (as is used on a PBX) it is much simpler and _is_ an integral part of the
service, when the other end hangs up, whether you called or answered, the loop
is broken.

>I suspect that all of this functionality exists in one form or another
>in various answering machines, automatic dialers, call screening
>boxes, etc.  The question is, has anybody thought of putting it all
>into a single box and making it programmable by the user?

well the SMarT-1 is quite programable, but that would depend on the user :-)

-vance shipley


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

To: [e-mail]
From: decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa![e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Looking for good DISA
Date: 5 Feb 89 06:26:04 GMT



Does anybody know of a decent DISA unit that doesn't use switched-gain
amplification?  Buscom makes one, but their use of switched-gain makes
it unacceptable for data, or even decent voice.

The alternative is to buy a PBX that has a DISA feature, but even the
Panasonic KX-T1232, the cheapest of the lot, would cost about $1500 to
equip this way and that's a little more than I wanted to spend.

For those so uninformed, a DISA (Direct Inward System Access) unit,
also called a "WATS Extender", allows dial-up access to a remote PBX
or CO dial tone.

I would also like to find a device that will take one PBX trunk and one
station, and convert it to a 2-wire E&M Tie Trunk, for use in those
situations where a PBX is not equipped with special E&M Trunk Cards.

If anyone knows of anything along these lines, please let me know.

Thanks...
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

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