Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss050-100

Internet Message Format | 1990-01-14 | 551.0 KB

From [e-mail]  Tue Feb  7 03:04:39 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA29275; Tue, 7 Feb 89 03:04:39 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 89  2:51:51 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #50
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Feb 89  2:51:51 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:

                         World Numbering Plan
                      Skipping the middle digits
                          Phone Line Gadgets
                     When Phones Are Left Off-Hook
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 22:30:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (Scott Statton)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: World Numbering Plan



Greetings:
   Recently, whilst cleaning my apartment [a story for rec.humor.funny
in itself] I located a handy business-card sized 4 page foldout that
was sent to me by MCI [on one of my lines, I had them selected as my
pre-sub carrier, to compare them with other carriers.]  This foldout
contained, among other things, a short list of international country
codes.  In alphabetical order.  If there's ONE thing that really
grates on >MY< nerves, it's lists in alphabetical order.  Phone
weenies need lists of NUMBERS!  In NUMERICAL order (so we can see
where the holes in the plan are, and neato stuff like that.)  So, I
typed in this list in sorted order.  For your edification and/or
amusement, I present it here.

   Since this is an international distribution mailing list, it would
be nice if people with additions/corrections would please forward them
to either myself ([e-mail]) or to telecom moderator.  I
would like to keep an up-to-date list for "hack value".  As usual, I'm
sure this will find a place in the telecom archives.  At home, its
SYS$SYSUSER:[TELECOM]CCC.TEXT.  Point of interest ... when you dial an
international call, i.e. 011 44 1 246 1234 the country code gets zero
padded on the left (we receive two stages of outpulsing, the first
contains an IRC {international routing code} our own CIC {carrier
identification code (unless we forgot who we were?)} and the three
digit country code.  Such as KP+183+930+044+ST.  Then there's a second
outpulsing, but since I'm at home, I don't have it.  It's basically
KP+CCC+digits+ST though.  I suppose the reason for the dual-stage
outpulsing (besides historical reasons for XB machines with a kluge to
allow IDDD) is to allow us time to set up a path to Istanbul or
wherever.

 world numbering plan country codes ....

    1    USA, Canada, Mexico City
    2    Africa
    3 & 4    Europe
    5    South America
    6    Pacific Islands
    7    USSR
    8    Asia
    9    Middle East


20    Egypt
212    Morocco
213    Algeria
216    Tunisia
218    Libya
220    Gambia
221    Senegal
225    Ivory Coast
227    Niger
228    Togo
229    Benin
231    Liberia
234    Nigeria
237    Cameroon
238    Cape Verde Islands
241    Gabon
243    Zaire
247    Ascension Island
251    Ethiopia
254    Kenya
255    Tanzania
256    Uganda
260    Zambia
263    Zimbabwe
264    Namibia
265    Malawi
266    Lesotho
267    Botswana
27    South Africa
297    Aruba
299    Greenland
30    Greece
31    Netherlands
32    Belgium
33    France
34    Spain
350    Gibraltar
351    Portugal
352    Luxembourg
353    Ireland
354    Iceland
356    Malta
357    Cyprus
358    Finland
359    Bulgaria
36    Hungary
37    Democratic Republic of Germany [East]
38    Yugoslavia
39    Italy
40    Romania
41    Switzerland
42    Czechoslovakia
43    Austria
44    U.K.
45    Denmark
46    Sweden
47    Norway
48    Poland
49    Federal Republic of Germany [West]
501    Belize
502    Guatamala
503    El Salvador
504    Honduras
505    Nicaragua
506    Costa Rica
507    Panama
508    St. Pierre & Miquelon
509    Haiti
51    Peru
52    Mexico
53    Guantanamo
54    Argentina
55    Brazil
56    Chile
57    Colombia
58    Venezuela
590    Guadaloupe
591    Bolivia
592    Guyana
593    Ecuador
594    French Guiana
595    Paraguay
596    French Antilles
597    Suriname
598    Uraguay
599    Netherland Antilles
60    Malaysia
61    Australia
62    Indonesia
63    Philippines
64    New Zealand
65    Singapore
66    Thailand
670    Saipan
671    Guam
673    Brunei
675    Papua/New Guinea
679    Fiji Islands
684    American Samoa
687    New Caledonia
689    French Polynesia
691    Micronesia
692    Marshall Islands
7    USSR
809    Carribean [Anguilla/Antigua/Bahamas/Barbados/Bermuda/British
    Virgin Islands/Cayman Islands/Dominica/Dominican Republic/Grenada
    Jamaica/Montserrat/Nevis/St. Kitts/St. Lucia/St. Vincent/Trinidad
    Tobago/Turks & Caicos Is.]

[note:  The Carribean was assigned CC 809 to correlate with NANP 809 for
    points dialable from North America.]

81    Japan
82    Korea
852    Hong Kong
853    Macao
86    China
880    Bangladesh
886    Taiwan
90    Turkey
91    India
92    Pakistan
94    Sri Lanka
962    Jordan
965    Kuwait
966    Saudia Arabia
967    Yemen Arab Republic
968    Oman
971    United Arab Emirates
972    Israel
973    Bahrain
974    Qatar
977    Nepal
98    Iran

Unused 2 digit codes:
28, 83, 84, 87, 93, 95, 99.

Scott Statton, N1GAK

[e-mail]    { formerly [e-mail] *sigh* }

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

From: buita![e-mail] (David Tamkin)
Subject: Skipping the middle digits
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 5:15:40 CST


Kenneth R. Jongsma submitted:

: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.

Those of you who read soc.singles may remember my article there about a
similar nuisance at my old phone number, [phone].  Martha Washington
Hospital's number is 583-9000.  Some shortsighted dope set them up with four-
digit extension numbers, and Intake (the drug and alcohol detoxification
unit) was assigned extension 4629.

The staff at intake were fond of answering "What's your extension?" with
"4629" and "How do we call you?" with "We're at extension 4629."  Upon
hearing four digits, most people assumed that it was a direct-dial number.  I
lived with my parents then and there was almost always someone home, so I had
no answering machine.  ("This is David.  I am not Martha Washington Hospital.
To reach the Intake unit at Martha Washington, you must dial 583-9000 and ask
their switchboard operator for extension 4629.  If you are stupid enough to
dial me instead, I'm not surprised that your children or spouse would end up
exasperated enough to turn to drugs and be in Intake now.  However, if you are
calling for me, please leave a message."  Yes, I should have bought an
answering machine, no question about it in retrospect.)

So we were awakened at any hour by calls for Intake.  It didn't register on
these people that hospitals do not answer the phone "Hello?" but they went
right ahead and asked for Carol or Sonja or even for the patient by name.  No,
we never did make up lies about a patient's condition just to shut a caller
up.  (I say "we" because my parents would answer my phone when I wasn't in,
just as I would for them.)  We just explained that no, this wasn't Intake,
you can't dial them directly, you must call 583-9000 and ask for extension
4629.  Usually people were able to understand if we explained it slowly enough.

One time, however, a doctor called my number in professional capacity,
looking for Intake.  I let *him* have it, casting aspersions on his
qualifications for a physician's license and on the method by which he had
obtained it, since he had business to know correct phone numbers for his
professional contacts.

The calls came in spates.  When they'd get bad again, I'd call the hospital's
administrative staff and remind them who I was and ask them to yell at the
Intake staff again.  "I don't care if the question is phrased, `What's your
extension?'!  The ONLY correct answer is STILL `Dial 583-9000 and ask the
switchboard operator for extension 4629'!"  Then administration would call
Intake on the carpet and the calls would stop for about three or four months.

I had had my phone number published in several magazines as a contact for our
user group, so I had no intention of changing it.  Martha Washington Hospital
never even suggested that I get it changed.  Now that number is assigned to
someone else.  Perhaps Intake has had an outside line installed.  The best
part is that I no longer need to care.

David W. Tamkin     [e-mail]     ...!killer!jolnet!dattier

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

To: [e-mail]
From: astroatc!nicmad!madnix![e-mail] (Ron Bean)
Subject: Phone Line Gadgets
Date: 5 Feb 89 13:46:56 GMT



   I don't normally read this newsgroup so I don't know if this
has been discussed, but please make a note of it so when someone
asks you'll know where to direct them.

   The Feb. '89 issue of Modern Electronics has an article on how
to build an automatic "Extension Phone Lockout" and an "Extension
Busy Indicator". These could be very useful to those of us who do
not have a dedicated data line and must share a voice line with
other people.

  The "Extension Lockout" could be used to keep your modem from
trying to dial the phone when someone is talking on another
extension-- or vice-versa. It looks like you could use two of
them to make it an "exclusive-OR", ie, neither could interrupt
the other. It uses a zener diode to trigger an SCR.

  The "Extension Busy Indicator" just lights an LED to tell you
when someone is using the line. It uses a zener diode and a pair
of transistors, one of which is an "n-channel enhancement-mode
field-effect transistor" (I don't know what that means; I'm a
software person). It mentions that it is meant for touch-tone
lines, but I don't see why you couldn't use it on a pulse-dial
line-- it looks like it would just blink during pulse-dialing
(assuming it can react fast enough-- if not, it might disrupt the
dialing).

   Note that both of these require proper line polarity (most
phones do not require this, so check it out). The article also
describes a "HOLD" device and a simple polarity checker. It
includes full-size PC-board layouts as well as shematics, and
tells where you can buy a set of four ready-made PC-boards ($16).



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

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 09:25:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (Eric Roskos)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: When Phones Are Left Off-Hook


>Even now, a friend of mine leaves his phone off-hook if he leaves the house
>while he's expecting a call.
>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.

I think, unless I'm mistaken, that this is a different situation altogether.
At least back in the late '70s, when I last worked with such systems, the
very large systems of modems which Bell provided to computer centers (the
ones controlled by a large, central console) had buttons, one for each dial-in
phone line.  If you pushed the button, it took the phone off-hook, making
it busy.  This was provided so you could busy-out the lines when you needed
to; the buttons locked down and lit up when in this state.

I think that after the telephone finishes its recording and its alarm signal
(which I think is for the customer's convenience, and to avoid using operator
resources from people calling to ask why they can't get through), it
disconnects the subscriber line altogether, then polls at relatively
infrequent intervals to see if it should reconnect.  (Notice that if you
leave it off hook for awhile, then put it on-hook, wait a second or so,
and then take it off-hook again, often it is still disconnected.)  I think
the infrequent polling is specifically to minimize use of resources by a
phone that is left off-hook (in the assumption that it is likely to stay
off-hook for a good while).

But with the newer switching systems, this is probably somewhat different.
Does anyone know what the actual resources in a switching system are that
get used at different points during a call?  In the old days, these were
well-defined and were allocated statistically according to use -- a certain
number of dial-tone generators, a certain number of ring-voltage generators,
etc.  I suspect the problem with the callback test being abused may be
related to trying to reduce the number of telephones that are ringing
at a given time, since I think the power requirements to operate the
ringer are substantially greater than for other states the phone can be
in.  But I don't know details of this, and am interested in hearing of
how it really works ...

-- E. Roskos, IDA ([e-mail] or [e-mail])

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Feb  8 00:46:47 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA01827; Wed, 8 Feb 89 00:46:47 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89  0:35:03 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #51
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Feb 89  0:35:03 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:

                         re: Starlink vs. PCP
                      Wanted: ES in Communication
                 Re: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected
                            0 + NXX - XXXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Tamkin)
Subject: re: Starlink vs. PCP
To: ames!bu-cs.BU.EDU![e-mail] (The Moderator)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 3:21:01 CST


In Telecom Digest, volume 9, issue 49, our esteemed moderator wrote:

T> Well, I got the Official Agreement in the mail over the weekend. There were
T> a few 'minor points' I had not known about, and will discuss them in this
T> message. Nothing is quite as simple as it seems.

[items from the Agreement and Mr. Townson's comments thereupon]

T> 3. PASSWORD/ID CHANGES: Starlink charges $20 for each time this is done.

T>    Telenet/PC Pursuit does not charge for password/user id changes at the
T>    present time, according to a lady I spoke with in their Customer Service
T>    group on Sunday night at 10 PM.

The people at Customer Service are, as a rule, thoroughly unversed in P C
Purs_it.  PCP's Rate Schedules, both before and since the December 30, 1988,
announcement, have included a $5 fee for replacing a password.  This applies
whether you have forgotten the previously issued one or just feel that you
should have a change for security reasons.  Moreover, a new ID must be issued
as well: they have *no* provision for changing the password for an existing
ID.

T> 6. ABOUT THOSE TELCO CHARGES FROM THE OUTDIALER: Starlink was originally
T>    advertised saying that 'calls outside the local area' of each outdialer
T>    would be accepted and billed to your account at telco rates. I noted that
T>    in a conversation with a Tymnet sales rep some months ago, I was quoted
T>    110 percent of telco; the surcharge covering billing administration, etc.

T>    But the Agreement said a little bit more on the subject: Here is just the
T>    way it reads:

T>       "In some cities, there are surcharges imposed by the local telephone
T>       company called MESSAGE UNITS. *These charges are also billed to you.*
T>       You are responsible for all long distance charges made from an outdial
T>       port to a host computer."

T>       End of quote. No kidding! Any telco NOT charging message units now?

I am curious, though, about Starlink charges to DAF's.  Is there any fee for
DAF calls beyond the $1 or $1.50 per hour?  That remains open.

T>     I can call via Reach Out America anywhere for 13 cents a minute without
T>     having data network charges on top of that!!

In fact, Reach Out America charges only twelve cents per minute at night rates,
and even if Starlink's throughput may turn out to be better than PCP's, it can-
not be better than a direct phone call.  Moreover, there are no kilocharacter
charges for a data-heavy session of nothing but transfers of pre-batched
material.

T> My thinking now is that unless you are a *very, very casual user* of
T> data networks, you would be best to stick with Telenet. And don't think for
T> one minute that 'being able to make extended area calls via the outdialers'
T> is going to be any bargain.

There is one other case where Starlink is a clear bargain: for $US 4.00 per
hour they accept calls from Tymnet Canada indials.  For Canadians local to
the indials (in Ville St. Laurent [near Montreal], Quebec City, Ottawa,
Toronto, Kitchener, Calgary, and Burnaby [near Vancouver]), this can be
an incredible savings over DataPac rates to the Tymnet or Telenet gateway.

For example, a Canadian calling People/Link via DataPac pays $US 24.95 per
hour now.  Via Starlink it is $US 4.00 for Starlink, $US 3.00 for People/Link
on its local Chicago line, plus just over 1c per minute for a night-rate local
call from the Tymnet outdialer in Chicago-Wabash to People/Link's direct number
in Chicago-Canal West.

Assuming that Starlink does not have a fee for DAF connections comparable to
the cost of a local phone call when one calls from an outdialer, $US 6.00
at night ($4 to Starlink, $2 to CompuServe) for the communications surcharge
to CompuServe is surely less than that for a DataPac call to CompuServe and
perhaps less than that for a collect call from a Tymnet Canada indial.


And Dr. T. Andrews wrote:

A> The area codes shown on the comparison appear bogus.  Neither
A> Longwood nor Orlando are in 305 any more.  The northern part of 305
A> got split off and is now 407.

The list that put the Orlando/Longwood outdial in area code 305 and
Detroit, Michigan, in the Central Time Zone came straight from Tymnet
Information (log into any Tymnet indial as "information").  Starlink
did not originate its content.

David Tamkin    [e-mail].  ...!killer!jolnet!dattier

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Guilherme Bittencourt)
Subject: Wanted: ES in Communication
Date: 7 Feb 89 12:10:06 GMT
Organization: Karlsruhe University, West-Germany



    I am considering the possibility of writing an Expert System in the
domain of communication between computers. The system should typically
know about protocols, communication capabilities of each type of computer,
etc.

    I am very interested in two types of information:

    (1) Do you know such an Expert System in Computer Communication?
        Any pointer to the literature would be appreciated.

    (2) Do you know any tutorial article introducing the domain of
        communication between computer? Some book about it? Pointers
        to the literature would also be appreciated.

    Please answer by mail, I will summarize if there is enough
interest.
    Thanks in advance.


Guilherme Bittencourt
E-mail : [e-mail]                     tel.: [phone]
Universitaet Karslruhe - Institut fuer Algorithmen und Kognitive Systeme
Postfach 6980  -  D-7500 Karlsruhe 1  -  BRD

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

To: [e-mail]
From: amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected
Date: 8 Feb 89 01:53:19 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
+---------------
| Having just received my ATT phone bill, I note there were
| 10 long distance calls that I didn't make [on second phone line]...
| this second phone line has never had a "phone" on it....just my modem...
| thus NET belives that my wires are "cross connected" somewhere...
| I was only concerned because NET said the problem is very
| hard to find and it could persist for months....
+---------------

There exist boxes (try Radio Shack) that show you if a phone line is
"off hook". (Basically, they measure the voltage.) And if your modem
is at all standard, it will assert "Data Set Ready" iff it is off-hook.
Thus, if you bought a telephone recording "tap" (~$20 at Radio Shack),
and rigged it to run when the other box showed off hook *and* your modem
did *not* show DSR, you should be able to tape the "other" traffic on
"your" line as evidence.

That is, it may be hard for NET to find, since they can't see your modem,
but it shouldn't be too hard for you to give them a little help.

(What can they do, even then? Well, if you called them and said, "That
other guy is on my line *RIGHT NOW*, they might be able to run a TDR
measurement and find out [approximately] where the other phone is.)


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:      {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3
ATTmail:  !rpw3
DDD:      [phone]
USPS:      627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA  94403


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

From: buita![e-mail] (David Tamkin)
Subject: 0 + NXX - XXXX
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 5:13:26 CST



Carl Moore wrote:

|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.

The official preparation for N0X/N1X hit NPA 312 on October 1, 1982.
Previously, from Illinois Bell phones in metropolitan Chicago, intra-NPA
calls were seven digits (and still are), inter-NPA calls were ten digits (but
are now eleven), 0+ calls to other area codes were (and are) eleven digits,
and 0+ calls within 312 were eight digits (but are now eleven, because the
312 must be included: neither `312' nor `708' is a valid prefix in the
current, unsplit 312, so the first four digits are always unambiguous).

Centel is the only other telco providing land lines in area code 312.  It had
always required 1+ before calls to other NPA's, but even its August, 1988,
directory says that operator assisted calls within area code 312 may be
placed with 0+NXX-XXXX (+timeout or #, I imagine).

In the sixteen months and change that I have lived in Centel's service area,
I have not yet tried placing an operator-assisted call within 312 with only
eight digits; I've always dialed 0312+NXX-XXXX and that has worked just fine.
However, the placement of those instructions in the directory can be taken to
imply that they are valid only for the six remaining Des Plaines prefixes
that did not yet have equal access as of the directory's print date (and
still do not, I believe).  [In northeastern Illinois Centel has five prefixes
in Chicago, seven in Park Ridge, and eleven in Des Plaines; those in Chicago
and Park Ridge and five of the ones in Des Plaines have equal access.  Since
the other six cannot get Custom Calling either -- Des Plaines customers who
want Custom Calling or equal access but who have one of those six prefixes
must get their numbers changed -- I imagine that they might still be on
crossbar equipment.]

David W. Tamkin     [e-mail]    ...!killer!jolnet!dattier

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

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

From [e-mail]  Wed Feb  8 01:19:32 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA04182; Wed, 8 Feb 89 01:19:32 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89  0:58:25 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #52
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Feb 89  0:58:25 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:

                        Re: Rate Cap postponed
         Legislators' Opposition to Dollar-Specific Rate Caps
           News About COCOTs, AOSs, calling cards, etc.
                 Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers
                        Re: Nuisance Phone Calls
                   autodialing without checking first
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 7 Feb 89 09:50
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rate Cap postponed


A recent posting by our moderator, Patrick Townson, mentions that
the FCC has put off a decision on transferring AT&T from rate of return
regulation to rate cap regulation.  Commissioner Dennis Patrick has been
pushing this change for some time, but meets opposition from members
of Congress.

>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.
>Patrick has decided to defer action on the proposed changes for at least
>two months.

>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

Here are some reasons why Congress, as well as many of the American people,
may oppose this proposal:

AT&T's current Rate of Return regulation guarantees that they will make
a fair profit, but not an excessive one.  This is standard practice for
utilities and other monopolies.  While AT&T is technically not a
monopoly any more, it can be argued that a company with a huge market
share (such as the 75%+ that AT&T has in interstate toll and private line)
is not subject to serious competition, but functions merely as a "rate
umbrella" over the marketplace.  The rest of the industry is not able
to absorb capacity from consumers who might choose to defect.  In any
case, only AT&T offers such a full line of services.

With the current plan, prices are pretty much guaranteed to fall as
the underlying cost of service falls.  This is predictable and can
be used make business plans.

Without regulation, a total monopoly can raise prices until consumers
simply refuse to buy more.  This pretty much determines long distance
prices in much of Europe, where crass revenue maximization is the rule.
A rate cap seems like a fix to that, but if the underlying cost of
providing a service (the basis for rate of return regulation) is
declining rapidly, then inflation-based rate increases are far in
excess of costs.  This wouldn't happen in a truly competitive market,
but telecom isn't one.  Note that some less-competitive services,
like private line, are not benefiting the way toll is.

The other major problem with the cap is that it allows predatory
pricing.  John D. Rockefeller put a lot of competition out of business
in the early years of this century with his Standard Oil Trust.  He'd
just go into a market and underprice the competition until they sold
out or folded, then he'd have a monopoly and raise prices.  AT&T's
competition is rather fragile.  It's in AT&T's interest to preserve
the appearance of competition (MCI) but Sprint is on thin ice, and
a number of other carriers are already gone (SBS) or operating under
Chapter 11 protection (Western Union Domestic).

MCI supports the cap because, I'd speculate, they're in line to be the
"second telephone and telegraph" needed to preserve AT&T's claim of
a competitive market.  When AT&T jacks up prices, MCI will jack 'em up
too.  There won't be anyone left to turn to.  Such is the threat of
a rate cap.

If there were antitrust enforcement, this wouldn't be so important, but
there isn't, so it is.

           fred
(I speak for me, and me alone.  Opinions may be licensed for a small
fee.)

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

From: buita![e-mail] (David Tamkin)
Subject: Legislators' Opposition to Dollar-Specific Rate Caps
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 3:58:39 CST



Patrick Townson wrote about hearings regarding capping the rates telephone
services charge instead of capping their markup percentages:

|Now why do you suppose 'some' members of Congress would feel so strongly
|against the plan?  Perhaps some of you can tell me.

If the regulated figure is the markup percentage, higher costs mean higher
margins in proportion and thus higher profits.  There is an incentive to
incur higher costs, some of which are incurred in payment to companies that
lobby Congress or in which legislators own stock.

Capping the rates charged, however, gives cost-cutting as the sole means of
increasing profits.  If that goal appears too difficult and the legislator
owns stock in the regulated company as well as under the circumstances I
mentioned in the paragraph above, the legislator will have personal motives
for favoring a markup percentage cap instead of a price cap.

Here in Illinois, Central Telephone was unable to get approval for a cap on
its rates to replace the current one on its percentage markup from the
Illinois Commerce Commission.

Yours cynically,
David W. Tamkin     [e-mail]     ...!killer!jolnet!dattier

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

Date: Tue, 7 Feb 89 15:51:33 PST
From: harvard!ames!coherent.com!dplatt (Dave Platt)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: News About COCOTs, AOSs, calling cards, etc.


This week's issue of CommunicationsWeek has a few interesting items:

-  AT&T is developing a new AT&T calling card that is said to be "AOS
   proof".  The billing number on each of these cards will be issued by
   AT&T, and will be honored only by AT&T;  AT&T will no longer use the
   billing numbers that are issues by the local Bell operating companies.
   This will (apparently) prevent AOS companies from billing people who
   have used their AT&T cards on AOS phones.  Introduction of the new
   AT&T-only calling cards is scheduled for sometime in 1990.

-  AT&T is printing up "AT&T Long Distance Service" stickers, and will
   be distributing them to business-owners who have pay phones that
   are served by AT&T.

-  The state of Indiana has ruled that long distance carriers' coinless
   telephones must comply with the rules regulating all other customer-
   owned pay telephones;  the phones must grant access to all long
   distance telephone companies in areas where equal access is
   available, must not limit local-call duration, and must provide
   "dial 0 for Operator" access.

-  The state of Kansas has revoked ITC's authorization to operate as an
   AOS in that state, citing ITC's failure to document its prices for
   in-state toll calls, failure to put stickers on the phones that they
   service identifying ITC as the service provider, and the lack of an
   acceptable contract between ITC and its subscribers.

-  Rep. Jim Conner (D-Tenn.) is drafting a bill to address the AOS
   industry;  it will be introduced in the House within the next few
   weeks.



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

To: rutgers![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Sam Weissman)
Subject: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers
Date: 7 Feb 89 02:03:24 GMT


I just acquired a fax machine.  C an anyone tell me how I give out
my fax number?  I am in the N.Y. 212 area code, but when we dial long
distance, we must put a "1" in front of any number we are calling.
Since most of my calls will originate from out of state, should I
put my letterhead fax number as: 1-212-xxx-xxxx?  Another question:
I have a "fine" mode on my machine.  When preparing to receive a
transmission with tiny print, should I set my machine to fine, or
does the sender have to do that?  Thanks for any help.

--
Sam Weissman
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!samw

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

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 10:07:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (Eric Roskos)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Nuisance Phone Calls

> 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!

Ah, but you do get the satisfaction of telling them what you think of their
annoying calls, if it's the interactive type of machine.

Many of these advertisements ask you a question at some point ("do you
plan to buy real estate within the next six months?  In what area?"  "What
brand of coffee do you currently drink?" etc.).  I've found that these
machines seem to keep recording as long as you keep talking.  So, you can
tell them that you don't appreciate being bothered by their calls,
at some length and detail, and the machine seems to keep recording.  This
is not a very courteous thing to do, but neither are the machine-generated
phone calls.

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

From: buita![e-mail] (David Tamkin)
Subject: autodialing without checking first
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 3:39:22 CST



Ed Ravin wrote:

|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.

It doesn't have to be done by typo or out of malicious mischief.  When I
was active in a user group I posted my phone number as contact number for
the group on three or four BBS's.  Modems screamed in my ear for months
afterward.  It is amazing how many half-wits assume (1) that any number
they read on a BBS is a BBS and (2) that there is no reason to dial with
their fingers and listen with their ears the first time they try it.

People as inconsiderate as those, just as much as krackers and phreaks,
give telecommunicators a bad name.

David W. Tamkin   [e-mail]   ...!killer!jolnet!dattier

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

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

From [e-mail]  Thu Feb  9 01:37:29 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA21365; Thu, 9 Feb 89 01:37:29 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89  1:28:14 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #53
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Feb 89  1:28:14 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:

                          Intl. Calling Cards
                           Pay Phone Charges
                       Re: Nuisance phone calls
                            Re: 1+areacode
              Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
              Re: Ripped off by the long distance carrier
                         Re: A Modest Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 10:25 EST
From: Peter Clitherow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intl. Calling Cards
To: [e-mail]



Talking of international calling cards, here's another point.  On the
back of my old paper card, there were some regulations regarding use of
the international number:  it can only be used to call the US from a
foreign country.

Just out of interest, some time ago, i attempted to make a call from
Israel to Germany using this US calling card number.  I told the Israeli
operator what i wished to do, gave the calling card number, and a few
minutes later, she called back and said the number was ringing.
Unfortunately, the person i was calling was out, so i never got to find
out how this was billed...

Any guesses as to how it would turn out?  Would AT&T disown the call??

pc

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

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 15:45:09 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay Phone Charges
To: [e-mail]


    Excerpted, without comment, from a Letter from Teleconnect*USA
dated 25 January:

"Now you can earn up to $1.00 - or more - per call on your pay phone
service!  Here's How:

Let's be honest.  You're a pay phone subscriber because you want to
make money.  But you also want to provide high-quality, reliable service
at an affordable price.
*****
You not only continue to get your "coin in the box" from Bell, you get
a bonus from Teleconnect!.  Here's how the Teleconnect "Margin Maker"
Commision Plan works:
    Choose on of these fees to added to be Teleconnect rates:
    -$1.00 per Call
    -$ .75 per Call           And the fee is paid
    -$ .50 per Call          directly to you!
    -$ .25 per Call"
*****
-------

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Leonard P Levine)
Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls
Date: 8 Feb 89 17:23:12 GMT



Could not the phone company be asked/required to institute a tarrif that
bills the caller 3 times if the called party hangs up first? Social
etiquette would then requre that you let your caller hang up unless
you were pissed with them, otherwise you hang up on them.

Free enterprise extra cost is a real good way to control excess.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Leonard P. Levine               e-mail [e-mail] |
| Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone] |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone] |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              Modem  [phone] |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

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

To: pacbell!ames![e-mail]
From: unet!unet.UUCP![e-mail] (Dennis J. W. Maine)
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: 8 Feb 89 17:40:38 GMT



I haven't seen any mention of adding some reasonable hueristics to
the number decoding algorithm.  It seems logical that if the phone
company can detect the omission of a leading 1 digit and request
that you redial the number adding the one, it could also do it for you.
Why would anyone enter 10 digits in a given time interval without
specifying the area code.   We are talking user-surly programming.
-djwm

p.s. Dis claimer is mine.
--
Dennis J. W. Maine


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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: 9 Feb 89 04:27:42 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> David W. Tamkin writes:

    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 dialing "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 . . . .

    [long explanation about NXX prefixes and 1+ dialing deleted]

I should probably have anticipated this response and said in my original
posting that I was aware of the fact that the use of NXX prefixes would
require 1+ dialing.  We've had 1+ dialing in the Los Angeles area, BTW,
since at least the mid-70's (when I moved down here) -- and NXX prefixes
for the last few years as well.

Nevertheless, my MCI bill really did say that there would eventually be
a new area code in the San Francisco area.  Following is an exact quote
of the announcement (in my December 28 MCI bill):

     STARTING FEBRUARY 4, 1989 -- WHEN YOU ARE IN THE 415 AREA
     CODE -- YOU WILL NEED TO DIAL "1" FIRST FOR ALL CALLS GOING
     OUTSIDE THE 415 AREA CODE.  THIS CHANGE IS THE FIRST STEP
     BY PACIFIC BELL TO IMPLEMENT A NEW AREA CODE TO THE BAY AREA.

Let me say again that I realize that 1+ dialing is a necessary precursor
to the use of NXX prefixes -- and not required at all in order to create
a new area code.  Maybe the MCI person who composed this bill message
didn't know what he/she was talking about -- or thought it'd be hope-
lessly confusing to try explaining NXX prefixes to the unwashed masses.

But let me ask again:  Is anyone on this list aware of any near-term
plans to create a new area code out of portions of 415 and/or 408?

-- 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
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank."

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (David M. Neves)
Subject: Re: Ripped off by the long distance carrier
Date: 8 Feb 89 20:14:58 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Behrens) writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 42, message 1
>
>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).
...
>Do I have any recourse?
...
Last month a customer of a motel took the motel to small claims court
because the phone part of her bill was 5 times the AT&T rates.  She
was not told that there would be an outrageous surcharge and the
Judge, who was outraged at the ripoff, ruled in her favor.  By the
way, it was Judge Wapner of the People's Court.

;David Neves, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison
;Usenet:  {rutgers,ucbvax}!uwvax!neves
;Arpanet: [e-mail]

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ilya Goldberg)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Date: 8 Feb 89 23:57:44 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (HECTOR MYERSTON) writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 42, message 5

>    (1) Many people want to use AT&T Calling Cards from various
>            places but cannot

>    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.

I can see it now: "AT & T USA Direct service, now available IN the
United States."

Oh yes, and prepended by the obligatory "For YOUR convinience..."

Ilya Goldberg

[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************
ISSUES #54 AND #55 GOT MAILED IN REVERSE ORDER BY ACCIDENT. #54 WAS MAILED
A FEW MINUTES AFTER #55 AND APPEARS AFTER THIS ISSUE.


From [e-mail]  Fri Feb 10 02:29:46 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA17283; Fri, 10 Feb 89 02:29:46 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 0:10:11 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #55
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Feb 89 0:10:11 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:

       The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (+notes)
                  Regarding the AOS ripoff situation

[Moderator's Note: Although I published one version of the codes for
dialing international calls which was supplied to us by Scott Statten,
a different version of the list has been supplied by John Covert. You
will notice some discrepancies between the two versions, including the
lack of '809' as a country code in this version. Yet I beleive that
callers from the UK, for example, reach the Virgin Islands by dialing
809 as a country code rather than in the context of a North American
area code. Also in this issue of the Digest, John DeArmond tells what
to me  at least, was a very shocking tale of AOS abuses. P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 8 Feb 89 00:11
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (+notes)


    World Numbering Zone 1 (Integrated Numbering Area)
1    Canada, USA including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
    Jamaica, Barbados, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands,
    British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican
    Republic, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis,
    St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique,
    Prune (Palm) Island, Union Island), Trinidad and Tobago

    Note: Mexico locations with Zone 1 style area codes are a hack
    for use from the U.S. and Canada *only* and are not official.

    World Numbering Zone 2:  Africa, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Aruba
20    Egypt
21    Integrated Numbering Area:
    Morocco (212 in service, also has 210, 211 assigned, but not used)
    Algeria (213 in service, also has 214, 215 assigned, but not used)
    Tunisia (216 in service, also has 217 assigned, but not used)
    Libya    (218 in service, also has 219 assigned, but not used)
220    The Gambia
221    Senegal
222    Mauritania
223    Mali
224    Guinea
225    Ivory Coast
226    Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
227    Niger
228    Togo
229    Benin
230    Mauritius
231    Liberia
232    Sierra Leone
233    Ghana
234    Nigeria
235    Chad
236    Central African Republic
237    Cameroon
238    Cape Verde
239    Sao Tome and Principe
240    Equatorial Guinea
241    Gabon
242    Congo
243    Zaire
244    Angola
245    Guinea-Bissau
246    Diego Garcia
247    Ascension Island
248    Seychelles
249    Sudan
250    Rwanda
251    Ethiopia
252    Somalia
253    Djibouti
254    Kenya
255    Tanzania including Zanzibar
256    Uganda
257    Burundi
258    Mozambique
259    Zanzibar (this code is assigned in E.163, but use Tanzania, 255 54)
260    Zambia
261    Madagascar
262    Reunion (France)
263    Zimbabwe
264    Namibia
265    Malawi
266    Lesotho
267    Botswana
268    Swaziland
269    Comoros and Mayotte
27    South Africa
297    Aruba (Autonomous from the Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 86)
298    Faroe Islands (Denmark)
299    Greenland
Spare:    28, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296

    World Numbering Zones 3 & 4: Europe except Soviet Union
30    Greece
31    Netherlands
32    Belgium
33    France
33 078    Andorra
33 93    Monaco
34    Spain
350    Gibraltar
351    Portugal
352    Luxembourg
353    Ireland
354    Iceland
355    Albania
356    Malta
357    Cyprus
358    Finland
359    Bulgaria
36    Hungary
37    German Democratic Republic (East)
38    Yugoslavia
39    Italy
39 541    San Marino
3966982    Vatican City
40    Romania
41    Switzerland
41 75    Liechtenstein
42    Czechoslovakia
43    Austria
44    United Kingdom
45    Denmark
46    Sweden
47    Norway
48    Poland
49    Federal Republic of Germany (West)

    World Numbering Zone 5: Mexico, Central and South America
                + St. Pierre & Miquelon
500    Falkland Islands
501    Belize
502    Guatemala
503    El Salvador
504    Honduras
505    Nicaragua
506    Costa Rica
507    Panama
508    St. Pierre et Miquelon (France)
509    Haiti
51    Peru
52    Mexico
53    Cuba
53 99    Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base (located on Cuba)
54    Argentina
55    Brazil
56    Chile
57    Colombia
58    Venezuela
590    French Antilles (St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, Guadeloupe)
591    Bolivia
592    Guyana
593    Ecuador
594    French Guiana
595    Paraguay
596    Martinique
597    Suriname
598    Uruguay
599    Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao, Bonaire)

    World Numbering Zone 6: Pacific
60    Malaysia
61    Australia
62    Indonesia
63    Philippines
64    New Zealand
65    Singapore
66    Thailand
670    Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan)
671    Guam
672    Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island)
673    Brunei
674    Nauru
675    Papua New Guinea
676    Tonga
677    Solomon Islands
678    Vanuatu (New Hebrides)
679    Fiji
680    Palau
681    Wallis and Futuna
682    Cook Islands
683    Niue
684    American Samoa
685    Western Samoa
686    Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands)
687    New Caledonia
688    Tuvalu (Ellice Islands)
689    French Polynesia
690    Tokelan
691    Micronesia
692    Marshall Islands
Spare:    693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699

    World Numbering Zone 7
7    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    World Numbering Zone 8: East Asia + Marisat
81    Japan
82    Korea (Republic of) (South)
84    Viet Nam
850    Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North)
852    Hong Kong
853    Macao
855    Khmer Republic
856    Laos
86    China (People's Republic)
871    Marisat, Atlantic Ocean
872    Marisat, Pacific Ocean
873    Marisat, Indian Ocean
880    Bangladesh
886    Taiwan
Spare:    80, 83, 851, 854, 857, 858, 859, 870, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879,
    881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 887, 888, 889, 89

    World Numbering Zone 9: Middle East, Indian Subcontinent
90    Turkey
91    India
92    Pakistan
93    Afghanistan
94    Sri Lanka
95    Burma
960    Maldives
961    Lebanon
962    Jordan
963    Syria
964    Iraq
965    Kuwait
966    Saudi Arabia
967    Yemen Arab Republic
968    Oman
969    Yemen (People's Democratic Republic of) (Aden)
971    United Arab Emirates
972    Israel
973    Bahrain
974    Qatar
976    Mongolia
977    Nepal
98    Iran
Spare:    970, 975, 978, 979, 99

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

From: stiatl![e-mail] (John DeArmond)
Subject: Regarding the AOS ripoff situation
Date: 9 Feb 89 04:48:27 GMT



I just discovered this group.  Great articles.  I'd like to share some
information regarding the ripoffs being purveyed
by the Alternative Operator Services companies.  First my qualifications.
My company contracted to an AOS who must, unfortunately, remain
nameless to design and implement their AOS system.  This company should
be familiar to most folks who have been ripped off by motels or payphones
operated by these people.  I was the person who designed and implemented
most of the system.  (Sorry folks, but I did not understand the business
well enough to understand how these services were being applied in the
field until it was too late.)

In the process of getting up to speed on the project, I became very
familiar with most of the then-existing companies.  Almost without
exception, the companys fit a standard mold - designed expressly
to get into the market quickly, extract as much money as quickly as
possible and get out, hopefully one or two steps ahead of the attorney
general of the state.  These operators are a travesty of justice and
an embarrisment to the rest of the industry.  they prey on people who
have little choice in the matter.  Their targets are primarily hotels,
hospitals and airports.

These folks are for the most part unregulated.  They work in conjunction
with the property owner.  The owner is given a kickback or "commission" on
each call and further, are permitted to apply a "surcharge" of most any
ammount.  I saw surcharges as high as 10 dollars for the first minute.

Other tricks involve intercepting the 10288 and other access numbers and
rerouting the call to one of their operators.  The operator is prompted
by the system as to how to answer the call to convince the customer
he has reached his desired carrier.

Another common trick that is legally grey is the practice of always
rounding the minutes up to the next increment.  For example, if you
placed a call that lasted 5 minutes and 1 second, you would be billed
6 minutes.  A similiar practice that is clearly illegal is to add one
or more minute to each call.  "Income enhancement" it's called.

So what can you do?  Well the obvious thing is to avoid these services
and boycott the establishments that use them.  But you cannot always
avoid them so you need to know a few things.

First, if you ever get a bill from one of these charlatins, call their
customer service number and BITCH.  These guys play the averages.  They
want to keep the level of unrest just below the point of official action.
They will give you credit for almost anything you complain about.  You
don't have to supply proof, simply call and complain.

Most of these companies do not get line supervision from their long distance
carriers and so have a very hard time determining when to start billing
(as if it really bothered them too much).  What they do is allow you a
fixed ring interval, say 15 seconds, and then start charging if you are
still offhook.  So if you retry a busy number a few times, you will find
a bunch of 1 minute charges on your bill.  since the motel collects its
5 or 10 bucks surcharge on each attempt, you should complain about EVERY such
charge to the AOS AND the motel.

Again, playing the odds, these guys accept almost anything that looks
like a credit card number and do not verify (check against a bank database)
the number.  for some card, such as AT&T, Visa, MC, AMEX and so on, the
numbers are algorithmically validatable (as opposed to verifyable).
They generally apply these elemental tests but do NOT verify that the
number is active or belongs to you.  Therefore, either from miskeying,
mistranscription, or intentional fraud, you can find calls not yours billed
against your calling card, your bankcards, your amex card, your
gasoline card or almost anything plastic with a number embossed on it.
These companies will (generally cheerfully) credit any call you complain
about so be proactive.

Lastly, it is likely that the AOSs are being sued in your state and or
under inditement for their practices.  Investigate and find out what's
going on.  Call the attorney's general office and find out about ongoing
investigations and/or prosecutions.  I know that in Tennessee and Georgia
there are prosecutions and suits underway both from the state governmetn
and from consumer interest groups.  You may be able to join any class-
action suits and/or contribute to the criminal prosecution of these
people.  Be sure, too, to contact your legislators and public service
commission.  These companies are regulated at the state level and can
be effectivly banned if enough  pressure is brough to bear.

As a final note, you should be aware that ALL the LD carriers except
AT&T are in cahoots with at least one AOS.  They've used this channel
as a mechanism to bootstrap into competition with AT&T in the 0+ market
while they build an internal capability.  Speak with your pocketbook.

                                   ---


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

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

ISSUES 54 AND 55 GOT MAILED IN REVERSE ORDER. 55 IS JUST BEFORE THIS ISSUE.
ISSUE 56 FOLLOWS THIS ISSUE


From [e-mail]  Fri Feb 10 02:39:09 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA17932; Fri, 10 Feb 89 02:39:09 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89  0:01:52 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #54
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Feb 89 0:01:52 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:

                 Two horror stories in one phone call
                        North West Territories
                         Long distance access
          Re: Starlink/Tymnet vrs. PC Pursuit: Plot Thickens
               Re: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers
                      Re: New AC for SF Bay Area?
                            Re: 1+areacode
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 13:57:19 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hollingsworth)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Two horror stories in one phone call



When I came to Wisconsin to find housing, I also called the local telco from
my hotel. Everything went fine until I was asked to give my daytime phone
number.  I had a number in 213-217, but was told that could not possibly be
my number because ONLY area codes have a one as the second digit.  Despite all
attempts to explain that this had been my work number for over a year, she
refused to enter it into the computer. Finally she agreed to process the order
without a daytime number.

However, the problems didn't end here.  When I went to check out the hotel
tried to charge me over $8.00 for my call to the phone company.  The number
was listed in the telephone book as "toll free".  After a bit of complaining
I was able to get the charge dropped from my bill.

Jeff hollingsworth

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

Date: Thu 9 Feb 89 08:14:17-PST
From: Paul Andrews <[e-mail]>
Subject: North West Territories
To: [e-mail]


Service in the Nortwest Territories, Canada:
     I was going through the phone books looking for the Ottawa/Hull listings
when I came across the listing for the western North West Territories
(Canada).  Interesting...NorthwesTel Inc. claims to service 65,000 customers
in an area of 2.35 million sq Km..including such fun places as Snowdrift,
 Tungsten and Tuktoyaktuk. The 403  code area is _BIG_. From Beaver Creek in
 the SW corner of the Yukon to Cambdrige Bay on Victoria Island is about 1200
 miles (720 km).
Just curious, what is the largest area code area (at least on land)?..Just an
aside, the book also appears to have dialing instructions..except I don't read
Innuit chracters so I don't really know what it says. I wonder what the book
for Eastern NWT looks like?

                Just another stranded Canadian..

                Paul Andrews
=============================================================================


Paul Andrews                         #  EMAIL:[e-mail]
                                     #       :CABELL.ANDREWS@[128.92.192.5]
University of Texas at Austin        #  Phone: [phone]
College of Pharmacy                  #
Division of Medicinal Chemistry      #
Austin, Texas, USA
78712

-------

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Michael I. Bushnell)
Subject: Long distance access
Date: 9 Feb 89 09:17:37 GMT



Our glorious University of Nothing Much has its own phone exchange.
Put simply, for non-campus calls, there are 5 types of phones.  Class
0 is allowed to only dial on-campus numbers.  Class
1 is allowed to dial only local calls with 9+XXX-XXXX.  Hitting 8
results in a "no service" tone--an indication from the UNM phone
exchange that you are trying to do somethings you're not allowed to
do.  Class 2 can also make operator assisted long distance calls by
dialing 8-0-(long distance number).  The operator is the UNM operator,
and will only allow card calling or collect calls.  Class 3 is allowed
to dial long distance in the country by dialing
8-XXXXXX-1-XXX-XXX-XXXX where the first XXXXXX is a UNM account
number.  Class 4 is like class three, but is additionally allowed
international calls (there are state laws regulating who can
call/travel outside the country on state funds).

Most public phones and the like are class 0 or 1.  Class 2 phones
aren't even allowed to make 800 number calls, but that's not too bad.

Where I work, we have a few class 1 phones and a few class 3 phones
(and we have an account number for long distance calling).
Occasionally we want to make long distance calls from the lab of a
personal nature.  Naturally, it is illegitimate to charge these to
UNM, so we would like to get an operator.  This is fine: if we dial
8-XXXXXX-0 from a class 3 phone, we get a UNM operator who will
transfer us to an AT&T operator (if we cheat and just make a normal
OAC, UNM has an account number to bill).  The AT&T operator nicely
places the call.

Unfortunately, the UNM operators only work 8-5 M-F.  SIGH!  Off hours
we would like to get to an AT&T operator to make collect or calling
card calls.  But there is *no*way* to get a UNM operator, or make ANY
operator assisted call off hours.  We tried 9-0, 8-XXXXXX-0, etc.
None of it worked.  Immediate "failure tone" from the UNM system when
we try (since the operators aren't at work).

Questions:

  1: is there an 800 number that can connect us to a long distance
operator who will place a call for collect or calling card calling?

  2: is there a sneaky fashion (for anyone who has a similar phone
"system") for evading the stupid restriction that we have to go
through a UNM operator?

  Michael I. Bushnell       \     This above all; to thine own self be true
         GIG!                \    And it must follow, as the night the day,
[e-mail]..unm.edu      /\   Thou canst not be false to any man.
  Hmmmm..............       /  \  Farewell:  my blessing season this in thee!

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

From: ki4pv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Starlink/Tymnet vrs. PC Pursuit: Plot Thickens
Date: Wed Feb  8 21:14:42 1989


You ask if any communities DO NOT charge message units for business
phone lines.  At least here in the big city, you have a choice.  Pay
so much a month plus message units, or pay so much more a month and
don't pay message units.

If you didn't like the default option (or were just curious) you had
to ask.  The default here is to not pay message units (!).  I was
curious, and asked.

Residence lines here do not have the option of paying message units.
This fails to bother me.

                    Dr. T. Andrews, Systems
                    CompuData, Inc.  DeLand
---
...!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: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers
Date: 9 Feb 89 22:59:38 GMT



The leading digit 1 is NOT part of your phone number.  You should
just list the 10 digits starting with the area code.  The 1 is a
dialing code that tells your phone switch that the number to follow
has an area code.  It's use is not universal and will probably even
eventually go away when things get smart enough to realize how many
numbers you dial.

As for the letter head, I prefer the traditional form with the area
code in parenthesis: "[phone]" but the punctuation and spacing
is fluff, it doesn't ever actually get dialed.

-Ron

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

Date: 9 Feb 89 10:46:58 PST (Thursday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New AC for SF Bay Area?
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Rich Wales) asked: Is anyone on this list aware of any
near-term plans to create a new area code out of portions of 415 and/or
408?

I have seen an item that Pac Bell is planning to split Alameda and Contra
Costa counties out of AC 415,  This was supposed to happen in a few years.
  I don't remember the source; it could have been in my phone bill insert
or in a newspaper item or elsewhere.

  I live in Alameda county, and I am not overjoyed about changing area
codes, but it has to come.

  Alameda and Contra Costa counties are on the east side of San Francisco
Bay from the south end of the bay north (the name of the Bay changes from
San Francisco to San Pablo),  east along the south shore of Carquinez
Strait and Suisun Bay and part of the Sacramento-San Joquin delta and then
south including Livermore and back to SF Bay.

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

From: <harvard!cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!mailrus!uflorida!ki4pv!tanner>
To: vector!telecom
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: Wed Feb  8 20:10:40 1989


) [north jersey explained: to reach number in 201, don't dial "1"]

One more question, then: can you also dial 1+201 in front of that
615-xxxx number in North Jersey?  That is, can you dial your own area
code with 1+whatever dialing?

For all of my life down here, we dial 1+ to say that we want to kick
in the billing computer.
    1+904+253-xxxx seems to work to call DAB
    1+253-xxxx reaches DAB.  preferred method.
    253-xxxx can't be dialed.  intercept machine after "253"

I can't comment on why it's a toll call to DAB, even though it is in
the same county.  It is amusing if not relevant to note that we dial
DeBary numbers as "668-xxxx" without "1-407"; there's no charge, tho
it crosses the area-code boundary.  (DeBary's still in West Volusia).
---
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner


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

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

ISSUE 55 WAS NOT SKIPPED. IT APPEARS *IN FRONT OF ISSUE 54* BECAUSE 54-55
WERE ACCIDENTALLY REVERSED IN MAILING, AND LEFT THAT WAY HERE IN THE ARCHIVES.


From [e-mail]  Sat Feb 11 16:10:56 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA18324; Sat, 11 Feb 89 16:10:56 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 89 16:00:11 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #56
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Feb 89 16:00:11 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:

                       Very strange wrong number
              Caribbean points in World Numbering Zone 1
                      1+800 in Nassau County, NY?
                            Re: 1+areacode
              Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
               Re: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers
                             508-980-xxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: uunet![e-mail]
From: roy@phri (Roy Smith)
Subject: Very strange wrong number
Date: 11 Feb 89 18:31:15 GMT



    I just got the most bizarre wrong number I've ever heard of.  I'm
sitting at home and the phone rings.  Somebody asks for Tony Herbert and I
tell him he has the wrong number (we get a lot of wrong numbers; NYTel must
reassign numbers pretty fast) and ask him what number he's calling.  He says
he's calling from Holland and is trying to reach 718-636-11238, at which
point I tell him he's got too many digits for a US phone number.  Apparently
he got me because the first 10 digits are indeed mine.

    He then volunteers that he's trying to reach Tony Herbert from radio
station WNYE, who lives at 349 St. John's Place.  This is really spooky
because I'm at 295 St. John's; 349 must be just a couple of buildings down
the street.  At any rate, I offer to look up the phone number for him (I'm
sure he could have reached international directory assistance for free
instead of paying for the call, but he didn't seem to mind).  It seems that
neither WNYE nor Tony are listed in the book (it turns out that directory
assistance has the listing for WNYE, but not for Tony).  The guy gives me his
name and phone number in Holland and asks me if I would mind delivering a
message to Tony (which I agree that I will try to do).

    We both remark on how strange a coincidence it is that he got a wrong
number just a couple hundred yards away from his target trying to place a
transatlantic phone call and on how good the line is (no echo at all, very
clean, and almost no delay, must have been on the new transatlantic fiber),
say goodbye, and hang up.

    It's not until a couple of minutes later that I realize why the
number he had for me/Tony is so strange; with the extra '8' tacked on the
end, the last 5 digits become my zip code!  Sounds like something out of The
Twilight Zone, but it's true.  Even I couldn't make up a story this strange.

    On a totally different topic, I'm looking for a phone which will work
well in a noisy environment (i.e. my computer room).  It's almost impossible
to hear the other party on the line, even if they shout, with a normal phone.
Possibly all that has to be done is to attenuate the sidetone; if I put my
hand over the mouthpiece when the other party is talking, I can hear them
pretty well, but it's a pain, especially when you need one hand to hold the
phone, one to cover the mike, and one to type.  Adjustable volume would
probably help too; even with the sidetone gone, it's still a little hard to
hear, but simply cranking up the volume alone won't change the S/N unless you
do something about picking up ambient noise.

    BTW, trying to listen to the phone in a noisy room is one of the few
advantages that people who are deaf in one ear (as I am) have over
fully-hearing people.  How many times have you seen somebody try to hold the
phone with one hand, cover the other ear with their second hand, and try to
write with their third? :-)
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri![e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
Date: 10 Feb 89 09:19
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Caribbean points in World Numbering Zone 1


>lack of '809' as a country code in this version. Yet I believe that
>callers from the UK, for example, reach the Virgin Islands by dialing
>809 as a country code rather than in the context of a North American
>area code.

No, Patrick, they don't.  As I said in the title, the list I submitted is
from CCITT Standard E.163, a copy of which I have in front of me right now.
It clearly lists exactly what I listed as part of World Numbering Zone 1.
It also lists each of the then 80X codes as being spare.

I also have a Reading, England, telephone directory, which confirms that the
U.K. observes the international standard:  010 1 809 49X-XXXX.

We know that Switzerland dials +1 809 for part of area code 809, but because
of a billing problem, dials +500 809 for some locations in a different rate
band.  This is a violation of the standard which will get them in trouble if
direct dial service to the Falkland Islands is initiated.

I will make one change the next time I update the list.  53 99, Guantanamo Bay,
is only dialable from the U.S.  Canada, Switzerland, and other countries which
have direct dial service to Cuba (53) cannot dial 53 99.

/john

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

Date:     Fri, 10 Feb 89 10:49:24 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  1+800 in Nassau County, NY?


I looked up the 1989 Nassau County (Long Island, NY call guide)
last night.  It still says areacode+number for out-of-area calls.
But it says, for "800" service, to dial 1+800+number (why the
leading 1?), and the 1 is also listed for some toll-free community
service numbers.  This is in area 516.

A footnote to the "800" stuff: "All calls to '800' telephone numbers
are station-to-station calls."

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

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: 11 Feb 89 17:24:23 GMT



In 201-land, you can dial 201 calls with the area code (and 1+
of course) if you want.  It's a waste of time, but it works.

-Ron

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

To: Telecom Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area?
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 10:43:00 -0800
From: ben ullrich <sybase![e-mail]>


> Nevertheless, my MCI bill really did say that there would eventually be
> a new area code in the San Francisco area.  Following is an exact quote
> of the announcement (in my December 28 MCI bill):

>      STARTING FEBRUARY 4, 1989 -- WHEN YOU ARE IN THE 415 AREA
>      CODE -- YOU WILL NEED TO DIAL "1" FIRST FOR ALL CALLS GOING
>      OUTSIDE THE 415 AREA CODE.  THIS CHANGE IS THE FIRST STEP
>      BY PACIFIC BELL TO IMPLEMENT A NEW AREA CODE TO THE BAY AREA.

> Let me say again that I realize that 1+ dialing is a necessary precursor
> to the use of NXX prefixes -- and not required at all in order to create
> a new area code.  Maybe the MCI person who composed this bill message
> didn't know what he/she was talking about -- or thought it'd be hope-
> lessly confusing to try explaining NXX prefixes to the unwashed masses.

> But let me ask again:  Is anyone on this list aware of any near-term
> plans to create a new area code out of portions of 415 and/or 408?

the mci note was correct in this instant.  the note said that this is the first
step **by pacific bell** to implement a new ac... meaning this is uniquely pac
bell's plan, and not necessarily the rule on how one implements a new area
code.

we need more prefixes before they go through the trauma of an area code split
in 1993 i think it is.  the latest i heard is sf & the peninsula will keep 415,
and the east bay will get a new one.


...ben
----
ben ullrich           consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc.        "forgiveness is the fragrance of the violet which still
emeryville, ca       clings fast to the heel that crushed it." -- george roemisch
(415) 596 - 3654
[e-mail]        {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis,capmkt}!sybase!ben

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388)
Date: 10 Feb 89 15:04
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers


Ron Natilie of Rutgers (NJ) writes,
>The leading digit 1 is NOT part of your phone number.  You should
>just list the 10 digits starting with the area code.  The 1 is a
>dialing code that tells your phone switch that the number to follow
>has an area code.  It's (sic) use is not universal and will probably even
> eventually go away when things get smart enough to realize how many
>numbers you dial.

I used to think that way when I lived in "what's a 1 for?" New Jersey.
Subsequent to my emigration, New Jersey joined the 1+ world, with
interchangeable codes even in my old hometown.

Doing a way with 1+ would be a Bad Thing as it would require critical
timing in its stead (when users don't use an "end of dial" signal such
as the octothorpe).  It is not Part of the Plan.  Instead, the North
American Numbering Plan calls for the 1+ to be universal before Time T
(1996), when interchangeable area codes go into effect.  The NANP is
administered by Bellcore and ANSI T1S1.4 with FCC approval.

While in the olden days it looked silly to see "1-800..." in listings
when I didn't have to dial it (those folks across the river in NY did,
of course), I later realized how beneficial it really is.  Y'see,
"1" is not only the LD access code, it's our country code.  So
internationally, our numbers really do begin with the "1"!

By convention, international telephone numbers are written with a
plus sign (+) in front of the country code, then a space, then the
national number (bereft of access codes such as '0' which is more common
than '1' for long distance, worldwide).  Thus I give my number as
[phone] while folks in the UK might give out something like
[phone].
THe + translates to 011 in the USA and different things elsewhere.

In most other countries, the access code is not the country code, so
for instance English STD codes like 0734 are really 734 with the
access code; the 0 must be dropped for international calls.  But
we dumb Yanks can leave the 1 on the front of the area code and even
foreigners will be able to reach us.
      fred

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

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 19:00:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (Eric Swenson)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 508-980-xxxx



Does anyone know what the 980 prefix in the 508 area code is?  If you dial
the digits "980" from a 371 (Concord) exchange, you get a bizarre tone.
If you type 4 more digits (random ones) and wait a few seconds, the line
goes dead.  Staying on the line for a while longer will reactivate it
(disconnect and reissue a dial tone).  I discovered this while trying
to locate the ring-back number for numbers in the 508-371-xxxx
exchange.  (I was unsuccessful in locating the number after trying
quite a few unused (or unpublished) exchanges).



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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Feb 12 00:11:33 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA16119; Sun, 12 Feb 89 00:11:33 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89  0:04:20 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #57
To: [e-mail]
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Feb 89  0:04:20 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:

                        Re: Rate Cap postponed
                       Dangers of Wrong Numbers
                       800 Number For LD Access
                          Numbers and Numbers
                 Re: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected
                Re: autodialing without checking first
                          Answer Supervision

[Moderator's Note: TELECOM Digest is relocating to Evanston, Illinois,
a northern suburb of Chicago, and the home of Northwestern University,
where we will be located at '[e-mail]'. I will be moderating
the Digest, and Jacob Gore, postmaster, will assist with any technical
problems which may arise.

Our first issue from Evanston will be published in the next couple of
days. Mail addressed here is now being forwarded to Evanston, and we hope
the transition will go smoothly. More news on this tomorrow. P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: att!comp-dcom-telecom
From: harvard!ihlpl.att.com!fangli (Chang)
Subject: Re: Rate Cap postponed
Date: 10 Feb 89 17:54:46 GMT



    I may be biased to comment on "Rate Cap" but I do feel the
urge to clear some fictions from facts.

>Here are some reasons why Congress, as well as many of the American people,
>may oppose this proposal:
>
>AT&T's current Rate of Return regulation guarantees that they will make
>a fair profit, but not an excessive one.  This is standard practice for
>utilities and other monopolies.  While AT&T is technically not a
>monopoly any more, it can be argued that a company with a huge market
>share (such as the 75%+ that AT&T has in interstate toll and private line)

The last number I saw on a market study newsletter was 68%. If my
memory serves me correctly the number was quoted from an FCC publication.

>is not subject to serious competition, but functions merely as a "rate
>umbrella" over the marketplace.  The rest of the industry is not able

Since the big breakup, AT&T' bread and butter business is eroding
constantly.  Especially in high profit business market, AT&T's share
are much lower than the 68% figure.  Thanks to our competitors, they
skim the cream and left all the not-so-profitable area to AT&T.

>to absorb capacity from consumers who might choose to defect.  In any
>case, only AT&T offers such a full line of services.
>
>With the current plan, prices are pretty much guaranteed to fall as
>the underlying cost of service falls.  This is predictable and can
>be used make business plans.
>
>Without regulation, a total monopoly can raise prices until consumers
>simply refuse to buy more.  This pretty much determines long distance
>prices in much of Europe, where crass revenue maximization is the rule.
>A rate cap seems like a fix to that, but if the underlying cost of
>providing a service (the basis for rate of return regulation) is
>declining rapidly, then inflation-based rate increases are far in
>excess of costs.  This wouldn't happen in a truly competitive market,
>but telecom isn't one.  Note that some less-competitive services,
>like private line, are not benefiting the way toll is.
>
>The other major problem with the cap is that it allows predatory
>pricing.  ( some stuff deleted)  AT&T's
>competition is rather fragile.

When I read their (MCI & SPRINT) business growth rate and earning
capability, I would not come to the same conclusion as yours.

>It's in AT&T's interest to preserve
>the appearance of competition (MCI) but Sprint is on thin ice, and

Sprint has a very aggressive marketing plan and they did so
successfully (everyone remember the scratchy 45 vs CD, it's rather
ridiculous in a technical point of view) but they are only plagued
by their own mismanagement of billing system.

>a number of other carriers are already gone (SBS) or operating under
>Chapter 11 protection (Western Union Domestic).
>
If you read the telecom news carefully you'll know that there are
price cap on both end in the FCC proposal.  AT&T is not allowed to
raise its price over the upper cap and also not allowed to drop its
price below the lower cap but allowed to adjust its price in a
restricted way (very limited number of times) for each service
provided without having to file for tariff approval.

>MCI supports the cap because, I'd speculate, they're in line to be the
>"second telephone and telegraph" needed to preserve AT&T's claim of
>a competitive market.  When AT&T jacks up prices, MCI will jack 'em up
>too.  There won't be anyone left to turn to.  Such is the threat of
>a rate cap.

A upper cap will prevent American people from paying an outrages
price like those charged by AOS.  A lower cap will eliminate any
predatory pricing possibility thus provides a competitive market.  And
the market will determine what price people are willing to pay, so
what's the catch?

>
>If there were antitrust enforcement, this wouldn't be so important, but
>there isn't, so it is.
>
AT&T does not seek removal of regulation.  AT&T is seeking approval
of "price cap". Part of the reason that AT&T seeking the approval of
"price cap" is that it will give AT&T the flexibility to change our
rate without go through lengthy tariff approval.

Whenever AT&T's competitors offer promotional "discount rate" to AT&T's
customers, AT&T are not allowed to follow because of regulation
demand that AT&T has to get approval for each and every rate
changes.  The result are 1) our market share keep eroding, 2) the
consumers did not get the best possible price they deserve.

>           fred
>(I speak for me, and me alone.  Opinions may be licensed for a small
>fee.)

Fangli Chang

(If you want to know the formal opinion of AT&T ask AT&T's spokesperson,
I'm the spokesperson of myself and my family only)

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

To: uunet.uu.net![e-mail]
From: well![e-mail] (Frank G Kienast)
Subject: Dangers of Wrong Numbers
Date: 12 Feb 89 01:10:29 GMT




>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.

A similar problem exists with machines that are programmed to
automatically redial a number until data has been successfully sent.  A
few months ago, I was testing a fax setup at home.  Compuserve offers a
service which lets you send a mail message via fax by specifying the
area code and number of the destination fax machine, so I decided to use
this to test my setup.  I found serious hardware problems with my setup
which I would not be able to fix that day.  I had no way, though, of
stopping the retry calls.  In the next few hours, I answered the phone
several times only to hear a fax machine at the other end.

Obviously, this same problem would also occur when someone mistyped the
number of a fax machine they wished to send to.  I think automatic retry
should only be activated if the called number is busy, and not if there
is voice or even no answer.  This should not be all that difficult -
even modems can tell the difference between busy, no answer, voice, etc.

In real life: Frank Kienast
Well: well![e-mail]
CIS: 73327,3073
V-mail: 804-980-3733

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

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Number For LD Calling
Date: 10-Feb-89 09:25:06 PST


In response to the person at U of New Mexico that wanted an 800
number for operator assisted calls. This is probably one of
many replys, but Sprint uses an 800 number accessable from anywhere
in the US (1-800-877-8000). This gives you a tone to dial 0+ followed
by a Sprint credit Card number.

Having recently returned from an assignment at Alamogordo, I can attest
that it works from New Mexico!

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

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 09:31:38 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Numbers and Numbers
To: [e-mail]


Re: two recent postings making categorical statements which are
(in my opinion) erroneous and/or misleading:

o  It seems to me that 1 is the International Designator for the
the North American Area.  Thus 1-NPA-NXX XXXX is a complete
number making the "1" part of the number and not an access artifact.

o  Introduction of 1+ dialing in A/C 415 is designated (By PacBell)
as Phase I of the 415 NPA Code Relief Plan.  Phase 2 is the splitting
of Alemeda and Contra Costa Counties into a new (as yet undesignated
Area Code).  Thus, the announcement from MCI, reflects exactly what
is coming out of the horse's mouth.
-------

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

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 17:27:52 EST
From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Warnock) writes:
>[use a modem to log off-hook time on your phone line]
>.. it may be hard for NET to find, since they can't see your modem,
>but it shouldn't be too hard for you to give them a little help.
>
>(What can they do, even then? Well, if you called them and said, "That
>other guy is on my line *RIGHT NOW*, they might be able to run a TDR
>measurement and find out [approximately] where the other phone is.)

Even better, when the phone is off the hook pick up the phone and say
"Excuse me but your phone is cross-wired with mine, would you mind telling
me your phone number?"  It worked for me one time.  Or when the modem goes
off hook, tell it to send lots of noise so the other customer will complain
and, with any luck, they'll figure out what the problem is.

It occurs to me that there may be a worse problem here.  I gather that each
phone line really has two numbers, the number that makes it ring and the
number used for billing.  Normally both are the same but in some cases, e.g.
DID trunks or other multiple installations, everything is billed to the
customer's main number.  There may be a line somewhere with a correct ring
number but your billing number, so the other guy wouldn't even notice that
anything was wrong except that he didn't get any toll charges on the bill.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

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

To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom
From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: autodialing without checking first
Date: 10 Feb 89 19:52:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> buita![e-mail] (David Tamkin) writes:

> When I was active in a user group I posted my phone number as contact
> number for the group on three or four BBS's.  Modems screamed in my
> ear for months afterward.
> It is amazing how many half-wits assume (1) that any number they read
> on a BBS is a BBS and (2) that there is no reason to dial with their
> fingers and listen with their ears the first time they try it.

How strange.  Not only did the callers dial your number, but they
modified their modems so that instead of the calling modem
*listening* for carrier, like all normal modems, it actually called
you and went into answer mode.  Now either this story is apocryphal,
or the people calling your number were not bumpkins, but were
intentionally harassing you.


Rick Farris   RF Engineering  POB M  Del Mar, CA  92014   voice [phone]
[e-mail]     ...!uunet!serene!rfarris       serene.UUCP 259-7757




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

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1989 9:26:45 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Answer Supervision


I was told a few months ago by a Sprint operator that they now did real
supervision in most areas.  I didn't call Corporate and verify this or
anything -- is it true?  How do the LOCs offer this to the carriers?

_H*

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

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

From [e-mail]  Sun Feb 12 14:41:45 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA08885; Sun, 12 Feb 89 14:41:45 EST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 14:11:14 EST
From: The Moderator <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #58
To: [e-mail]
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Feb 89 14:11:14 EST    Volume 9 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:

                   We Relocate to Evanston, Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 12 Feb 89 12:46:11 CST
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
Subject:  We Relocate to Evanston, Illinois


[TELECOM Digest] has relocated its base of operations from Boston University
to Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Evanston is one of the northern
suburbs of Chicago. We are now operating from machine 'gamma' in the cluster
of machines known as 'eecs.nwu.edu'. All these machines share a common
user log, and our complete and correct address at this time is as follows --

                 [e-mail]  (for submissions to Digest)
                 [e-mail]  (list changes, etc)
                 [e-mail]  (personal mail to me)

In addition, you can reach me personally at: [e-mail]. Anything
which must come by US Mail (hard copy printouts; telecom newsletters, etc.
should be addressed to TELECOM DIGEST c/o Townson, Box 1570, Chicago IL 60690.

Why did the Digest move? I didn't like the weather in Boston this time of
year. New England is too cold in the winter. (smile). Actually, I did not
like getting humongous (how about $325 per month) telephone bills from Illinois
Bell for connections to the Telenet PC Pursuit switch in downtown Chicago
for three hours per day on an average. And of course, effective February 1,
PC Pursuit charges $1 per hour for anything over thirty hours per month. The
circuitous connection through Telenet in Chicago, jumping off via the Boston
outdialers, connecting to the Boston University Campus Network, then
connecting to bu-cs did nothing to enhance speed.

My telephone connection is now direct to eecs.nwu.edu, at 2400 baud, on a
local Evanston dialup *which is a local, untimed phone call* to my home
several blocks away. Since this site is part of the Internet, virtually no
work was required to the mailing list, and there should be no noticable
difference in the delivery of the Digest to you each day. The advantages
should be obvious.

But the loss of jsol as an immediate, on-line and at-hand technical advisor
was one negative. The more complex aspects of how mail is handled -- and
how to get the Digest program to actually work on a different machine --
were, and still are mysteries to me. Enter Jacob Gore to the rescue.

Mr. Gore, postmaster at eecs.nwu.edu, has been especially helpful. In two
all night sessions this past week, we made mailing list changes and other
modifications as required. We began making the changes required earlier
last week, assisted by helpful comments and instructions from jsol.

In addition, chip@vector has been working for some time on completely
automating the gateway to comp.dcom.telecom, so that messages between
Usenet readers of that group and the Digest will flow with ease. A couple
of small changes you will see in the Digest which were made to accomodate
Skip's efforts are as follows --

   Messages in the Digest will no longer include a 'to' line.
   When the information is available, messages will include an 'organization'
   line and a 'reply-to' line.

What about the Archives? The Telecom Digest Archives remain intact at Boston
University, and will continue to receive copies of each issue. The only
real change being made is that for the sake of my personal telephone bill,
the Digest is being published at a local (to me) site. The Archives are
still available as always --

   Use ftp to connect with bu-cs.bu.edu. Enter user name 'anonymous'.
   Enter some non-null password. Enter 'cd telecom-archives' to switch to
   our directory. Enter 'ls' to view the selections, and use regular ftp
   commands to obtain copies of whatever you want.

Naturally, everything will go off without a hitch. (smile). Nothing ever
goes wrong with mailing lists and the propogation of digests, news groups,
etc. You bet. If you *do not* receive digests each day hereafter from
Evanston, including the first issue, published a little after midnight on
Monday morning, then please let us know our mailing list needs a bit more
fine tuning. Our first issue from Evanston will be 59 on Monday morning.

Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator


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

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

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Feb 13 01:32:09 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA18019; Mon, 13 Feb 89 01:32:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28235; 13 Feb 89 0:14 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28230; 13 Feb 89 0:07 CST
Date:     Mon, 13 Feb 89 0:07:48 CST
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #59
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Feb 89  0:04:56 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:                            Moderator: Patrick Townson

    We Relocate To Evanston (Patrick Townson)
    Re: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected (Dave Levenson)
    Re: 1+areacode (Dave Levenson)
    Re: 1+Area Code (Bob Swenson)
    Re: USA-Direct (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: Nuisance Phone Calls (Bill Michaelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
Subject:  We Relocate to Evanston


[TELECOM Digest] has relocated its base of operations from Boston University
to Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Evanston is one of the northern
suburbs of Chicago. We are now operating from machine 'gamma' in the cluster
of machines known as 'eecs.nwu.edu'. All these machines share a common
user log, and our complete and correct address at this time is as follows --

               [e-mail]  (for submissions to Digest)
               [e-mail]  (list changes, etc)
               [e-mail]  (personal mail to me)

In addition, you can reach me personally at: [e-mail]. Anything
which must come by US Mail (hard copy printouts; telecom newsletters, etc.
should be addressed to TELECOM DIGEST c/o Townson, Box 1570, Chicago IL 60690.

Why did the Digest move? I didn't like the weather in Boston this time of
year. New England is too cold in the winter. (smile). Actually, I did not
like getting humongous (how about $325 per month) telephone bills from Illinois
Bell for connections to the Telenet PC Pursuit switch in downtown Chicago
for three hours per day on an average. And of course, effective February 1,
PC Pursuit charges $1 per hour for anything over thirty hours per month. The
circuitous connection through Telenet in Chicago, jumping off via the Boston
outdialers, connecting to the Boston University Campus Network, then
connecting to bu-cs did nothing to enhance speed.

My telephone connection is now direct to eecs.nwu.edu, at 2400 baud, on a
local Evanston dialup *which is a local, untimed phone call* to my home
several blocks away. Since this site is part of the Internet, virtually no
work was required to the mailing list, and there should be no noticable
difference in the delivery of the Digest to you each day. The advantages
should be obvious.

But the loss of jsol as an immediate, on-line and at-hand technical advisor
was one negative. The more complex aspects of how mail is handled -- and
how to get the Digest program to actually work on a different machine --
were, and still are mysteries to me. Enter Jacob Gore to the rescue.

Mr. Gore, postmaster at eecs.nwu.edu, has been especially helpful. In two
all night sessions this past week, we made mailing list changes and other
modifications as required. We began making the changes required earlier
last week, assisted by helpful comments and instructions from jsol.

In addition, chip@vector has been working for some time on completely
automating the gateway to comp.dcom.telecom, so that messages between
Usenet readers of that group and the Digest will flow with ease. A couple
of small changes you will see in the Digest which were made to accomodate
Skip's efforts are as follows --

   Messages in the Digest will no longer include a 'to' line.
   When the information is available, messages will include an 'organization'
   line and a 'reply-to' line.

What about the Archives? The Telecom Digest Archives remain intact at Boston
University, and will continue to receive copies of each issue. The only
real change being made is that for the sake of my personal telephone bill,
the Digest is being published at a local (to me) site. The Archives are
still available as always --

   Use ftp to connect with bu-cs.bu.edu. Enter user name 'anonymous'.
   Enter some non-null password. Enter 'cd telecom-archives' to switch to
   our directory. Enter 'ls' to view the selections, and use regular ftp
   commands to obtain copies of whatever you want.

Naturally, everything will go off without a hitch. (smile). Nothing ever
goes wrong with mailing lists and the propogation of digests, news groups,
etc. You bet. If you *do not* receive digests each day hereafter from
Evanston, including the first issue, published a little after midnight on
Monday morning, then please let us know our mailing list needs a bit more
fine tuning. The last issue at Boston was 58, and it included this message.

Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected
Date: 12 Feb 89 05:02:31 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail] (Rob Warnock) writes:
...
> There exist boxes (try Radio Shack) that show you if a phone line is
> "off hook". (Basically, they measure the voltage.) And if your modem
> is at all standard, it will assert "Data Set Ready" iff it is off-hook.
...

If your modem is Hayes-compatible, it asserts DSR whenever it is
powered up, whether or not it is off-hook.  But if you flip one of
its configuration switches, you can enable A-lead control -- which
means that when the modem is off-hook, it closes a pair of
normally-open relay contacts which connect the black and yellow
wires in its telephone line cord.  The old AT&T modems that don't
have built-in auto-dialers were the last ones widely used on dialup
circuits that use DSR as described above.

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


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1+areacode
Date: 12 Feb 89 05:19:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, unet!unet.UUCP![e-mail] (Dennis J. W. Maine) writes:
> I haven't seen any mention of adding some reasonable hueristics to
> the number decoding algorithm.  It seems logical that if the phone
> company can detect the omission of a leading 1 digit and request
> that you redial the number adding the one, it could also do it for you.
> Why would anyone enter 10 digits in a given time interval without
> specifying the area code.   We are talking user-surly programming.
...

yes, but...

The costs of Mr. Maine's suggestion are not particularly
user-friendly, either.  If the telco equipment must apply a time-out
on every 7-digit call, just in case the user is planning to dial a
10-digit number, the call-setup delays incurred on every local call
will be annoying to those of us who have already mastered the
difficult art of dialing a leading 1 for an area code.

Moreover, the increased register holding time of several seconds per
call, for every local call dialed, will increase the number of
registers required per central office.  Registers cost money.  The
local rate-payer may feel that he/she is already paying enough...
I certainly do!

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


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

From: Admin <evecs![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1+Area Code
Date: 11 Feb 89 19:24:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Hartford -- Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> On a local radio news report about the upcomming addition of 1+area code to
> San Francisco pennsula +) the only area in the US that does NOT require
> 1+area code.  Is this correct?
>
> Bob Swenson
> [e-mail]



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

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA-Direct
Date: 6 Feb 89 13:11:46 GMT




Could someone post a list of (all) the countries with USA-Direct
service, including access codes, conditions (duration of call,
time of day etc.) on which USA-Direct is cheaper then a regular
international call, and other (dis-)advantages.

T. Hofmann    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 15:15:41 EST

From: [e-mail] (Bill Michaelson)
Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls
Date: 12 Feb 89 19:34:08 GMT
Organization: COS, Inc., Lawrenceville, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Leonard P Levine) writes:
> Could not the phone company be asked/required to institute a tarrif that
> bills the caller 3 times if the called party hangs up first?

I think you're on to something here... Let me take this a step further...

What if a subscriber could specify a fee for accepting calls?  Ideally, one
would be able to register known call originators, where calls would be
accepted for no charge.  Unknown originators would receive an announcement
informing them what fee the call recipient has set, and would be given the
opportunity to abort the call if it was unacceptable.  I'd be happy to talk
to salespeople on the phone, if they were willing to pay my rate.  I'd be
thrilled to talk to computerized callers, and I would have no objection to
giving telco a hefty cut of the proceeds!

--
Bill Michaelson - Reply to: princeton!mccc!cosi!bill
also at... Voice 609-771-6705  CompuServe 72416,1026



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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #59
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Feb 13 02:11:22 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA20499; Mon, 13 Feb 89 02:11:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29631; 13 Feb 89 0:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29627; 13 Feb 89 0:52 CST
Date:     Mon, 13 Feb 89 0:52:36 CST
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #60
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Feb 89 00:32:51 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:                            Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Commercial (Marc W. Howard)
    Re: AT&T Regulation (Eduardo Krell)
    Re: AT&T Commercial (Unmesh Funda Agarwala)
    Terminal Emulators On Unix (Mitchell Wyle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marc W. Howard)
Subject: Re: AT&T Commercial
Date: 1 Feb 89 23:45:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Paradis)
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (C. Allen Sher) writes:
> >If Sprint and MCI can lease lines from AT&T and offer them to the
> >public at lower rates than AT&T, why CAN'T AT&T do it?
>
> Silly boy!  Of course AT&T CAN offer long distance service at the
> same rates that Sprint and MCI offer... but they don't HAVE to.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!

    AT&T must file tariff petitions with the FCC for all routes and
bands (distance / time of call).  This is not a quick overnight process.
I've seen the tariff books before, they're huge.  Thus its true that AT&T
can set any rate it wishes as long as they can prove that they don't make
more that X percent profit max.  If AT&T sets its rates too low you can
bet that the Justice Dept will be on them like hair on a gorilla.

    Of course, AT&T's competitors are not restriced in any way in setting
prices.  As soon as AT&T's drop MCI & Sprint set theirs to be lower.  In
short AT&T can never be the lowest in such a setup, much less responsive.

    AT&T has won some relief to file special tariffs quickly to prevent
large accounts from being taken away from them by underpricing.  Ironically,
both MCI and Sprint favor changing the rules governing AT&Ts rates.  They'd
prefer rate caps for AT&T rather that the current rate of return system.  Why?
Simple, when the FCC determines that through either reduced subscriber line
charges (to the LD companies, not you & me) or increased efficiency that
AT&T is making too high a profit margin, the Feds order AT&T to reduce rates.
Naturally MCI & Sprint follow suit.  The end result is that they all make
less money.

    Recent postings have convinced me of the excellent job Sprint has
done with their commercials.  I particularly remember the one comparing
AT&T's lines to a scratchy 45 and Sprint's to a CD.  16 bits at 44khz sampling
rate for a phone line??? 8 bits a 8khz is much closer to the mark.

    As far as the digital radio / fiber talk goes "BITS is BITS".  Last
time I looked, microwaves and light were both on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Fiber optic links have their own failure modes, chief among which is
"Backhoe Fade".  If you can't figure this one out, note how often major train
derailments cause outages for LD carriers (remember, SPRINT stood for
Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecom).  And fiber is a bitch to
splice.  Until fiber is run into everyone's house you're still at the mercy of
the local telco's copper/analog links anyway.

    When there is a level playing field out there, then I'll put some
stock in raw price comparisons.  I've had no billing troubles with AT&T,
the same is not true for two other companies I've used.


        Marc W. Howard
        Sun Microsystems - Graphics Products Division
        Raleigh, NC

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

From: [e-mail] (Eduardo Krell)
Subject: Re: AT&T and Regulation
Date: 11 Feb 89 18:54:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>If AT&T could engage in monopolistic paractices while they were 100%
>regulated, surely they would be better able to do so if they had no
>regulation.

Of course, you fail to mention that AT&T doesn't own any of the local
Bell companies anymore, which was the basis for the "monopolistic practices"
you mentioned.

>Consider the present world for a moment.  AT&T is now advertizing that
>if you are a BIG, BUSINESS customer, they will match any other company's
>prices.

Excuse me, but you don't have to be a BIG BUSINESS to spend $120 a month
in long distance calls.

> Why do they only want to offer lower prices for BIG, BUSINESS
>customers?  Why should the consumer pay higher prices so big, customers
>can pay less?

It's called economy of scale. The more you buy, the smaller the marginal
cost. It happens everywhere. When you buy groceries at a supermarket,
the bigger the package the cheaper the cost per unit.
If you or I, as individuals, want to buy say a Sun workstation, we'll
have to pay list price. When your University or a company buys a bunch
of Suns, they get a discount. How big a discount? It will depend on
the volume. The more you buy, the cheaper.

>   The little old man
>   who does not even know what a modem is probably does not care that
>   today's lines can handle 9600 baud transmission instead of 120 baud
>   transmission, or whatever the exact baud rates would be.  That same
>   man, however, is forced to pay for these improvements.]

But in the long term, those improvements benefit all users. For instance,
fiber optics vs copper. The capacity of fiber is orders of magnitude
larger than that of copper at a fraction of a price. Higher capacity
means less expeditures in expanding the network in future years
and lower costs means lower prices for the customers.

Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Unmesh Funda Agarwala)
Subject: Re: AT&T Commercial
Date: 2 Feb 89 23:42:45 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


I'm a long term user of SPRINT and thought I'd contribute my own experience
with the carrier.  Our exchange recently converted to EQUAL ACCESS, and we got
a phone call from a SPRINT representative offering as a convenience to inform
the local BELL company that SPRINT was our long distance carrier.  He also
told us to use the 10333 prefix until the switchover was complete, which would
take up to two weeks.

The surprising thing was that SPRINT in the meanwhile cancelled our authoriza-
tion code, so that we could no longer use the 10333 or other prefixes!  A call
to their Customer Service revealed that indeed this was standard operating
procedure in areas switching over to equal access, and that I could use their
travel feature (through an 800 number) until the transition was complete.  They
did not seem to care that calls made in this way were going to cost us more
than the calls made through the local entry point into their system.

Although I was quite pissed off at this time, (especially since I'd listened
to a recording while on hold about thow they were now a full service long-
distance carrier, etc), I decided to give it another chance.  A week later, I
call up the local Bell company and learn that they haven't had a request
from SPRINT yet, but if I wished, they could have me connected to SPRINT in
a day.

Needless to say, I am now an AT&T customer again, even if it means paying more.
In fact, considering the number of 1 minute calls I get billed every month on
SPRINT ("You must have let the phone ring more than 5 times"), I might even
be paying less.

I guess customer satisfaction wins after all.

-Unmesh

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

From: Mitchell Wyle <mcvax!solaris![e-mail]>
Subject: terminal emulators on unix
Date: 10 Feb 89 15:39:00 GMT
Organization: Information Systems Sun Cluster, Swiss Federal Institute of Tech.


I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to convince xcomm(l) to run some
complex scripts at 9600 baud on my Sun-3/50 (Sun OS 3.4EXPORT).  Is
there a better terminal emulator for unix than xcomm?

tip(1) and cu(1) have no real terminal emulator scripting capabilities;
telnet has none at all.  There are 3 basic issues:

1.  I want to implement autonomous and semi-autonomous scripts which
    call other non-unix systems, log in, issue commands, log sessions to
    a file, download files, log out, and recover from most common
    errors.  I want to start these things from at(1) or from shell
    scripts when I'm not logged in (non-interactively).

2.  I'd prefer to use telnet(1) instead of the serial line on my sun,
    but could live with an emulator which accesses only a serial line.

3.  The scripting language must be able to "expect" and "send" and
    transfer files with [xyz]modem or kermit protocol.

If anyone has access to Compuserve, Delphi, Bix or the Andover CNode,
or if you have hacked xcomm, please pass these comments on to Larry
Gensch (the author of xcomm).  His addresses are:

Compu$erve:             [72236,3516]   (UNIXFORUM)
Delphi:                 larryg
Bix:                    lar3ry
Andover CNode:          larry gensch
                        (This is a FIDO BBS dedicated to C Language
                        programming - phone number [phone])

The scripting language needs the following functionality added:

+ There is no command to ring the bell. Add it.
+ A "case" or "switch" statement for multiple possibilities in a
  "waitfor" command would be more convenient.
+ There is no command to send a break; Break is often needed.  Add it.

xcomm drops characters at higher baud rates (on a Sun) and runs
sluggishly.

--
-Mitchell F. Wyle                         [e-mail]
Institut fuer Informationsysteme          [e-mail]
ETH Zentrum / 8092 Zurich, Switzerland    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #60
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Feb 14 03:13:48 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA10888; Tue, 14 Feb 89 03:13:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07197; 14 Feb 89 1:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07192; 14 Feb 89 0:55 CST
Date:     Tue, 14 Feb 89 0:55:43 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #61
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Feb 89 00:44:29 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:                            Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Answer Supervision (John Higdon)
    Hello Direct Catalog (Robert Wier)
    Minitel access port (John B. Nagle)
    "Toll-Free" 900? (Will Martin)
    Calling areas across the county? (Carl Moore)
    Re:  Numbers and Numbers (Carl Moore)
    AOS/COCOTS/etc. & innocents abroad! (Hugh Davies)
    Re: Dialing '809' for the Virgin Isles from the U.K. (Hugh Davies)
    Long distance access (Michael A. Patton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: bovine![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision
Date: 12 Feb 89 23:43:53 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <bovine![e-mail]>

On Feb 10 at 14:26, *Hobbit* writes:
>
> I was told a few months ago by a Sprint operator that they now did real
> supervision in most areas.  I didn't call Corporate and verify this or
> anything -- is it true?  How do the LOCs offer this to the carriers?

Sprint does indeed have answer supervision. This was an issue with me some
months ago and to confirm it, I made *many* test calls all over the country
to test numbers, some supervising, some not. I stayed on the line for a
long time on unsupervising calls, and even called some supervising busys.
Sprint's billing was 100% accurate, perfectly agreeing with my log.

LOCs offer this to carriers (I assume you mean OCC's) the same way they
offer it to AT&T. Remember "equal access"? As a matter of fact, Sprint,
like AT&T, is now utilizing SS#7 signaling and in some cases have a slicker
interface to the local company than AT&T in some small areas.

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 00:18:37 mst
From: Robert Wier <harvard!arizona.edu!naucse.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Hello Direct Catalog

 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).

 ________________

 I note in a recent catalog that Fordham Radio (800-645-9518)
 also has a "remote access call diverter" at a price of $149,
 which requires two lines, allows remote programming of
 numbers, and gives positive disconnect at the end of the call.

 .
 STRONG DISCLAIMER:  I have no connection with HELLO DIRECT or FORDHAM, 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*


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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minitel access port
Date: 12 Feb 89 04:36:58 GMT
Organization: Stanford University




     According to "Paris Passion" magazine, there is now an access port
into the French Minitel system at 540-LINK in NYNEX areas.  This would
include 212, etc.   This number appears inaccessable from California
(415-326).  How can I get there from here?

     Note that 540 in NYNEX areas indicates an information-service provider,
as with 976.

     Direct dialing (AT&T) gets "Your call cannot be completed as dialed".

     Adding a 10222 prefix for MCI gets "MCI does not complete calls to
976 numbers at this time".

     Contacting an AT&T supervisor elicited the information that the number
was "direct dialable only" and could not be dialed from an operator position.
AT&T inward in NYC could not reach it.  Even a NYNEX operator was unable to
reach it.

     This is annoying.  How can I get through?

                        John Nagle


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

Date:     Mon, 13 Feb 89 7:39:22 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  "Toll-Free" 900?

Anyone else happen to notice the interesting gaffe or just plain error made on
the Feb 11 airing of "Beyond Tomorrow" on Fox TV? There was a short segment
in which one of the reporters plugged their, as she put it, "toll-free
information line".                                           ^^^^^^^^^

As she spoke, the screen displayed their 900 number: 1-900-nnn-4FOX
("nnn" means I don't recall what those three digits are! :-).
As I watched that, I wondered: "A toll-free 900 number? How
interesting..."                             ^^^

However, in the end credits, they gave the number again, this time with
the standard disclaimer in tiny print about it costing 50 cents for the
first minute, etc. So much for toll-free 900's...

I wonder if their airing that statement about it being toll-free would
be adequate legal grounds for viewers to refuse to pay for charges incurred
by making calls to that number?

Another interesting sidelight was that the reporter was depicted, and stated,
that she was making this information call from Tokyo. I didn't think that
900 calls were internationally accessible, the same way that 800 calls
were blocked off. Am I wrong on that? Is there international billing for
these 900 call charges?

Regards,
Will Martin

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

Date:     Mon, 13 Feb 89 17:04:36 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  calling areas across the county?

All of Delaware (area 302) falls into one of 3 calling areas:
Newark (NOT Wilmington, which misses 378 in Middletown)
Dover
Georgetown

Area 301 (Maryland):
In the northeastern area, Elkton is local to all of Cecil County
except the 658 prefix in Rising Sun, the only Maryland prefix
not directly under C&P.  Bel Air is local to all of Harford County
AND some suburbs bordering on Baltimore city.  I believe Towson is
local to all of Baltimore County (I know it's local to Baltimore city).

Also notice that in general, phone prefixes can cross county lines.
I was just in Ellicott City, Maryland in Howard County (prefixes 461
and 465 in area 301), and noticed that the phone prefixes and the
zipcode both pick up a neighboring part of Baltimore County.
In Delaware, 653 Smyrna is mostly in Kent County but picks up a little
bit of New Castle County, and nearby in 215 in Pennsylvania, 388 Menden-
hall is mostly in Chester County but picks up a little bit of Delaware
County.

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

Date:     Mon, 13 Feb 89 11:09:36 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Numbers and Numbers

To respond to Hector Myerston:

o  Of course, when you are talking about calls within that North
American Area, the leading 1 reverts to being an access artifact
and can then be omitted when giving the number out.  I have seen
some cases of 1-NNX XXXX where the leading 1 is put in to alert
callers within the area code that this is a toll call.

o And when N0X/N1X was introduced to other areas, it was pointed
out that the alternative would be to divide the area immediately.

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

Date: 13 Feb 89 09:38:16 PST (Monday)
Subject: AOS/COCOTS/etc. & innocents abroad!
From: [e-mail]

I come to the USA approx once a year (ignore the mail headers, I'm in the
UK, really!). What I've been reading in this Digest has made me terrified
to pick up the 'phone in the U.S., anywhere other than in my parents house!

Is there any general algorithm that I can apply to avoid being ripped off,
other than just looking at my hotel bill carefully, or observing that I'm
having to put rather a lot of money into the call box?

This is probably rather a dumb question, but the U.K. phone "system"
confuses Americans, too!

Hugh Davies.

[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Feb 89 09:41:53 PST (Monday)
Subject: Re: Dialing '809' for the Virgin Isles from the U.K.
From: [e-mail]

Dialing '809' for the Virgin Isles from the U.K., as a country code, e.g.

+809 xxxxxxx

doesn't work. It comes up 'unobtainable' before you even dial the xxxxxx.

Hugh.

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 12:36:36 EST
From: "Michael A. Patton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long distance access

(Michael I. Bushnell asks about operator access at UNM)

Although it doesn't solve your problem directly, MIT has a system that
gets around these requirements.  The MIT phone switch has a trunk
group that appears to TSPS systems to be Charge-A-Call phones.  There
is an access code that almost any (except a class more restrictive
than your class 0) extension can dial and become an AT&T Charge-A-Call
phone to place such calls.  In fact this is the normal way to place
long distance operator assisted calls.  You can also use it to place
any FREE calls and to access ALDCs and such.  Since it's tariffed
exactly like a Charge-A-Call where there is no way to charge back,
AT&T handles all the control and billing.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #61
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Wed Feb 15 01:44:34 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA14212; Wed, 15 Feb 89 01:44:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14563; 15 Feb 89 0:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14183;
          14 Feb 89 23:57 CST
Date:     Tue, 14 Feb 89 23:57:01 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Mailer Touroubnbles FoprrCause Temporariy Delay
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O

To Readers of Telecom Digest --

We are encountering serious difficulties in the distribution of the Digest
at the present time. Efforts are underway to identify and correct the
problem. Telecom Digest will NOT be published today; however we hope to
resume on Thursday morning.

Thank you for your patience, and we do apologize to the Bitnet sites and
others who were literally inudated with copies of 59-60-61. We are aware
of the problem and working on it.

Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator


From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Feb 16 03:24:49 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA21128; Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:24:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16614; 16 Feb 89 2:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16600; 16 Feb 89 1:58 CST
Date:     Thu, 16 Feb 89 1:57:48 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #62
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Feb 89 01:47:29 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    PDN Throughput between the US and Europe (Gary Schaps)
    Re: Ringback as intercom (Paul R. Haas)
    Book Recommendation For Telecom Readers (Steve Elias)
    US Sprint Signup at Swap Meet (Steve Elias)
    General purpose phone line switch (David Marston)
    Re: Autodialing Without Checking First (David Maxwell)
    Re: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers (Mike Morris)
    Re: Phones in noisy areas (was: Very strange wrong number) (Mike Morris)
    Re: The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (Tom Hofmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary Schaps <uflorida!novavax![e-mail]>
Subject: PDN Throughput between the US and Europe
Date: 13 Feb 89 22:51:18 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL


I am interested in gathering throughput reports for Unix hosts using
PDN's between the US and Europe.  I will summarize any responses.

Gary L. Schaps        [e-mail]    800-327-2490 ext. 2157
Cordis Corporation
Miami, FL

--
Gary L. Schaps
P.O. Box 4393            e-mail: [e-mail]
Miami Lakes, FL  33014        ...{gatech!uflorida,sun!sunvice}!novavax!gls

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

From: "Paul R. Haas" <actnyc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringback as intercom
Date: 13 Feb 89 22:21:48 GMT
Reply-To: "Paul R. Haas" <actnyc![e-mail]>
Organization: InterACT Corporation


Why not provide Ringback as a "550" service.  You could charge
something for the initial call plus a per minute charge.  The local phone
company could bill itself for the service at a reduced rate.  This
way capacity can easily be matched to demand.

If the price of the service covers its cost to the provider, then there
is no longer a need to keep the numbers secret.

It might be possible to provide other test equipment in the same way
ie., calibration tones.

The equipment required is rather simple in exchanges that provide
"Caller*ID".
----
Paul Haas, InterACT Corp., 136 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016
[phone]
uunet!actnyc!prh


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

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 21:42:37 EDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: book recommendation for telecom readers

_Loving Little Egypt_ by Thomas MacMahon...

is a good fiction book about phone fiends during the 1920s...
we're treated to fictionalized versions of Tesla, Edison, and
Bell...  and of course, the protagonist phone phreak 'Little Egypt'...


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

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 21:46:02 EDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint signup at Swap Meet !

i attended a swap meet in Phoenix this past weekend...  among all of
the random trinkets and other junk, there was a table where you could
sign up for a US Sprint FonCard...  the table was sponsored by a group
called 'Network 2000'.  (i don't think you had to 'Swap' them an
MCI card, though!)


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

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 23:58:13 -0500
From: David Marston <[e-mail]>
Subject: General purpose phone line switch

I just got a Telecom product-flack tabloid that has this item:
Dataprobe PBX Micro Call Director allows one dial telephone lines [sic] to
be selectively shared by four extensions such as modems, faxes, or phones.
Incoming calls are routed...by dialing tones entered by the caller....
The caller can remotely turn on/off AC power or control communication
switches.... Dataprobe, Inc., 170 Coolidge Ave., Englewood, NJ  07631
[I disclaim everything about the above except my typing.]
No phone number is given for Dataprobe--if you look it up and call them,
I'd like to hear about whether they have one of these online. The model
number, judging by the picture, is CD-4. Also judging by the picture, there
is no RS-232 interface.
.................David Marston          decvax!dartvax!eleazar!marston
                                        [e-mail]

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


From: [e-mail] (David Maxwell)
Subject: Re: autodialing without checking first
Date: 14 Feb 89 01:10:55 GMT
Reply-To: slaurel@.UUCP (Sir Laurel  Contact! -/- Sysop)
Organization: Contact User Supported BBS. Toronto, Ontario.



Re: Modems dialing and sending a carrier without listening first.

  It is possible for this to occur, not with a Hayes compatible modem, but
  with various 'dumb' modems, especially the older models specific to the
  Commodore 64. These older, 300 baud modems were VERY common only a few years
  ago. That could have been it.


                                                  Sir Laurel@contact



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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Fax Machines/Numbers
Date: 14 Feb 89 04:04:22 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA


[e-mail] (Sam Weissman) writes:
>I just acquired a fax machine.  C an anyone tell me how I give out
>my fax number?  I am in the N.Y. 212 area code, but when we dial long
>distance, we must put a "1" in front of any number we are calling.
>Since most of my calls will originate from out of state, should I
>put my letterhead fax number as: 1-212-xxx-xxxx?

My opinion is xxx-xxx-xxxx.  Most people know if they are in a 1+ area.

US Snail:  Mike Morris                    UUCP: [e-mail]
           P.O. Box 1130                  Also: WA6ILQ
           Arcadia, Ca. 91006-1130
#Include disclaimer.standard     | The opinions above probably do not even


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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phones in noisy areas (was: Very strange wrong number)
Date: 14 Feb 89 04:57:05 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA


In article <[e-mail]> roy@phri (Roy Smith) writes:
.....     Irrelevant stuff deleted .....
>
>    On a totally different topic, I'm looking for a phone which will work
>well in a noisy environment (i.e. my computer room).  It's almost impossible
>to hear the other party on the line, even if they shout, with a normal phone.
>Possibly all that has to be done is to attenuate the sidetone; if I put my
>hand over the mouthpiece when the other party is talking, I can hear them
>pretty well, but it's a pain, especially when you need one hand to hold the
>phone, one to cover the mike, and one to type.  Adjustable volume would
>probably help too; even with the sidetone gone, it's still a little hard to
>hear, but simply cranking up the volume alone won't change the S/N unless you
>do something about picking up ambient noise.
>
>
What you need is something that I use - a hard-of-hearing amplified handset
(with volume control) with a noise-canceling microphone called a "Confidencer".
They are avialble from any major telephone supply house - the most common
one is Greybar, who has warehouses/sales offices all over the country.
With the wide range of options, best get a catalog, then order.  Most Greybar
offices have a cash-and-carry counter. The handsets are available with
wire-in or modular connections, and in most colors.
I spent 5 years doing interconnect phone work, but bailed out a few years
ago - and all my catalogs/reference manuals are out in the garage.
BTW, the equipment is made by Walker (Industries, Corp, Inc,? I'm not sure).

US Snail:  Mike Morris                    UUCP: [e-mail]
           P.O. Box 1130                  Also: WA6ILQ
           Arcadia, Ca. 91006-1130
#Include disclaimer.standard     | The opinions above probably do not even


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

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (+notes)
Date: 14 Feb 89 08:01:58 GMT


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John R. Covert):
Status: O

>
> 33    France
> 33 078    Andorra

The country code for Andorra is 33 628 since France has introduced
8-digit numbers.

Tom Hofmann    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #62
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Feb 16 03:40:44 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA22125; Thu, 16 Feb 89 03:40:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16826; 16 Feb 89 2:22 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16820; 16 Feb 89 2:16 CST
Date:     Thu, 16 Feb 89 2:16:44 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #63
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Feb 89 02:02:45 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers (Louis J. Judice)
    Published Unpublished Numbers (Louis J. Judice
    Re: North West Territories (Ross Alexander)
    ISDN, how do I use it? (Edward Vielmetti)
    Cellular Setup (Tim Dawson)
    Re: Autodialing Without Checking First (Ed Ravin)
    Re: Answer Supervision (Dean Riddlebarger)
    SendWhale Telex Channel ? (Geoff Goodfellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Louis J. Judice <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Feb 89 10:23
Subject: Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers


Re: Automatic Retry

I believe the FCC prohibits automatic re-dialers to make more than 15
unanswered requests - IF - only one number is selected for re-dialing.

My Radio Shack "Sensorphone" (neat little device that calls up to four
pre-programmed numbers if temperatures go out of range, power fails or
alarms go off) had a little problem like this recently.

It has an "answering machine compatibility mode", which I never used until
I had to put an answering machine on the #2 line in my house that had
modems and the Sensorphone. Well, I didn't completely test it, and of
course there was a power failure the next day.

The sensorphone proceded to call my mother's house and my brother's house
repeatedly, every 2.5 minutes from 9am until 7pm, with the dire message
"THIS IS TELEPHONE NUMBER 123-4567. THE ELECTRICICITY IS OFF..." Of course
the electricity was back on within 30 seconds at 9am, and every attempt
to call the stupid thing back met with the answering machine picking up
the line. I even tried to trick my other answering machine, which has
message forwarding to call the second line and hopefully tie the damn thing
up until it ran out of tape. But it didn't work.

Anyway, the Sensorphone is now on the OTHER line - with an answering
machine that it seems to be compatible with, and it ONLY calls my mom's house!

/ljj

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

From: Louis J. Judice  <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Feb 89 10:56
Subject: Published Unpublished Numbers


I've lived at my current address with my current phone number for about 9
months. From the beginning, my numbers have been un-published.

When the Bell Atlantic directory came a couple of months ago, I checked
and I was NOT listed. Fine. Well, YESTERDAY, a copy of "YOUR COMMUNITY
TELEPHONE DIRECTORY" or some such schlock came in the mail. YES, I was
LISTED!

I called NJ Bell and the publisher. Each could not account for the error,
though NJ Bell volunteered to change the number again.

Arrggh!!

/ljj

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

From: Ross Alexander <ncc!auvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: North West Territories
Date: 13 Feb 89 18:21:56 GMT
Organization: Athabasca University


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Andrews) writes:
> Service in the Nortwest Territories, Canada:
>  The 403  code area is _BIG_. From Beaver Creek in the SW corner of the
>  Yukon to Cambridge Bay on Victoria Island is about 1200 miles (720 km).

403 is Alberta, too (the whole province).  This adds about 1500 km
north-to-south.  Also, 1200 statute miles = 1900 km (very roughly).

    Ross




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

Subject: ISDN, how do I use it?
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 18:12:41 -0500
From: Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]>

Could someone describe to me what exactly an ISDN connection
will get for me?  I have a sort of fuzzy notion as to what
it provides, but I'd like some more info.

For instance, what would it take to get for two ISDN subscribers
in the same region to get the moral equivalent of

- a long, dedicated serial cable strung between them?
- a switchbox with several serial cables coming off of it?
- an interface suitable for plugging into an IP router?
- an ethernet bridge?

in terms of equipment, cost, ease of setup & the like.

Thanks.

--
Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan Computing Center
[e-mail], mailrus!emv

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Setup
Date: 8 Feb 89 14:46:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
Organization: Motorola FSD, NTSC     Dallas, Texas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Victor Lea) writes:
>    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.

What you undoubtably heard was a call placed on an IMTS mobile phone system
(the predecessor to cellular) which used a log of in-band tones for signalling
and runs typically in the 150 MHz or 400 MHz bands along with the police.
IMTS call set up in no resembles cellular call set up, and probably would be
easier to defraud, but I cannot say specifically since the details of IMTS
setup are not something that I am intimately familiar with.
--
================================================================================
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."


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


From: [e-mail] (Ed Ravin)
Subject: Re: autodialing without checking first
Date: 15 Feb 89 00:21:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ed Ravin)
Organization: Ministry of Disinformation Retrieval, DZ-103


Rick Farris writes:

:->How strange.  Not only did the callers dial your number, but they
:->modified their modems so that instead of the calling modem
:->*listening* for carrier, like all normal modems, it actually called
:->you and went into answer mode.

Maybe this was in the 300 baud days of modems (does anyone out there
still use 300 baud?).  And before smart modems became ubiquitous, I
think some early 212a modems behaved this way too.  My story about the
harrassing fake BBS number did happen back in the heady days of 300 baud
BBS's.
--
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.

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

From: Dean Riddlebarger <buita![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision
Date: 13 Feb 89 13:44:37 GMT
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (*Hobbit*) writes:
> I was told a few months ago by a Sprint operator that they now did real
> supervision in most areas.  I didn't call Corporate and verify this or
> anything -- is it true?  How do the LOCs offer this to the carriers?
>
> _H*

Answer supervision can be provided by a LEC to any LD carrier; the only
major hitch is that the LD carrier must have equipment that is smart
enough to do something with the supervision.  At the time of divestiture
very few LD carriers had such equipment, so one of the things that was
done to provide a temporary cure was to set up varying levels of
"access" for the LD firms.  Access [to the LD carrier's network, and
"egress" on the far end of a call] came in four flavors- these were
termed Feature Groups A through D.  Feature Group D was essentially
limited to existing AT&T/LEC access lines; it provided full answer
supervision, tone dialing, and so forth.  Feature Group A was on the
other end of the spectrum; it provided no major features, and in fact
could not even handle tone dialing [FG-A access was the reason you
initially had to dial a special 7-digit number to reach your alternate
carrier, then enter the real number you wanted to dial].  The lack of
positive answer supervision gave rise to all sorts of billing and
call timing problems for other carriers, but it at least allowed them
to provide access while they worked on acquiring better equipment.  FG-A
access was also the lowest cost, so many carriers stayed with it as
long as possible to avoid bad financials right at the start [creating
a competitive environment doesn't really work if the rules for access
immediately throw you into Chapter 11....:-)].

Most major carriers are now moving towards the FG-D end of the spectrum,
so claims of full answer supervision are not terribly surprising.  I
won't go into the running debate on who has the most complete or
efficient long-haul network.  Suffice it to say that the big three
[AT&T, MCI, Sprint] are now relatively equal in the larger market
areas insofar as access and egress from the long-haul network as
concerned.

Standard disclaimer; but I don't think I've messed up on that party
line too much.......:-)

Dean Riddlebarger
Systems Consultant - AT&T
[216] 348-6863
most reasonable response path: att!crfax!crnsnwbt!rdr



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


From: Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>
Subject: SendWhale Telex Channel ?
Date: 15 Feb 89 04:44:46 GMT
Organization: Anterior Technology, Menlo Park, CA  USA


Anyone interfaced sendmail to deliver messages to a Telex machine via
the Public Switched Telephone Network?

Something like this would happen:
.  Message comes into host running sendmail (maybe via an MX or other hack),
.  Message is queued to an outdialing process that calls up the Telex
   machine, exchanges answer back messages and sends the message down the pipe,
.  Exchanges answer backs & hangs up.

Incoming messages from a Telex machine to sendmail would be even more fun!

    geoff

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #63
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Feb 16 04:26:48 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA25201; Thu, 16 Feb 89 04:26:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17234; 16 Feb 89 3:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17228; 16 Feb 89 2:59 CST
Date:     Thu, 16 Feb 89 2:59:33 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #64
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Feb 89 02:25:53 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FAX modems (Marshall Rose)
    Re: Dangers Of Wrong Numbers (W. J. Vermillion)
    Telephone directories and alphabetical order (Mark Brader)
    Re: Very strange wrong number (Mark Brader)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: FAX modems
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 21:01:58 -0800
From: Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>

Forgive the cross posting, but I haven't subscribed to either list for a
few years.

I am interested in writing a couple of programs for my UNIX workstation
which send and receive facsimile.  To do this, I need a FAX modem.
My requirements are simple: the modem should have three plugs: one to a
wall socket for power, another to an rj11 jack, and the third a rs232
connector to connect to any random UNIX box.

For outgoing calls, I would run a program that would generate a fax
image for a cover sheet and each page of the file I want to send and
would then talk to the modem to dial the phone and send things.

On incoming calls, DTR or something should be raised so that a process
hanging an open on the tty will start up, it can then store the fax
image in a spool area.  On a workstation with X, I could display the
image, or I could send it to a laser printer.  (I have programs for all
these things already.)

Later this year, when I get an X.400 mailer, I'll just use that to send
and receive fax through the modem.  On outgoing calls, the message will
be addressed to a fax recipient's phone number, which will cause the fax
program to fire.  (Since the mailer contains a spooling system, if the
number's busy, the message will be requeued and tried again later.) On
incoming calls, the fax program will give it to my local X.400 mailer
which will send it to the "fax receptionist" mailbox who can preview it
and then forward it to the right recipient.

Note that a board solution is inappropriate since I want this to run on
a number of UNIX machines of different architectures.  UNIX is the
commonality, not the bus or processor or whatever.

There are really two reasons for this project: 1) a lot of people waste a
lot of time feeding stuff to a fax.  While this is unavoidable for
things existing only in hardcopy, it's silly for me considering that I
generate everything online.  2) the X.400 thing is a reality, and having
FAX integrated with my mailer would be really neat.  For those
interested, the software would be openly available.

So, is there any info about a modem such as this?  Please include my
address directly in the reply as I'm not on these lists.

Thanks!

/mtr

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

From: harvard!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!bilver!bill (W. J. Vermillion)
Date: Tue Feb 14 11:34:45 1989
Subject: Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers
Organization: W. J. Vermillion, Winter Park, FL


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 57, message 2 of 7

>>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.
>
>A similar problem exists with machines that are programmed to
>automatically redial a number until data has been successfully sent.

I had a similar experience and it was all MY fault.  I gave another site a
login, and later they asked me my phone number.  Not realizing they wanted the
modem I gave them my voice number.  About 3:15am on a Saturday morning the
phone rang, - nothing there - dead line.  Back to bed, phone rings again.
Still no one there.  Two more times - then it stops.

5:15 - same thing.  7:15am - again.  Now I see a pattern.  Trying to figure
out who I could have offended that was making harrasing phone calls.  It
continued during the day - and I realized the calls were at the exact time,
and the same pattern.  Four times, and quit.

Ah Ha!  Thought maybe someone had printed my voice number in a list of local
bbses. (used to run a bbs).  Called around - all checked okay.  Continues thru
Sunday - then late Sunday I had an inspiration - called the local usenet
nodes, and voila.  Up until I found it was my mistake I was ready to stop at
nothing to get the "prankster".  I admitted, sheepishly, to my wife that it
was my fault.  Her side of the bed was closer to the phone and she was about
ready to kill me :-)


---
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill
                      : [e-mail]


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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone directories and alphabetical order
Date:     Wed, 15 Feb 89 23:54:12 EST

I wrote:

> In Bell Canada territory, at least, organizations whose names are just a
> sequence of letters are alphabetized in the phone book as though each letter
> was a word.  And the alphabetization is by words: spaces and punctuation
> except apostrophes which are ignored, sort together at the beginning of
> the alphabet. ...

It's not actually quite true to say that the alphabetization is by words.
The actual sorting criterion is more complicated.  You see, within each
letter of the alphabet, all names that begin with single-letter words are
listed first... sorted according to how many single-letter words there are
at the beginning of the name!  Only within that are they alphabetical.

This means that the way to get at the front of the Toronto phone book is
to begin with a single letter A as the first word, followed by a word
that is not a single letter but does begin with multiple A's!  The actual
first entry in the 1987 book which I have at hand is "A Aacident Towing...",
followed by "A Aaron & Son".

Only after about 1.6 pages do we get to "A A" (that's a complete name) and
"AA Aaba Locksmiths...".  No, I'll give that name in full.  It's "AA Aaba
Locksmiths A Div of Grant's Lock & Safe Co".  I bet they answer the phone
"Grant's Lock & Safe"!  They have a listing that way too.  Notice, as I
said before, that AA is treated as if it was A A.

The names with 3 A's begin about 1.8 pages in, and the 4 A's that would
be at the front in the old system, about 1.9 pages in.

Have any other phone companies adopted such a style to defeat the standard
aaaaaaaaaaaattempt to get the first listing?

Note, I don't imagine anyone is interested to know whether the first name in
the Los Angeles or New York phone book begins with 6 A's or 7.  The point
that is supposed to be of interest here is the trick alphabetization.
However, while I'm writing I will give the last two names in the 1987
Toronto book.  They are "Zzootz Hair Design" and "Zzzyed Himy".


Finally, here's an interesting historical note, taken from Section 6.2.1
of Knuth('s The Art of Computer Programming).  The concept of listing
words in lexical or alphabetical order was invented many centuries later
than that of an alphabet with a definite order to the letters.  Formerly
the sorting was generally only on the first letter, or maybe the first two.

For *numbers* using a positional base system, such as the Babylonian one,
lexical order is the same as numerical order, and this had been used as
early as about 200 BC.

But nobody thought to apply the same technique to words... until
Giovanni de Genoa used it for his "Catholicon", in the year 1286.
He explained the system in his preface and noted that "strenuous effort
was required to device these rules ... do not scorn this great labor of
mine and this order as something worthless".  He was right.


Mark Brader            "You can do this in a number of ways.
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         IBM chose to do all of them...
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]     why do you find that funny?"    -- D. Taylor

[Moderator's Note: Mark, thanks for an *excellent* essay. Here in Illinois
Bell land at least, telco reserves the right to refuse a directory entry to
anyone if in their (telco's) sole discretion the request entry is an attempt
to defeat normal alphabetical listings or otherwise cause an impropriety in
the directory. Thus a person or business wishing to be listed as 'A' must
produce some evidence; i.e. state business license, etc, showing the actual
existence of such a firm. A person or business desiring a listing using a
word deemed vulgar or offensive must demonstrate that such a person or
business does in fact exist or is in residence where the phone will be
installed.  P. Townson]
------------------------------

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Very strange wrong number
Date:     Wed, 15 Feb 89 23:23:37 EST


While Roy Smith's story is certainly charming, it is more explicable
than it may seem at first glance.

I'll take the easy part first:

> neither WNYE nor Tony are listed in the book (it turns out that directory
> assistance has the listing for WNYE, but not for Tony).

In Bell Canada territory, at least, organizations whose names are just a
sequence of letters are alphabetized in the phone book as though each letter
was a word.  And the alphabetization is by words: spaces and punctuation
except apostrophes which are ignored, sort together at the beginning of
the alphabet.  (There's an interesting exception which I will explain
in a separate message.)

However, *some* radio and TV stations also buy listings under their name
as a single word.  You can tell these are extra listings because they
tend to list fewer extensions.  So, for instance, CKEY is listed both
in the CK's and as C K E Y, but CJCL is only given as C J C L.  Of course,
a person who looks up CJCL as CJCL will see CKEY nearby, and think that that
is the right place in the book and that CJCL is unlisted.

So my conjecture is that NYNEX follows a similar system and Roy looked
under WNYE instead of W N Y E.  Of course, it could be the other way around.


> ... he's calling from Holland and is trying to reach 718-636-11238 ...
> he's trying to reach Tony Herbert from radio station WNYE, who lives at
> 349 St. John's Place.  This is really spooky because I'm at 295 St. John's.
> ... It's not until a couple of minutes later that I realize why the number
> he had for me/Tony is so strange; with the extra '8' tacked on the end,
> the last 5 digits become my zip code!

The fact that Roy's and Tony's places are so close together is the key.
It means that they probably share both a ZIP code and a telephone prefix!

Anyone might, in transcribing an address, or even in reciting it over the
phone, absentmindedly substitute one block of digits for another.  The error
is a sort of long-range spoonerism.  For instance, "30 Edith Drive, Suite 201"
-- a genuine address near my house in Toronto -- might be accidentally given
as "201 Edith Drive, Suite 30", an address which, if it existed, would be
only a few blocks away.

Similarly, the person who wrote down or who dictated Tony's address and
phone number must have substituted Tony's ZIP code for the last part of
Tony's phone number.  Perhaps if Roy had asked the caller he would have
found out that the caller had Tony's address listed with a 4-digit ZIP code!

Now it should be clear what happened.  The part that's a strange coincidence
is that Roy, who is in a position to tell us all this, has a phone number
whose last 4 digits are the same as the first 4 digits of his ZIP code.
If the number formed by the error had been that of Joe's Bar and Grill,
the Telecom list/newsgroup would never have heard.

> We both remark on how strange a coincidence it is that he got a wrong
> number just a couple hundred yards away from his target trying to place a
> transatlantic phone call ...

This is not only strange but expected, once you understand the original error.
Anyone from North America would recognize the "ill-formed phone number" before
they finished dialing it, and would abort the call.  Such a mistake would
therefore be made only by someone from overseas!

> ... and on how good the line is ...

However, this part I have no explanation for at all.  :-)


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]        Professional Debugger of Wrong Numbers

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #64
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Fri Feb 17 09:33:20 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA06478; Fri, 17 Feb 89 09:33:20 EST
Received: by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20060; 17 Feb 89 8:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17060; 17 Feb 89 1:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17055; 17 Feb 89 1:24 CST
Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 1:24:10 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #65
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Feb 89 00:57:00 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Chicago Phreak Gets Prison Term (TELECOM Moderator)
    Microphone Mute On Phones (Gerry Wheeler)
    Starlink vrs. Telenet PC Pursuit (Phillip M. Dampier)
    Re: "Toll-Free" 900? (Richard Edell)
    Re: "Toll-Free" 900? (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 0:47:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Chicago Phreak Gets Prison Term

An 18 year old telephone phreak from the northside/Rogers Park community
in Chicago who electronically broke into U.S. military computers and AT&T
computers, stealing 55 programs was sentenced to nine months in prison on
Tuesday, February 14 in Federal District Court here.

Herbert Zinn, Jr., who lives with his parents on North Artesian Avenue in
Chicago was found guilty of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of
1986 by Judge Paul E. Plunkett. In addition to a prison term, Zinn must pay
a $10,000 fine, and serve two and a half years of federal probation when
released from prison.

United States Attorney Anton R. Valukas said, "The Zinn case will serve to
demonstrate the direction we are going to go with these cases in the
future. Our intention is to prosecute aggressively. What we undertook is to
address the problem of unauthorized computer intrusion, an all-too-common
problem that is difficult to uncover and difficult to prosecute..."

Zinn, a dropout from Mather High School in Chicago was 16-17 years old at
the time he committed the intrusions, using his home computer and modem.
Using the handle 'Shadow Hawk', Zinn broke into a Bell Labs computer in
Naperville, IL; an AT&T computer in Burlington, NC; and an AT&T computer at
Robbins Air Force Base, GA. No classified material was obtained, but the
government views as 'highly sensitive' the programs stolen from a computer
used by NATO which is tied into the U.S. missle command. In addition, Zinn
made unlawful access to a computer at an IBM facility in Rye, NY, and into
computers of Illinois Bell Telephone Company and Rochester Telephone Company,
Rochester, NY.

Assistant United States Attorney William Cook said that Zinn obtained access
to the AT&T/Illinois Bell computers from computer bulletin board systems,
which he described as '...just high-tech street gangs'. During his bench
trial during January, Zinn spoke in his own defense, saying that he took the
programs to educate himself, and not to sell them or share them with other
phreaks. The programs stolen included very complex software relating to
computer design and artificial intelligence. Also stolen was software used
by the BOC's (Bell Operating Companies) for billing and accounting on long
distance telephone calls.

The Shadow Hawk -- that is, Herbert Zinn, Jr. -- operated undetected for at
least a few months in 1986-87, but his undoing came when his urge to brag
about his exploits got the best of him. It seems to be the nature of phreaks
that they have to tell others what they are doing. On a BBS notorious for
its phreak/pirate messages, Shadow Hawk provided passwords, telephone numbers
and technical details of trapdoors he had built into computer systems,
including the machine at Bell Labs in Naperville.

What Shadow Hawk did not realize was that employees of AT&T and Illinois
Bell love to use that BBS also; and read the messages others have written.
Security representatives from IBT and AT&T began reading Shadow Hawk's
comments regularly; but they never were able to positively identify him.
Shadow Hawk repeatedly made boasts about how he would 'shut down AT&T's
public switched network'. Now AT&T became even more eager to locate him.
When Zinn finally discussed the trapdoor he had built into the Naperville
computer, AT&T decided to build one of their own for him in return; and
within a few days he had fallen into it. Once he was logged into the system,
it became a simple matter to trace the telephone call; and they found its
origin in the basement of the Zinn family home on North Artesian Street in
Chicago, where Herb, Jr. was busy at work with his modem and computer.

Rather than move immediatly, with possibly not enough evidence for a good,
solid conviction, everyone gave Herb enough rope to hang himself. For over
two months, all calls from his telephone were carefully audited. His illicit
activities on computers throughout the United States were noted, and logs
were kept. Security representatives from Sprint made available notes from
their investigation of his calls on their network. Finally the 'big day'
arrived, and the Zinn residence was raided by FBI agents, AT&T/IBT security
representatives and Chicago Police detectives used for backup. At the time
of the raid, three computers, various modems and other computer peripheral
devices were confiscated. The raid, in September, 1987, brought a crude
stop to Zinn's phreaking activities. The resulting newspaper stories brought
humiliation and mortification to Zinn's parents; both well-known and
respected residents of the Rogers Park neighborhood. At the time of the
younger Zinn's arrest, his father spoke with authorities, saying, "Such a
good boy! And so intelligent with computers!"

It all came to an end Tuesday morning in Judge Plunkett's courtroom here,
when the judge imposed sentence, placing Zinn in the custody of the Attorney
General or his authorized representative for a period of nine months; to
be followed by two and a half years federal probation and a $10,000 fine.
The judge noted in imposing sentence that, "...perhaps this example will defer
others who would make unauthorized entry into computer systems." Accepting the
government's claims that Zinn was 'simply a burglar; an electronic one...
a member of a high-tech street gang', Plunkett added that he hoped Zinn
would learn a lesson from this brush with the law, and begin channeling his
expert computer ability into legal outlets. The judge also encouraged Zinn
to complete his high school education, and 'become a contributing member of
society instead of what you are now, sir...'

Because Zinn agreed to cooperate with the government at his trial, and at
any time in the future when he is requested to do so, the government made
no recommendation to the court regarding sentencing. Zinn's attorney asked
the court for leniency and a term of probation, but Judge Plunkett felt
some incarceration was appropriate. Zinn could have been incarcerated until
he reaches the age of 21.

His parents left the courtroom Tuesday with a great sadness. When asked to
discuss their son, they said they preferred to make no comment.

Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Subject: microphone mute (was Re: Very strange wrong number)
Date: 15 Feb 89 23:24:43 GMT
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.


In article <[e-mail]>, roy@phri (Roy Smith) writes:
> On a totally different topic, I'm looking for a phone which will work
> well in a noisy environment (i.e. my computer room).  It's almost impossible
> to hear the other party on the line, even if they shout, with a normal phone.
> Possibly all that has to be done is to attenuate the sidetone.

When I worked for Ma Bell as a repairman I modified my portable phone
set to do this.  At that time, most personnel had the old black unit,
but units based on the handset of the Contempra phone were just coming
into use, and that's what I had.  (The Contempra was one of those phones
with the dial in the handset, so it was an obvious choice.)

The handset included a push button to disconnect, which was redundant
because less than an inch away was a rocker switch to do the same thing.
So, I opened it up and rewired the pushbutton to open the microphone.
As you surmise, it worked very well in noisy situations, like when I was
standing next to a busy road.  The only tricky part was training the
dispatchers to realize that I hadn't fallen off the pole and
disconnected just because they couldn't hear me any more.  :-)

Many phones now include the same thing in the form of a mute button.
However, it's usually advertised as a privacy feature, and I don't know
many people who actually use it.

--
     Gerry Wheeler                           Phone: [phone]
Mortice Kern Systems Inc.               UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels
   35 King St. North                             BIX: join mks
Waterloo, Ontario  N2J 2W9                  CompuServe: 73260,1043

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

From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Starlink vrs. PC Pursuit
Date: Wed, 15-Feb-89 00:49:21 PST

<< Starlink is an alternative to PC Pursuit.

The gentlemen that offers this service at Galaxy Telecommunications I have
had some experience with.

Suffice to say, I am very skeptical about this service, especially
considering the mess with his various "news" publications.

Even Portal here has had some experience with Galaxy Telecommunications,
and considering their public messages about problems they had with Galaxy,
I know I am not alone.

I cannot give full details, but I would strongly urge everyone out there
to consider the fact that any good service run by a reputable company will
be around for quite some time.  Why not consider holding your money for 90
days and then re-examining the option.  Often times, the service may no
longer be in business and customers are left holding the bag.

Please remember, CAVEAT EMPTOR - LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

I did, and it saved me a lot of $$$.

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

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Toll-Free" 900?
Date: 16 Feb 89 01:02:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
>Anyone else happen to notice the interesting gaffe or just plain error made on
>the Feb 11 airing of "Beyond Tomorrow" on Fox TV? There was a short segment
>in which one of the reporters plugged their, as she put it, "toll-free
>information line".                                           ^^^^^^^^^
>As I watched that, I wondered: "A toll-free 900 number? How
>interesting..."                             ^^^

It is possible for a 900 information provider to set the retail price of
the telephone call to $0.00.  The information provider still has to pay
the long distance (transport) charges.  One reason this might be preferable
to 800 service is in the case of AT&T's Dial-It 900 service where no
customer equipment is required.

-Richard Edell
 ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 21:26:09 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Toll-Free" 900?
Organization: U.C. Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>Another interesting sidelight was that the reporter was depicted, and stated,
>that she was making this information call from Tokyo. I didn't think that
>900 calls were internationally accessible, the same way that 800 calls
>were blocked off. Am I wrong on that? Is there international billing for
>these 900 call charges?

I don't know about 900 numbers, but I have successfully called 800
numbers from overseas (specifically Australia) several times.  Of
course, I'm charged the normal rate for an international toll call.
Another thing, though, was that a friend in college told me (and
actually demonstrated) that if you dial an out-of-area-code 976
number from a Pacific Bell pay phone, you are charged only the toll
charges, not the $2 or whatever per call.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #65
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sat Feb 18 02:27:11 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA29047; Sat, 18 Feb 89 02:27:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10027; 18 Feb 89 1:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10021; 18 Feb 89 1:07 CST
Date:     Sat, 18 Feb 89 1:06:49 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #66
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: O


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Feb 89 00:38:12 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    What A Week!  (TELECOM Moderator)
    Great Key Moment (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (Mark Brader)
    Re: "Toll-Free" 900? (John R. Levine)
    Re: We Relocate to Evanston (Snoopy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 18 Feb 89 0:17:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  What A Week!

Shortly after taking over the reigns at TELECOM Digest from long time
moderator jsol, I began looking for a local site to use for the day-to-day
tasks involved in publishing the Digest. Some thought was given to making
chinet the base of operations, and Randy Suess, sysadmin for that site gave
his full blessings to the move. The only problem there was that chinet is
not an Internet site, and the delivery of the Digests would have been more
difficult and time consuming. Chinet is still the official back-up site
for the Digest. That is, should there be some difficulty here at eecs
which caused an interupption to Digest processing, then everything would
move to chinet where it could start up almost immediatly.

When Jacob Gore, [e-mail] made an account available, it
seemed to be an ideal arrangement: (a) Internet access (b) local dial up
lines in the community resulting in one-unit-stay-connected-all-night
access from my home (c) 2400 baud access with much faster throughput than
I had become accustomed to on PC Pursuit; and a machine with which I have
at least some familiarity.

Now we have been here at eecs.nwu.edu for one week. And what a week it
has been! At bu-cs, subscribers on bitnet were dispatched through the
buacca machine; the accepted bitnet gateway for Boston University. All
bitnet names -- 45 or so of them -- were in the main mailing list. With
some dismay, I found out Monday last that the bitnet gateway here, a machine
called nuacc, was not quite able to deal with that many Digests stuffed
in at one time. We found out when bitnet readers began sending very
desparate messages saying 'no less than *20* copies each of issues 59 and
60 showed up in their boxes...'. After some consultation with the people
at nuacc, an exploder address for bitnet was set up there. Now I send but
*one copy* of the Digest through the gate to nuacc, and let it redistribute
itself there instead of here.

The foreign sites have been troublesome also, but we are working on this
at the present time. I think the copies to London and Singapore have not
been delivered at all this week.

And now tonight, Friday, I have reason to believe about 6 messages sent to
the Digest on Thursday and Friday were lost; in any event they are not here
now, but they were here. If you wrote Thursday or Friday, I suggest you
write me again.

Slowly, but surely, and I think with very positive results, [TELECOM Digest]
is falling in place again after the move. Thanks very much for your several
kind letters the past few days, which were not for publication, which have
given me a lot of encouragement in my work. The Digest and comp.dcom.telecom
are becoming active and widely read. The quality of your messages to the
Digest in recent weeks has been the main reason for this, I'm sure.

Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Sat, 18 Feb 89 0:31:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Great Key Moment

The year was 1925. The Great Depression was still four years away. Peace
and Prosperity and Wheeling and Dealing were still the order of the day.

Right in the middle of the roaring '20s, the Bell System premiered its
1A key system. This miraculous invention consisted of phones joined to
radical new hardware, which furnished line selection and luminous 'in-use'
displays.

(From TELECONNECT, February, 1989; a marvelous magazine which should be
required reading for all telecommuications professionals.)


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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (+notes)
Date:     Wed, 15 Feb 89 21:43:05 EST

>     World Numbering Zone 5: Mexico, Central and South America
>                 + St. Pierre & Miquelon

The existence of this zone as described is somewhat amusing.  For those
who don't know, St. Pierre & Miquelon consists of a couple of small islands
off the south coast of Newfoundland.  (This was all that the British would
allow the French to keep of their North American colonies after defeating
their army at Quebec in 1759.)  The next nearest land in Zone 5 would be
either Cuba or Haiti, several hundred times farther away than the nearest
land in Zone 1.

This of course merely shows that the zone boundaries are sometimes of the
artificial kind made by politics or language rather than always physical.
Actually, if you look at the assignment of Caribbean islands to Zones 1
and 5, this shows clearly in any case.

Mark Brader, Toronto        "The language should match the users,
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]     not vice versa"  -- Brian W. Kernighan

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

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 19:45:36 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Toll-Free" 900?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Inc.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Edell) writes:
>...  One reason this might be preferable
>to 800 service is in the case of AT&T's Dial-It 900 service where no
>customer equipment is required.

AT&T's new Readyline 800 service is sort of a cross between call forwarding
and 800 service.  It delivers your 800 calls to your regular phone, for $20
per month plus toll charges.  I suspect that whoever said "toll-free 900"
just wasn't thinking too clearly.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

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

From: Snoopy <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 21:41:52 PST
Subject: Re: We Relocate to Evanston
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm

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

|Why did the Digest move? I didn't like the weather in Boston this time of
|year. New England is too cold in the winter. (smile).

This is a joke, right?

When I lived in ill-noise, a guy at work had his pipes freeze.  Not in
the house, not in an unheated garage, but under the front yard!  My apt
was 53 degrees in the afternoon with the furnace running constantly 24
hours a day.  Moving the gear-shift lever in my car took both hands and
the rubber boot was so stiff that the entire console moved as well!  I
tried to find -20 weight motor oil, as 5w30 was much too thick.

And people wonder why I moved to the coast...
    _____
   /_____\    Snoopy
  /_______\
    |___|     tekecs.gwd.tek.com!sopwith!snoopy
    |___|     sun!nosun!illian!sopwith!snoopy


[Moderator's Note: Which coast? The one with the used hypodermic needles
which wash up on the shore or the other one; the one we suspect will
someday soon have a massive earthquake and get disconnected from the rest
of us and float off into the sea to become an island by itself? I've
visited several east coast cities, as well as El Lay. I still prefer
Chicago, as crummy as it is getting. I've lived here all my life, and
grown accustomed to outrageous weather conditions, including this winter,
the eighth mildest on the books here.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #66
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Feb 20 06:44:34 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA26773; Mon, 20 Feb 89 06:44:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02974; 20 Feb 89 0:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02970; 20 Feb 89 0:40 CST
Date:     Mon, 20 Feb 89 0:39:50 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #67
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Feb 89 00:13:36 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Plans Major Revamping (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Dialing '809' for the Virgin Isles from the U.K. (Alexander Dupuy)
    Questions About The Call Waiting Feature (Jim Gonzalez)
    Australian Telephone System (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re: Toll free 900 numbers (Doug Granzow)
    Who Is On This List, Anyway? (Miguel Cruz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 20 Feb 89 0:11:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T Plans Major Revamping

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is planning a major re-organization aimed
at making it more competitive and profitable, but analysts see no quick fix
as the telephone giant re-tools to face competitors like Sprint and MCI.

Chairman Robert Allen has authorized a reorganization that will divide AT&T's
major operating groups into as many as 25 units, according to William
Mullane, an AT&T corporate VP and company spokesman.

The units, which will be phased in and will focus on specific areas such as
consumer products, will be run as much as possible like independent businesses
on their own, according to Mullane.

He went on to point out that the decentralization will speed decision-making
by placing profit and loss responsibility in the hands of the business-unit
managers, and by forcing them to focus on meeting customer needs.

Although this seems like a good idea, I think it will take years to streamline
AT&T's bureaucracy and get the managers accustomed to being directly account-
able for the performance of their business.

AT&T reported a loss of $1.67 billion on sales of $35.21 billion in 1988. Its
earnings included a net charge of $3.94 billion from writing off older
equipment and accelerating the modernization of its long distance network.

In order for Chairman Allen's plan to succeed, there are some fundamental
obstacles to overcome first. Its biggest problem is in the U.S. long
distance market, where it derives most of its earnings. Allen said last
Thursday that AT&T's share of the $50 billion market had fallen to 68 percent,
from about 84 percent before the Bell System was broken up in 1984.

At the same time, MCI has been enjoying huge profit gains and making big
advances in the telephone market in the last year. U.S. Sprint has also made
some tremendous strides. This re-organization plan presented Robert Allen
has the potential to be a big success -- or a big failure. 1989 should be
an interesting year in the telephone industry, to say the least.

Patrick Townson


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

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 14:26:26 EST
From: Alexander Dupuy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing '809' for the Virgin Isles from the U.K.
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Dial 1 (U.S. country code) before you dial 809 (V.I & P.R. area code).

@alex


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

Subject: Questions About The Call Waiting Feature
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 14:03:14 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Jim Gonzalez)

A college acquaintance of mine has call waiting on his line, as a cheap
alternative to a second line for his modem.  Every time he got a noise
burst, he would break his terminal session and check for the other call.
Of course, not every noise burst was caused by a call waiting tone, and
he ended up with unwanted interruptions.

Can anyone provide a description of the tone, including the frequency and
period?  I've never used such a line, but know that you get more than the
click the primary caller hears.  Are there detection circuits commercially
available?

Also, YAWNS (Yet Another Wrong-Number Story :-).  I've been getting calls
about once a week from this woman who, I have since learned, was dialing a
number for a different exchange but with the same last four digits.  Is it
possible that her CO is misdirecting the call?  The exchanges in question
rule out a simple misdial on Touch Tone or rotary phone.  I successfully
called the correct party, who has been getting calls from other people
without a hitch, but has *never* heard from the woman who has been calling
me.  Aren't computers wonderful?  I'm sure the story will get better when
New England Telephone starts trying to fix this :-).

                -Jim.

               #####################################
Jim Gonzalez                AT&T: 617-873-2937
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.     ARPA: [e-mail]
Cambridge, Massachusetts        UUCP: ...seismo!bbn!gonzalez
               #####################################

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Australian Telephone System
Date: Sat, 18-Feb-89 16:52:03 PST

I have the good fortune of being able to travel to Australia next
month. While looking through a travel guide, I noticed the following
types of phone numbers listed for just one state (Victoria):

      617-0900
      345-3455
      620-331
      03/534-0316
      63-1062
      08/42-1563
      059/75-7568
      008/??????    (Apparently similar to North American 800 Service)

As you can see there doesn't appear to be any kind of formating involved! I
gather that the number prior to the / is a type of area code, but that
isn't always given or even the same number of digits. I would really
appreciate someone enlightening me how the phone works in Oz. Numbering
schemes, pay phone procedures, typical rates, etc. In other words,
a short tutorial to keep me from fumbling around would be
appreciated. Responses to the digest would be fine. I suspect
we do too much on the North American system and this would be
an interesting change...

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Toll free 900 numbers
Date: Sat, 18-Feb-89 11:00:53 PST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(W>
>Anyone else happen to notice the interesting gaffe or just plain error made
on
>the Feb 11 airing of "Beyond Tomorrow" on Fox TV? There was a short segment
>in which one of the reporters plugged their, as she put it, "toll-free
>information line".                                           ^^^^^^^^^
>As I watched that, I wondered: "A toll-free 900 number? How
>interesting..."                             ^^^

I noticed this too.  I also noticed that during the credits at the end of the
program, they displayed the phone number again, this time with the message "95
cents for the first minute, 50 cents for each additional minute" (or something
of the sort).

How interesting indeed.

Doug Granzow
sun!portal!cup.portal.com!scp

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

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 16:40:06 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Who Is On This List, Anyway?

I was just wondering... What kinds of zany, wacky far-out places do
people on this list hail from?  I saw the moderator mention recipients
in London and Singapore, and I've seen from people in Australia and
the Netherlands (my ancestral homeland, btw).  How long does the
list take to traverse the oceans and seas?  Who's over there to read it?

Miguel Cruz
just from Michigan.


[Moderator's Note: I think when the mail gateway is working correctly and
there are no other hangups on this end, etc, the Digest, like most Usenet
groups and mail travels overseas within a day or two. Bear in mind that
only a small portion of our readers actually read the Digest. Far many more
read comp.dcom.telecom. But it is a good question. Where is every one
(of our foreign readers) from?  Send mail, I will summarize later. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #67
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Feb 21 01:32:00 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA11916; Tue, 21 Feb 89 01:32:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08609; 21 Feb 89 0:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08600; 21 Feb 89 0:13 CST
Date:     Tue, 21 Feb 89 0:12:42 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #68
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Feb 89 00:04:23 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    How To Obtain a '900' Number (TELECOM Moderator)
    Int'l Rate Options (Michael Smith)
    Calling Card Woes (Roger Preisendefer)
    Do American phones work in Australia? (Mark Feblowitz)
    Re: autodialing without checking first (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 21 Feb 89 0:02:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  How To Obtain a '900' Number

I recently received a postcard in the mail -- actually one of those loose
cards in a deck of several which come wrapped in cellophane which I found
interesting, and I pass it along without comment. If you decide to investigate
the offer, let us know the details here --

                           " 9 0 0 "

                     Phone  Numbers  Available

                          Immediatly

                         No  Call  Minimums

                     For Details Call  201-947-3200


This same company -- whoever they are -- had another advertisement in the
card deck for a 'Daily Free Stock Market Report' at 201-947-3500.

Patrick Townson


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

Date: Mon 20 Feb 89 22:54:09-EST
Subject: Int'l Rate Options
From: "Michael Smith / MCI ID: 365-6765" <[e-mail]>


I am setting up a FAX network to deliver AIDS information from U.S.
databases to researcher points in Africa and South America.  Is anyone
familiar with volume discount options from any of the U.S. carriers.

Any other information/experience from those of you who've frequently
called Africa and have made price/quality comparisons or are familiar
with African PTTs would be greatly appreciated.

Kenya, Zaire and Uganda will be implemented first.

Michael Smith
Institute for AIDS Information
90 Conz Street
Northampton, MA 01060
[phone]

[e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling Card Woes
Date: Mon, 20-Feb-89 16:19:24 PST


Having been warned by experience and this net group, I have carefully
asked for the AT&T operator when using my calling card.  This month
on my phone bill I found a charge from a carrier labled LD*OS.  It
charged me more for a three minute local call than an eight minute call
to California during the same time band (evening).  Since I have refrained
from completing the call before being told that I was connected to AT&T,
what recourse do I have against this company?

Also, this page, like others, has the standard "This portion of your
bill is provided as a service to LD*OS".  Is there any way I can refuse
the local phone company permission to bill me for charges other than its
own local charges and those of my designated long distance carrier?

Roger Preisendefer

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

From: Mark Feblowitz <bunny![e-mail]>
Subject: Do American phones work in Australia?
Date: 20 Feb 89 18:22:41 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA



A relative from Australia is visiting and has taken a fancy to some of
our more unusual phones (San Francisco streetcars, high-heeled shoes,
pianos, etc.). She would like to know if our telephones will work in
Australia.

Please let me know if the phones are compatible with Australia's
switches with or without modification. Also, do prevailing regulations
permit the use of privately owned CPE?

Thanks in advance.
--
Mark Feblowitz   GTE Laboratories, Inc., 40 Sylvan Rd.  Waltham, MA 02254
                        [phone]
CSNET:  [e-mail]
UUCP:   [e-mail]       old UUCP:  harvard!bunny!mdf0


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

Subject: Re: autodialing without checking first
Date: Sun Feb 19 21:24:00 1989
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> buita![e-mail]
(David Tamkin) writes:

>> When I was active in a user group I posted my phone number as contact
>> number for the group on three or four BBS's.  Modems screamed in my
>> ear for months afterward.

Rick Farris replies:

    How strange.  Not only did the callers dial your number, but they
    modified their modems so that instead of the calling modem
    *listening* for carrier, like all normal modems, it actually called
    you and went into answer mode.  Now either this story is apocryphal,
    or the people calling your number were not bumpkins, but were
    intentionally harassing you.

I posted a number for a VOICE bulletin board I had written for a PC-based
voice-telephone interface board. I emphasized several times in several
places in the short posting to about 5 local BBS that it was for
VOICE, as in Human talk-talk. Roughly 40-50% of the calls were
just dead silence, with none of the prompted touch-tone entry.

I got wise to what was happening by whistling a modem answer carrier
into the BBS line when this occurred. Lo and behold, an originate
carrier replied!

Due to these and other considerations, I gave up on that project
until further notice, but had I wanted to be tricky, I suppose
a short burst of 2250 Hz would have alerted the unsuspecting
caller to a different operation; those curious enough might
actually listen to what the heck was causing their modem to
dump prematurely. Just a thought.


Bote
uunet!cyclops!csense!bote
{mimsy,sundc}!{prometheus,hqda-ai}!media!cyclops!csense!bote


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #68
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Wed Feb 22 01:27:16 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA23601; Wed, 22 Feb 89 01:27:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15927; 22 Feb 89 0:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15922; 22 Feb 89 0:13 CST
Date:     Wed, 22 Feb 89 0:13:36 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #69
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 Feb 89  00:05:39 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    540 ripoff (Wm Randolph Franklin)
    Modem Standards ([e-mail])
    "AT&T handled" (Carl Moore (VLD/VMB))
    Re: autodialing without checking first (Andrew Boardman)
    Free the AT&T 900 (Hector Myerson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 10:50:32 EST
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 540 ripoff

NYS just fined a ripoff outfit that advertised a "GOLD" card if you
called 540-GOLD.  Several hundred people who did, and stayed on the
line for a minute, were billed $50 (FIFTY DOLLARS).  Needless to say
their gold card had no relation to Mastercard or Amex.  They were also
contacting people with an illegal autodial operation that would not let
the victim hang up to free the line.  I think now they're required to
say at the start of the call that there is this charge.  But what about
people whose hearing is bad or English poor?

People in every state should have the right to disable this use of
their phone as a no limit credit card.  In fact, the default status
should be disabled, and phone customers should have to enable it, and
perhaps specify a $limit, if they want to use it.

[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell was one of the first telephone companies
to offer 900/976 blocking at no charge, no questions asked. We do not have
'540' service here -- yet -- but I assume any variation on it here would
get free blocking. Here you can block 976 or 900 or both. The operator is
unable to complete the connection for you. Out-of-LATA 976 calls cannot be
blocked, but then they are only billed at regular long distance rates
anyway.   PT]

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

Date: 21-FEB-1989 17:11:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Modem standards

I am about to set up a data link between the US/Canada and the UK.  Could
someone tell me, please, whether the CCITT V21, V22, V22 bis and V23
standards are commonly used in North America, or are some other
protocols usually used.

Thanks in advance for any help.


Replies can be send to [e-mail]


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

Date:     Tue, 21 Feb 89 17:08:03 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  "AT&T handled"

I have very recently made a credit-card call from a NYNEX telephone in
N.Y. state, and I called via AT&T.  When I hit #, I got "You may dial
another AT&T handled call now", where "AT&T handled" is new.
This is that sequence-calling problem noted earlier.

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


Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 16:22:07 EST
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: autodialing without checking first


[Re: Modems dialing and sending a carrier without listening first.]
>It is possible for this to occur, not with a Hayes compatible modem, but
>with various 'dumb' modems, especially the older models specific to the
>Commodore 64. [...]

Quite probably almost all modern modems listen before dialing, but being
"Hayes compatible" has nothing to do with it.  This Hayes SmartModem,
[1200; ugh] sitting on my terminal, which is by definition "Hayes Compatible",
will happily dial away connected to nothing.

Has there been a change at some point in the "Hayes standard"?

ab4@cunixc.[columbia.edu|bitnet]  ...[rutgers|uunet|cucard]!columbia!cunixc!ab4

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

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 11:24:02 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free the AT&T 900

Re: the recent information and misinformation on AT&T 900 services,
the following is a quote from AT&T Network Communications, Applications
and Services:

"DIAL-IT "900" SERVICE
******
Caller Free
******
At the sponsor's option, a special billing arrangement is available which
permits the sponsor to offer Dial-it 900 service at no charge to the caller.
The sponsor pays for the caller charges and taxes. *****"


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #69
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Feb 23 01:36:08 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA02790; Thu, 23 Feb 89 01:36:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25869; 23 Feb 89 0:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25827; 23 Feb 89 0:17 CST
Date:     Thu, 23 Feb 89 0:16:26 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #70
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Feb 89 00:00:31 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Atlanta Airport Sweepstakes (John R. Covert)
    Questions about 25-pair (50-conductor) phone wiring (Rich Wales)
    Pots-811 Conversion Table??? (Peter Desnoyers)
    Telephone number declared to be a service mark (David A. Cantor)
    Re: Calling Card Woes (John DeArmond)
    Re: Questions About The Call Waiting Feature (Mike Peltier)
    Re: How To Obtain a '900' Number (Mark Robert Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Feb 89 00:12
Subject: AT&T Atlanta Airport Sweepstakes

From: John Keator, National Public Radio
Dt: 22 Feb 89

As you may know, the Southern Bell coin phones at Atlanta Airport we replaced
last year by COCOTS using an AOS for long distance calls.  From a brochure
found at the airport recently...

[quoting from brochure]

Enter the AT&T $10,288 Atlanta Airport Sweepstakes and win $10,288 or 100
other cash prizes (of $100.28).

Dear Atlanta Traveler,

The next time you make a long distance call from the public phones in the
Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, your call will not be handled by AT&T unless you
know and use a special access number.

As a result of this change, it could mean that for some calls, you'll pay more
than twice as much as AT&T rates for operator-assisted or calling card calls.
(Based on calls placed from the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, October 1988.
Rates subject to change.)

Until now, you've accessed AT&T by dialing 1 or 0, the the area code and
number you wanted to reach.  This will no longer work at the Atlanta AIrport
for AT&T long distance calls.  The airport has chosen to subcontract telephone
services to an independent supplier, who has changed the way in which you must
make AT&T long distance calls from public phones.

To assure your AT&T call goes through, on the AT&T network, at AT&T rates, you
will need to dial 1-0-ATT (10288) then 0, the the area code and the number you
wish to reach.  If your call does not go through directly on the public phone
you are using, an AT&T operator will ask you for further dialing instructions.
Give the AT&T opeartor the area code and phone number you wish to reach and
inform the operator how to bill the call.  You may then bill the call to your
AT&T card, or select any of the other convenient AT&T operator services or
billing options available.

The rates applied to your call will be the same rates that would be applied if
you had dialed the area code and phone number yourself.  You'll also need to
use this access code at the Nashville Airport for the same reason.  At most
other airports you can continue to access AT&T service directly, as you always
have.

If you have any questions or comments about this change in access to AT&T,
we'd like to hear from you personally.  Your comments can help us provide
better service, but only if we know your needs.  Call us toll free at 1 800
222-0300 from any location in the United States.

Very truly yours,

/s/ J. P. Pendergast Staff Manager, AT&T

P.S. Also, some hotels may be served by long distance operator services other
than AT&T.  If you don't hear "Thank you for using AT&T" as your long
distance call in connected, your call may be handled by a company otherthan
AT&T.  To ensure you get the AT&T service quality you expect for
operator-handled and AT&T Card calls, ask the hotel operator if they can
connect you to AT&T.

[On the other side is a tear off sweepstakes entry form that asks you to fill
in the blanks...]

To assure your AT&T call goes through, you will need to dial 1 0 --- (-----)
then 0, and the area code and the number you wish to reach.

If you don't dial 1 0 --- (-----) then 0, and the area code and the number you
wish to reach, and you don't hear "thank you for using AT&T" as you long
distance call is connected, your call may be handled by a compnay other than
AT&T.

If you don't dial 1 0 --- (-----) then 0, and the area code and the number you
wish to reach, you could pay more than twice the AT&T rate for some calls.

[then blanks to enter your name, (exactly as it appears on you phone bill),
address and phone number, etc.

[end quoted material]

I suppose this is one way to educate users.  Last weekend CNN ran a piece on
the phones at Atlanta Airport, and most of the people the reporter talked with
didn't understand anything about COCOTS or AOS's,  but knew they didn't want
to be ripped off.  The piece gave the feeling that this was the way things
were going to be based only some federal decisions, not just the Atlanta
Airport wanting to make extra bucks on captive users.

John Keator
National Public Radio
2025 M St., NW
Washington, DC
20036-3348
202 822 2800

<jk>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Questions about 25-pair (50-conductor) phone wiring
Date: 22 Feb 89 22:46:49 GMT
Reply-To: Rich Wales <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


I have a few questions about 25-pair (50-conductor) phone wiring.  This
need arises because my church asked me to check out the status of the
building's phone wiring, preparatory to having another phone line added.

This much I know (or think I know) so far:

The following color scheme is used for "tip" and "ring":

    TIP primary colors:   White, Red, Black, Yellow, Violet.
    RING primary colors:  Blue, Orange, Green, Brown, and Slate.

I.e., a "tip" wire will be colored white, red, black, yellow, or vio-
let, with a stripe colored blue, orange, green, brown, or slate -- or
vice versa for a "ring" wire.  Furthermore, the two wires constituting
a pair will have matching colors -- e.g., white/blue and blue/white.

Also, when the 50 wires are brought out onto a "punch-down" board (or
whatever it's really called; see my question #2 below), they are sorted
by pairs in "tip-major" order, with the "tip" wire first in each pair,
and the colors sorted in the above-listed order -- i.e., like this:

                White/Blue
                Blue/White
                White/Orange
                Orange/White
                White/Green
                Green/White
                White/Brown
                Brown/White
                White/Slate
                Slate/White
                Red/Blue
                Blue/Red
                Red/Orange
                Orange/Red
                . . .
                . . .
                Yellow/Slate
                Slate/Yellow
                Violet/Blue
                Blue/Violet
                . . .
                Violet/Slate
                Slate/Violet

If any of the above material is incorrect, of course, I hope someone
who knows better than I will post a correction.

My questions:

(1) Is there a standard set of abbreviations for the above color names?
    One-letter initial abbreviations are seemingly out, since Black,
    Blue, and Brown all start with the same letter.

(2) What is the common name for the "punch-down" board commonly used
    with this kind of wiring, consisting of 50 horizontal rows, each
    with four little "jaws" into which a wire can be pushed?  And, for
    that matter, what are the little "jaws" on one of these boards
    really called?

(3) When you refer to a matching pair of wires, do you name the "tip"
    or the "ring" color first?  (E.g., do I talk about the "white/blue"
    wire pair, or the "blue/white" wire pair -- assuming that I am
    talking about *both* wires together as a matched set?)

Hopefully, knowing the correct way of referring to this equipment will
make it easier for us to tell the phone company person who comes to
hook up the new phone line exactly which wire pair to connect to.

And, before anyone complains that these "punch-down" boards and such are
all phone company property and that no one else should be touching them,
let me clarify things by mentioning that we have *two* such boards --
one which is used only for the incoming service connections (which obvi-
ously *is* phone company turf), and one with the building's 25-pair wire
connections (which just as obviously is *not* phone company turf) -- and
the two boards are connected as needed by jumper wires.  So, I assume I
am doing nothing at all wrong as long as I don't mess with the wires on
the "incoming service" board.

-- 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
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank."

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pots-811 Conversion Table???
Date: 22 Feb 89 21:29:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA



My girlfriend pointed out the following entry in the San Francisco
white pages, which has me completely puzzled:

Pots-811 Conversion Table
  0470 ................. 823 0470
  0500 ..............408 274 0500
   [approx. 12 inches like this]
  9656 ..............213 604 9656

Does anyone know what it is? I tried dialing 811-0470 and got
"dah-dah-DEE... The number you have dialed is not in service", etc.

                Peter Desnoyers

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

From: "David A. Cantor" <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Feb 89 11:20
Subject: Telephone number declared to be a service mark

In the One-Pass member's guide (Continental's and Eastern's frequent
flyer program), dated February 1989, they list the telephone number
for National Car Rental as
                                                  SM
                                   1-800-CAR-RENT

This is the first time I've seen a telephone number indicated to be
a service mark.   I assume that 1-800-CAR-RENT is a service mark
of National Car Rental.

Dave C.

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Woes
Date: 23 Feb 89 00:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., Atlanta, GA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 68, message 3 of 5
>
>Having been warned by experience and this net group, I have carefully
>asked for the AT&T operator when using my calling card.  This month
>on my phone bill I found a charge from a carrier labled LD*OS.  It
>
>Roger Preisendefer

Roger,
Yes you can do something.  Call LD*OS customer service (number available
either on your bill or thru the local TELCO and demand the charge be
removed.  You may give as a reason either that you did not authorize them
to carry your call or that you simply did not make the call.  Then call
your TELCO business office and find out the policy on third party carriers.
Policy depends on the state.  You may be able to refuse service from
these clowns.

john


--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!stiatl!john                     | just GOTTA Know!!!


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

From: Mike Peltier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About The Call Waiting Feature
Date: 22 Feb 89 22:41 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Peltier <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Michigan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Gonzalez) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 67, message 3 of 6
>
>A college acquaintance of mine has call waiting on his line, as a cheap
>alternative to a second line for his modem.  Every time he got a noise
>burst, he would break his terminal session and check for the other call.
>Of course, not every noise burst was caused by a call waiting tone, and
>he ended up with unwanted interruptions.
>
>Can anyone provide a description of the tone, including the frequency and
>period?  I've never used such a line, but know that you get more than the
>click the primary caller hears.  Are there detection circuits commercially
>available?

Here in Michigan, at least, the call waiting tone is a short, medium pitched
pure tone.  The 'click' that the other person hears is the connection being
dropped momentarily in order to play the tone.  Thus, whenever one is using
a modem and a call comes through, the connection is interrupted by a number
of UUU's, and the carrier is lost.  This has been used by some people to
clear off a line on a popular BBS in the area.  They just call someone with
call waiting and bomb their connection.
Noise bursts are one thing, call waiting is another.  The latter is fatal
to Michigan modem connections.
Also, why would you want a detection circuit?

    -Mike Peltier.



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

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 13:31:17 EST
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Obtain a '900' Number

If it helps, 201-947 is Leonia, NJ, just across the river from NYC.  I
live up that way when I'm at home.
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063   that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063   {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
[e-mail]    Copyright 1989, Mark Smith.  All Rights Reserved.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #70
****************************

From [e-mail]  Sat Feb 25 17:27:13 1989
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA10561; Sat, 25 Feb 89 17:27:13 EST
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 89 17:27:13 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: telecom-recent

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Fri Feb 24 03:47:35 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA15467; Fri, 24 Feb 89 03:47:35 EST
Received: by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00705; 24 Feb 89 2:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27116; 24 Feb 89 0:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27110; 24 Feb 89 0:17 CST
Date:     Fri, 24 Feb 89 0:16:49 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #71
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Feb 89 00:01:16 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Australian Telephone System (Linc Madison)
    Re: Australian Telephone System (Jim Breen)
    Re: Australian Telephone System (David E A Wilson)
    Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers (Geoff Rimmer)
    Re: Pots-811 Conversion Table??? (Carl Moore)
    Re: Autodialing Without Checking First (Daniel Senie)
    Re: The Official Country Codes List (Christopher JS Vance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 01:39:51 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Australian Telephone System

Phone numbers in Australia, as in most of the world, follow a decimal
tree pattern.  The numbers mentioned by [e-mail] that begin
with a 0 are indeed area codes.  In Australia, area codes are two or
three digits.  03=Melbourne and vicinity.  008 is indeed the down-
under version of 800 (The light switches are upside-down, the faucets
are switched, they drive on the wrong side of the road, and their 800
numbers are backwards -- sheesh!  :-) ), but you get charged a local
call (30c) for it.  At some point in the dialing sequence, the system
can tell that you've dialed all the digits.  For example, since there
are numbers in area code 03 beginning with 534, there are no numbers
035/34-....  In fact, I believe there is no area code 035.

As to pay phone systems, there are some called gold phones, usually
in restaurants, hotels, and youth hostels, which have an LCD display
telling you how much credit you have left.  They take all coins up
to $1, to a limit of about $6 total, and calls are charged in 30c
increments.  To call the U.S., you can use most any pay phone and
just dial 0011-1-A/C-number.  Other codes besides 0011 are for special
purposes (ringback with time & charges, no-echo-suppression line for
fax & data transmission, etc.).  It gets expensive pretty quickly,
but you can make a 10-second call for 30c.  ("Hi, Mom, I'm fine. Bye.")

Linc Madison

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

From: Jim Breen <munnari!cit5.cit.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Australian Telephone System
Date: 23 Feb 89 23:04:20 GMT
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb, Australia


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
* I have the good fortune of being able to travel to Australia next
* month. While looking through a travel guide, I noticed the following
* types of phone numbers listed for just one state (Victoria):
*
*       617-0900
*       345-3455
*       620-331
*       03/534-0316
*       63-1062
*       08/42-1563
*       059/75-7568
*       008/??????    (Apparently similar to North American 800 Service)
*
* As you can see there doesn't appear to be any kind of formating involved! I
* gather that the number prior to the / is a type of area code, but that
* isn't always given or even the same number of digits. I would really
* appreciate someone enlightening me how the phone works in Oz. Numbering
* schemes, pay phone procedures, typical rates, etc.
    [deletions]
Australia uses a 9-digit national numbering scheme. This is usually either:

a) a 2 digit area code and a 7 digit local number. This is for large cities,
   of which there is one per state. My (work) number is 03-573-2552. The
   "573" uniquely identifies the exchange (Central Office).
b) a 3 digit area code and a 6 digit local number, which is used in smaller
   cities and rural areas. My old home town number was 057-55-1097.
(BTW, this is not fully implemented: there are still some 6 digit
numbers in Sydney and Melbourne.)

Of course, for dialling within a local area, the area code is omitted.

There are other special codes: 008 is like the US 800 service, 1100
for reporting faults, 0011 for dialling internationally, etc, etc.

Phone rates here are interesting. We pay about $A200 p.a. rental. A local
call is about 20c flagfall, but NO timed component. Also our local areas are
BIG: in Melbourne and Sydney up to 100km across. This leads to a lot of
cheap dial-up data and fax usage.
Longdistance call range from about 20c/min for most intrastate calls to
45c/min for Melbourne-Sydney and a MAXIMUM of 58c/min for any call over
750km. These are peak rate: it is lower at nights, weekends etc.

Most Australians complain about the quality and price of the phone service,
however  objective studies show that it is comparable with, or better
and cheaper than, those in other Western countries.

--
        _______           Jim Breen ([e-mail]) Department of Robotics &
       /o\----\\     \O      Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology
      /RDT\   /|\   \/|   -:O____/         PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145
     O-----O        _/_\    /\ /\          (p) 03-573 2552 (fax) 572 1298

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!uowcsa.oz.au!david%uowcsa.cs.uow.oz.OZ@uunet.
uu.net>
Subject: Re: Australian Telephone System
Date: 24 Feb 89 00:38:24 GMT
Organization: Uni of Wollongong, NSW, Australia


In Australia the "standard" representation of a phone number is

Intl:    +61 xx yyyy zzzz
Local:    (0xx) yyy zzzz        where
     ^ ^   ^   ^------    number within exchange
     | |   '----------    1 to 3 digit exchange
     | '--------------    1 or 2 digit area code
         '----------------    access code (within Australia)

The only problem with this is that no one thinks of (042) as an
access code + an area code so you will find this described as
area code 042 - the only time this causes problems is for
international calls into Australia when the 0 has to be omitted.

Some common area codes are (with the access 0):

    02    Sydney (NSW)        03    Melbourne (VIC)
    04x    Country (NSW)        05x    Country (NSW/VIC)
    06x    Country (NSW/VIC)    07    Brisbane (QLD)
    07x    Country (QLD)        08    Adelaide (SA)
    089    Darwin (NT)        09    Perth (WA)
    09x    Country (WA)        002    Hobart (TAS)
    008    Toll free access (like the US 800 numbers)

Typical charges (listed in my 1988 phone book) are:

        Home phone    Pay phone
        cents/min
    Local    21 (untimed)    30c
    0-50km    11, 7, 5            (Day, Night, Economy)
    50-85km    22, 15, 10            (Rounded to next 21c)
    85-165    34, 22, 15
    165-745    42, 32, 22
    745+    63, 42, 30

Day = 8am to 6pm Mon to Sat
Night = 6pm to 10pm Mon to Sat
Economy = 10pm to 8am Mon to Sat + all Sun

Pay phone STD (subscriber trunk dialing) rates would be 30/21 * Home rate
rounded to the next 30c.

How to use a standard pay phone:
1)    Pick up handset & wait for dial tone.
2)    Insert required coins.
3)    Dial number.
4)    Talk. (add extra money if red light flashes on STD call)
5)    Hang up.
6)    Collect change (if any).

David Wilson        ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 10:14:25 GMT
From: Geoff Rimmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers


[e-mail] wrote on 14 Feb 89 10:23:00 GMT

> Re: Automatic Retry

> I believe the FCC prohibits automatic re-dialers to make more than 15
> unanswered requests - IF - only one number is selected for re-dialing.

> [ a pretty terrible experience deleted! ]

Could someone post/email more info about these FCC regulations?  I
need to know about them, as I have written some software (for a
company in the US), which uses FAX cards to continually call a phone
number until the fax is confirmed at the other end.  Of course, I have
allowed the user to specify a maximum number of tries before the
program gives up sending, but it seems from the above message that I
should not allow any more than 15.  Does this refer to international
calls also?

A big problem I have had with the FAX cards is that they are too dumb
to know the difference between a voice phone and a busy fax machine.

This means that the company I am writing the software for, could lose
hundreds of dollars simply by entering a wrong number.  Imagine the
scenario.

    They have a FAX to be sent to the UK, phone # [phone]

    By mistake, they type "011 44 21 321 4329"
                        ^
    Unfortunately, this is the phone number of an 80 year old
    woman in Birmingham, England.  She answers the phone, and gets
    the fax machine noise in her ear!  So she puts the phone down,
    and goes back to her TV.  1 minute later, the same thing
    happens.  And because the company observes the FCC
    regulations, she only gets 15 false phone calls :-)

    This is a big problem for her, and for the company - they have
    had to pay for 15 international phone calls, which possibly
    lasted 1 minute each.  I don't need to tell you how much that
    could cost over a year.

The software with the card allows you to specify a time-out - but this
will vary significantly as different countries around the world are
called.  For example, it may only take 10 seconds for a fax machine to
be recognised with a USA to USA call, but try calling some Middle East
countries - and you'll find it takes a lot longer.  I guess one
solution would be to keep a database of different timeouts for each
country, but that STILL wouldn't get round the fact that you could be
annoying people and running up huge bills, by calling voice numbers.

I would be grateful if anyone could post or email details about how I
could get round this problem - perhaps there is a FAX card that can
make this distinction (between a voice phone and a FAX machine in use)?

Thanks

Geoff

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Geoff Rimmer, Computer Science, Warwick University, England.
            [e-mail]
    ------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:     Thu, 23 Feb 89 10:33:15 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Pots-811 Conversion Table???

I am not from California, but recently noticed that the call guides
in various Pacific Bell directories had business-office numbers
of the form 811-xxxx.  I also saw a note there saying that these
numbers do not work from outside California or from some non-PacBell
areas within California, and that you should, under those circum-
stances, contact your operator for an alternate number.
Perhaps this is what your conversion table is about.

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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: autodialing without checking first
Date: 23 Feb 89 17:23:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA



Hayes 2400 and compatible modems are able to sense dial tone by using ATX4.
This also senses BUSY on some modems. The Microcom AX/2400 does a very good
job at this. It also senses when my local phone switch (#1 Step by Step)
forgets to release my line from the previous call but does provide an
unbreakable dial tone...

--
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

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

From: Christopher JS Vance <munnari!csadfa.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Official Country Codes list per CCITT E.163 (+notes)
Date: 24 Feb 89 03:36:52 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University College, UNSW, ADFA,
Canberra, Australia


From article <[e-mail]>, by covert%covert.DEC@decwrl.
Status: R

dec.com (John R. Covert):
>     World Numbering Zone 6: Pacific
> 672    Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island)

Actually 672 includes Christmas Island and Cocos Island (both Indian
Ocean) as well as Norfolk Island (Pacific).  Each of these has a
separate (one digit) area code after the country code.  I'm not saying
what they are because it looks like my phone book has a typo :-).


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #71
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sat Feb 25 02:17:49 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA22855; Sat, 25 Feb 89 02:17:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12058; 25 Feb 89 0:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12044; 25 Feb 89 0:46 CST
Date:     Sat, 25 Feb 89 0:46:33 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #72
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Feb 89 00:15:21 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Rate of Return versus Rate Cap (David Gast)
    PROFS <-> RFC822 gateway (Steinar Overbeck Cook)
    Cellular Humour required. (Linas P Dauksa)
    Re: "Toll-Free" 900? (Syd Weinstein)
    International FAX (Was Intl. Rate Options) (Linc Madison)
    976, 540 Charges (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 23:54:43 PST
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rate of Return versus Rate Cap


Recently, AT&T and several other utilities have proposed switching from
rates determined by rate of return to a rate cap.  The FCC likes this
proposal, but Congress has balked.  The question has been raised as to
why Congress might object.

1) AT&T like all companies is clearly in the business of maximizing profits.
   If they want to change how rates are set, then one logical conclusion is
   that they feel they can make more money with a rate cap than with rate
   of return regulation.

2) Congress may be getting letters from their constituents complaining
   about higher phone bills.  Congress may have also noticed that in
   general the FCC has been more intent on making policy rather than
   carrying out the policy that is on the books.  For example, the FCC
   decided that the ``equal time'' rule should be abolished.  (Congress
   passed a law requiring it again, but Reagan vetoed it).  The FCC
   actions have done little to endear itself with Congress.  [See also
   the final sentence of 3e below].

3) Why might a rate cap be more profitable?

   a) Rate of return accounting encourages waste.  Ending rate of return
   pricing would give a company incentive to become more efficient, not
   less so.

   b) A rate cap does not limit the extent to which a company can lower
   its prices.  Price decreases are generally in the interest of the
   consumer, but not always.  Suppose that there is a small efficient
   producer and large inefficient producer.  The small efficient
   producer introduces a new product or service at a lower
   price.  If the larger company feels threatened by the new,
   low price, it may lower its price and suffer a temporary decline
   in profits, in order to drive the new, low cost producer out
   of business.  The knowledge that the large producer can lower
   its price may discourage the smaller producer from even
   attempting to lower its price.

   [Note:  Think about what happened in the ariline industry in
   the 80s.  At the beginning, many new companies were formed.
   They were very efficient but the established high priced
   carriers lowered their fares as well.  Some of the established
   carriers sustained massive losses due to their lower fares.
   Almost all of the new carriers have disappeared.  Most cities
   now have a higher percentage of their fights from the
   dominant carrier in that city than they did before
   regulation.]

   c) The allowed rate of return increased significantly at the beginning
   of the decade because of the high yields on bonds.  The allowed rate
   of return has not returned to its historical level.  If a company
   felt that the allowed rate of return would be decreased, an
   alternative rate setting mechanism may be preferable.

   [Note: In the early 80s some public utilities actually
   redeemed their 3%-7% bonds and then turned around and
   reissued bonds yielding 12% or more.  The effect was to
   make the lawyers and investment bankers rich, to create non
   cash income (they got to record a gain on the redemption of
   the bonds because they were trading at a discount), and to
   increase the allowed rate of return (because the cost of capital
   incresed).

   d) Some companies may know about new technologies and/or other factors
   which will change the cost of providing service significantly.  The
   public may not know about these impending changes yet.  A company
   might determine that a price scheme that allows it to keep most
   of the savings is preferable to a rate or return system where most
   of the savings would get passed on to the consumer.

   e) Finally, many regulated companies complain in their annual reports
   and other places that they do not have enough leverage to lower
   business rates and increase residential rates. Many times regulatory
   agencies are not willing to make these changes; by shifting
   the pricing scheme to a rate cap, companies would be free to
   increase residential prices and decrease industrial/large user
   prices.  [If the FCC is more susceptible to lobbying from business
   and Congress more susceptible to lobbying from individuals, then
   result that the FCC proposed a rate cap, but Congress rejected it
   would be very possible.]

   f) Many government employees leave government and go to work for
   private industry.  These employees may feel that they will be
   worth more in the private sector if their actions while in
   government reflect private sector positions.  [The Wall Street
   Journal recently ran a story about former FSLIC regulators getting
   rich from the S&L crisis that their poor regulation was at least
   in part responsible for].

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

[Moderator's Note: In tomorrow's issue of the Digest, a complete review of the
new AT&T price changes -- virtually all reductions -- scheduled for 4-1-89.]
------------------------------

From: Steinar Overbeck Cook <mcvax!fdmetd![e-mail]>
Subject: PROFS <-> RFC822 gateway
Date: 21 Feb 89 21:39:28 GMT
Organization: Fellesdata a.s, Oslo, Norway


We are currently running several IBM / Amdahl hosts with PROFS and
several micros and minis which are linked up to NCR Tower/UNIX machines.

Does anybody have a solution on how to linke these two environments
together ?.

I believe that in this context keywords would be for instance
X.400, SNA, LU-T6.2, TCP/IP and so on.

Any comments on this topic would be welcome.
--
Steinar Overbeck Cook, Fellesdata a.s, P.O. Box 248, 0212 OSLO 2, NORWAY
Phone : [phone]                            Fax   : [phone]
E-mail : ...!mcvax!ndosl!fdmetd!steinar  or       [e-mail]
<The opinions expressed, if any, do not represent Fellesdata a.s>


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

From: Linas P Dauksa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Humour required.
Date:     Fri, 24 Feb 89 19:33:35 EST
Reply-To: Linas P Dauksa <[e-mail]>
Organization: Engineering Computing Facility, University of Toronto


Hello Everyone:
I am presenting a seminar on how a Cellular telephone and network
operates and would like to start the lecture with a related funny
story or joke. If anyone can spare some humour, please mail it to
me or post it on the net.
Thank-you in advance,


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

From: Syd Weinstein <harvard!pacbell.pacbell.com!dsinc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Toll-Free" 900?
Date: 23 Feb 89 05:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: Syd Weinstein <harvard!pacbell.pacbell.com!dsinc![e-mail]>
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 66, message 4 of 5
>In article <[e-mail]> edell%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax
.berkeley.edu (Richard Edell) writes:
>>...  One reason this might be preferable
>>to 800 service is in the case of AT&T's Dial-It 900 service where no
>>customer equipment is required.
There indeed can be toll free 900 service.  In my AT&T tarriff summary,
nicely provided by AT&T via the consultant liason program, they mention
that although 900 service normally charges the customer, if a client
wanted to run a promotion, it can just as easily bill the client,
and you even get an itemized bill of all the calls.  The charges are
the same, just the payee is different.

900 service from AT&T is different from other 900 services.
AT&T provides the mass termination equipment, the counters for the poll
kind, etc.  The rates can literaly be anything from free to very
expensive, with at&t getting its cut as a fixed fee and the rest
going to the client.  (Note, if the charge to the caller is less than
the fee, the client makes up the difference to AT&T.)


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                Voice: [phone]
{allegra,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd                    FAX:   [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 01:39:51 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Int'l FAX (was Int'l Rate Options)

I've seen advertised that MCI has a dedicated FAX network, which
could be useful -- the echo-suppression circuitry in normal voice-
quality lines plays havoc with FAX transmission.  The moral is that
what's good for voice isn't necessarily good for FAX, and vice-versa.
I don't know anything about the phone system FROM Africa.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail].2?4edu4
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 00:00:00 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976, 540 charges

In California, the limit on 976 charges is $2, period.  Pacific Bell
now offers 976 blocking for free -- initially they charged $2 for it,
gleefully noting that the state Public Util. Commission REQUIRED them
to charge for blocking.  I don't know if they do 900 blocking.  As
for 540 numbers, though, we don't have them and never, ever, ever
will.  (I know, 'cause my phone number is 540-WHAM!)



-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #72
****************************


From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sun Feb 26 16:30:33 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA24251; Sun, 26 Feb 89 16:30:33 EST
Received: by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id ac12601; 26 Feb 89 15:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07411; 26 Feb 89 1:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07406; 26 Feb 89 1:21 CST
Date:     Sun, 26 Feb 89 1:20:57 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #73
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Feb 89 01:06:38 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Rate Changes Effectiovve 4-1-89 (TELECOM Moderator)
    On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 26 Feb 89 0:22:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T Rate Changes Effective 4-1-89

AT&T filed with the Federal Communications Commission on February 15, 1989 for
several interstate price reductions. These new rates will become effective on
April 1, 1989 (except where noted).

AT&T WATS SERVICES:

WATS:         Service Group Charge         reduced to $12.00
        Day Prices            reduced by 4.2%
        Evening Prices            reduced by 3.4%
        Night/Weekend Prices        reduced by 2.0%
        Evening Discount tapers        added effective 7-1-89
        Monthly Access Line Charge    reduced to $36.70


PRO WATS    Day Prices            reduced by 4.5%
        Evening Prices            reduced by 2.1%

PRO WATS I    Day Prices            reduced by 3.8%
        Evening Prices            reduced by 0.4%

PRO WATS II     Day Prices            reduced by 2.4%

PRO WATS III    Day Prices            reduced by 2.2%
        Monthly Recurring Charge    reduced to $285.00

MAGACOM WATS    Evening Prices            reduced 6.9%
        Monthly Recurring Charge    reduced to $50.00
        Additional 10% discount        over $30,000 per month
        Additional 15% discount        on Domestic Interstate
        Additioanl 6% discount        on International Card


AT&T MULTI-LOCATION WATS (MLW)

These provisions effective 4-1-89:

The monthly recurring plan charge will be waived for the first three months
for establishment of new plan.

Usage charges for AT&T MEGACOM WATS under MLW will be discounted 10%.

Monthly MLW charges for AT&T PRO WATS and AT&T PRO WATS III is reduced to $12.

AT&T MEGACOM WATS monthly charge is reduced to $50.00


These provisions effective 7-1-89:

The monthly MLW plan charge will be incrementally reduced based on the number
of customer locations.

AT&T WATS Evening period usage will be discounted 5% under MLW.


AT&T MEGACOM 800

        Monthly charge            reduced to $50.00
        Volume Discount         10% in excess of $10,000
        Higher Volume Discount        15% in excess of $30,000

For the purpose of computing discounts, intrastate traffic will be included
in the total calculation.


AT&T READYLINE

        Day Usage Prices        reduced by 12.5%
        Evening Usage Prices        reduced by 7.6%
        Night/Weekend Usage Prices    reduced by 7.6% (also)
        Volume Discounts        5% for $50.00 - $350.00
        Volume Discounts        10% for $350.00 - $1350.00
        High Volume Discounts        15% in excess of $1350.00

        Day Usage Prices additionally    reduced by 2.1% as of 7-1-89
        Evening Prices additionally    reduced by 0.6% as of 7-1-89


AT&T 800 SERVICE

        Day Usage Prices        reduced by 1.0%
        Monthly Access Line Charge    reduced to $36.70

        Day Usage Prices additionally    reduced by 2.1% as of 7-1-89
        Evening Usage Prices        reduced by 0.6% as of 7-1-89


AT&T SOFTWARE DEFINED NETWORK

        Schedule A Day Prices        reduced 3.9%
        Schedule A Evening Prices    reduced 6.3%
        Schedule B Day Prices        reduced 3.0%
        Schedule B Evening Prices    reduced 8.3%
        Schedule B Night Prices        reduced 3.0%
        Schedule C Day Prices        reduced 12.6%
        Schedule C Evening Prices    reduced 12.4%
        Schedule C Night Prices        reduced 4.0%


AT&T LONG DISTANCE SERVICE

These are the new day prices for the basic long distance service:

Rate        Initial        Additional      Discount Period
Mileage        Minute        Minute        Notes

1 - 10        $.18        $.17        1. Evening rates will be 33%
11 - 22         .21         .20        lower than Day rates.
23 - 55         .23          .22        2. Night/Weekend rates will be
56 - 124     .24           .23        48% lower than Day rates.
125 - 292     .24         .23        3. There is no change in the
293 - 430      .24         .23        surcharge applied for calling
431 - 925     .25         .24        card and/or other operator-
926 - 1910     .26         .25        assisted (i.e. person to person
1911 - 3000     .27          .26        and coin phone) calls.
3001 - 4250     .31         .30        4. Charges for Reach Out Plans
4251 - 5750      .33         .32        will not be changed.


These rates will take effect on 4-1-89 (or 7-1-89) pending final approval of
the FCC.

Patrick Townson


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

Date:     Sun, 26 Feb 89 1:04:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'

I will sub-title this report 'The Case of the Box Which Won't Be Removed'. The
location is Lockport, Illinois; a suburban community thirty miles or so
southwest of Chicago. It is served by Illinois Bell; or should I say the lady
I will tell you about serves IBT. One way or the other -- anyway --

Wanting to get out of the city, the lady bought a house in Lockport. It is
an older place, but very well maintained over the years. One room would make
a great den, but there was one problem that had to be taken care of first.
In one corner of the room sat a box, about five feet high and four feet square.
There were about 500 wires running in and out of it, all eventually finding
their way through a hole in the wall. On the outside of the house at that
point, the wires ran a short distance, then went down into the ground in a
metal conduit like thing.

Curious about it, she asked the realtor what it might be for, and was told
that a former occupant of the house had operated an answering service there.
The room she was planning for her den had been the switchboard area for the
answering service years before.

The lady called up Illinois Bell to see about having it removed. IBT agreed
to do so for the mere sum of $2,400. *And they agreed the box was dead*. The
lady protested; saying that $2,400 seemed a lot of money to yank out the old
box, especially since nothing was going in its place provided by the phone
company.

After asking around, she found an independent workman willing to remove the
box for $300, and was about to tell him to go ahead with the work when two
people from Bell stopped by to see her, to warn that if any lines were
broken or damaged, she would have to pay $70 for the repair of each. She said
she thought $70 was rather outrageous for the repair of useless, dead lines,
but the guys from Bell said in fact the lines were alive. They did agree
to reduce their price and remove the box for 'only $1800', and completely
indemnify her against damages or disruption of service which might occur
in the process.

Her independent workman took another look and confirmed what Bell had said:
The box was in fact alive, and nearly 500 working pairs were terminated inside.
Together they went back to Bell, and got the price for removal of the box
negotiated down to only $1200.

The lady said she had no intention of paying *anything* to take it out. And
really, can you blame her? Finally with no place else to turn, she went to
see the house's former owner; the fellow who had run the answering service.
He said he thought Illinois Bell had been granted an easeent to have the
box there.

And now the matter becomes even more mysterious. The lady went to the
village hall and spoke to Lockport officials herself; and yes, they said,
Illinois Bell *does* have an easement to that room in your house. They were
unable, however, to show her a signed document from the previous owner giving
easement rights to Bell. Tbe former owner insists he never signed anything;
he claims they put the box in when he started the answering service back in
the middle 1950's; and he claims he can't remember ever giving Bell permanent
squatting rights there.

After continued negotiations, IBT still insists it needs $1200 to remove its
equipment and give up its easement rights. In the meantime, the lady won't
budge, and she is living there with a Pandora's Box filled with legal
ramifications for a 'roomate'. The search goes on for an official record of
the easement with someone's signature on it. I suspect if and when it is
found it will be the signature of the former owner. The contractor hired by
the woman has identified a dozen businesses and several dozen residences in
the vicinity which show up on terminals in the box.

I think eventually if an easement record cannot be located, IBT will have
to bite the dust and relocate the whole thing at thier expense. The woman
has said if the easement *is* found, and it contains the signature of the
former owner, she will sue him if necessary to make him pay for the removal.

In the meantime if something goes wrong and Bell has to visit the box? Well,
let's hope the woman isn't asleep, in the bathroom or otherwise 'indisposed'
when her 'roomates' visitors show up!

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #73
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Feb 27 13:22:57 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA09814; Mon, 27 Feb 89 13:22:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01501; 27 Feb 89 0:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01492; 27 Feb 89 0:42 CST
Date:     Mon, 27 Feb 89 0:42:41 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #74
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Feb 89 00:34:52 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Australian Telephone System (Christopher Vance)
    International Dialing Codes (Dan Ross)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Christopher Vance <munnari!cs.adfa.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Australian Telephone System
Date: 24 Feb 89 03:27:13 GMT


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:
> I have the good fortune of being able to travel to Australia next
> month. While looking through a travel guide, I noticed the following
> types of phone numbers listed for just one state (Victoria):
...
> As you can see there doesn't appear to be any kind of formating involved! I
> gather that the number prior to the / is a type of area code, but that
> isn't always given or even the same number of digits. I would really
> appreciate someone enlightening me how the phone works in Oz. Numbering
> schemes, pay phone procedures, typical rates, etc. In other words,
> a short tutorial to keep me from fumbling around would be
> appreciated. Responses to the digest would be fine. I suspect
...

Phone numbers in Australia have variable length.  Area codes also have
variable length, but the sum of the lengths is not a constant ...

Area codes are always quoted with a leading zero, since it's always
dialled that way within the country (like 1-nnn-nnn-nnnn in the USA).
Operator assisted calls are made by calling the appropriate number for
the operator, then telling them the number you want (there is no
equivalent of 0-nnn-etc.; you can't dial it yourself).  Operators for
national and international calls have different numbers (usually 011 and
0101).

The larger capital cities have a single digit (after the zero) area
code:
    Sydney (02), Melbourne (03), Brisbane (07), Adelaide (08), Perth (09).

Most other area codes have two digits after the zero, including all
other capital cities:
    Canberra (062), Hobart (002), Darwin (089).

I think the sole except these days (except for manual exchanges) is 0848
for Kangaroo Island.

One thing that you can be confident of: the full number, which is the
area code (including the zero) plus the local number, has at most nine
digits - seven digit local numbers occur only in the larger capitals, so
if you see such a number, assume its in the local state capital (unless
you are in a smaller state or territory :-)).  But Sydney also has some
five digit local numbers, as well as many six digit ones ...

The division between area code and local number is not always obvious,
since some area codes have others as a proper prefix.  E.g., the area
code for Brisbane is 07, while the area code for Townsville is 077.
You'd probably win a bet that no local numbers in Brisbane start with a 7.
I imagine you'd get a bad-number tone if you tried to dial 7-ab-cdef
instead of 077-ab-cdef from Brisbane to get Townsville ab-cdef.

Local numbers always start with a digit between 2 and 9.  Local numbers
starting with 0 are for area codes or some operator service.  Local
numbers starting with 1 are for other services like time, weather, stock
exchange, etc. See your phone book :-).

You are correct that 008 is similar to North American 1-800, but you
still get charged for a local call (currently 30c from a phone box, or
22c(?) from a home (or business?)).  Since you can only dial these by using
008 first, they are not local numbers to anyone, so you may see
(008)0nnnnn or (008)1nnnnn.

Phone boxes charge in units of 30c.  Local calls are not timed, while
for long distance (called STD...) you have to pay up front---no coin, no
talk.  The distance determines how long you get to speak for each unit.
You could conceivably spend only 30c to ring anywhere in Australia, but
if you ring the other side of the country, you might only have a few
seconds to speak before you get cut off.  The phone book, if present in
the phone box, will be ripped to shreds, but if you can find the pages
in the front, they should have instructions saying what areas are local
to where you're calling from.  A direct dialled number which gives a
couple of seconds of rapidly repeating pips when the callee picks up
their end is non-local.

I believe there are special concessions when calling into a capital or a
regional centre from outlying areas which fall into the no-mans land
between local and STD.  You may find timed calls which aren't announced
in the usual way.

The distance rates have steps at 25km (local), 50, 85, 165, and 745 km.
From anywhere, 745km covers only a small part of the country (not much
larger than Texas?) but if you stay in the southeast, you cover the vast
majority of the population. Discounts of up to 60% apply
after 10pm. Day rates per minute were (two price rises ago) 11c (25-50km),
22c (50-85km), 34c (85-165km), 42c (165-745km), and 63c (over 745km).
These prices date from when the charging unit was 20c, so a 35km call
would have cost you 20c for about 105 seconds in day time.

If you want to dial overseas from a phone box (shudder :-)), don't
accept anything less that a metallic green phone, make sure the sign in
the box mentions international calls, and make sure you've got lots of
$1 coins, since they haven't modified them to take $2 coins yet.
International calls are about $2/min to the USA (operator assisted) or
$1.50/min for direct dial economy rate (after midnight).

Conversion rates from $A to $US are about 1:0.83, depending on which
country announced their economic figures more recently... (No :-)).

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 02:20:45 CST
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Ross)
Subject: International Dialing Codes


Why is it that some countries are (according to the phone book) not
direct-dial accessible from the USA despite their inclusion in the
world numbering scheme?  In particular, I had noticed some of these
countries' dial codes listed in a French phone book's dialing instruction
pages, while in the USA they aren't listed (for example, the USSR is
listed in the French directory as having code 7, while calling there from
the US requires an operator-assisted call).

Also, how does one actually make long-distance calls to/within the USSR?
Do they have "city codes" similar to Europe?

I noticed, after the discussion on 540-/1-900-/976- blocking, that 976 is
the country code for Mongolia.  Will blocking prevent calls to there? :-)

Dan Ross                [e-mail]
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #74
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Feb 28 03:51:45 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA28573; Tue, 28 Feb 89 03:51:45 EST
Received: by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11266; 28 Feb 89 2:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08649; 28 Feb 89 0:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08610; 28 Feb 89 0:48 CST
Date:     Tue, 28 Feb 89 0:47:57 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #75
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Feb 89 00:20:42 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Australian Phone System  (Greyham Stoney)
    Pagers (SMTP - Chris)
    Direct Dialing USSR (Wm Randolph Franklin)
    Re: Telco As a 'Housemate' (Joel B Levin)
    What Is/Should Be Moderator's Role? (Frank J. Wancho)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Greyham Stoney <munnari!hades.seg.ausonics.nucleus.oz.au!greyham
@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 28 Feb 89 00:30:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Australian Telephone System
Organization: Ausonics Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia


Hey wow!..... here's something I actually KNOW about......

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:
> I have the good fortune of being able to travel to Australia next
> month. While looking through a travel guide, I noticed the following
> types of phone numbers listed for just one state (Victoria):

(several examples of phone numbers given)

Okay - here's some enligtenment:
    Firstly, the numbers you have above are NOT all in the same format.
I don't know where you got the numbers from, but the full format for any phone
number within Australia is:
        (area code) number
    Where (area code) is the area code you're dialing. It always begins
with a 0, and in the case of the major capital cities of each state, is a
two digit number, the first being the zero, and the second being the first
digit of the postcodes in that state. (Our post office and phone system used
to be the same organisation).
    eg: postcode for Sydney CBD is 2000. Phone area code is (02)
        postcode for Melbourne CBD is 3000. Phone area code is (03)

    I've never seen the area code written with a '/'; I don't know where
you got those from; I would generally write them:
        [phone]
    But it's just a matter of taste I guess.
    Now; you don't have to dial the area code if you're in that area, so
it's often ignored..... (see above).

    By the way, the leading '0' on all area codes is ommited in
international dialling..... ok, so in the interests of non-redundancy, to any
of the million or so phones in Sydney, my work number is:
            428 6476
    But if you aren't in the Sydney area, you have to include the area
code:
            [phone]
    And if you aren't in Australia, you have to dial the country code,
which is 61, but leave out the "0" from the "02":
            61 2 428 6476

    [So I'm told anyhow; that's what the phone book says. I've never
     actually tried it. {Guess why!}]

    Now, all the punctuation in this is sort of arbitrary; though the
"428" in the above example is the region code (if you like; though we don't
really think of it like that) for Lane Cove; the suburb where I work.

    The number of digits in the region code is usually 2 (in the case
of older exchanges) or 3 (newer ones). For example, my home phone number is 6
digits; while the work one is 7. Country exchanges often have less digits
than city ones [well, they have less phones, don't they!].

    The 008 "area" code is a different one.... when you make a call to
a different area code, you pay long-distance rates. Calls within the same
area code are charged once only (30 cents) for as long as you can talk; till
you jaw ceases up or whatever. But it's a BIG country; so as a marketing
gimmick, Telecom (our national phone service provider) dreamed up these
008 numbers, whereby the person you are calling pays the long-distance rate,
but the caller only pays the local call charge (30cents). It's basicly just
automatic long-distance reverse charges.

    As for using pay phones; it's just the same as a normal phone, but
you have to stick money in :-). Some of the REALLY new ones take credit
cards (American Express, Visa etc), but don't bank on it cos they are
REALLY rare, and the charge is a lot more too. All the phone booths have
their area code on them in large friendly letters, and are accompanied
by a phone book (4 volume set in Sydney) if it hasn't been ripped off by
vandals. Usually the volume you want is the one that's missing. Lots of the
phones don't work cos they've been vandalised; especially in Sydney; but
then lots of them do work too - and the local hotel generally has a private
pay phone which is less likely to have been smashed. The instructions are
on the phone usually. Just remember that if the place you want to call is
a long way away, (ie: in a different area) you need to know it's area code!
In other words:

>       617-0900

    It's impossible to tell where this number is; it's likely to exist
in lots of different areas.

>       03/534-0316    <- area code (03), city of Melbourne

    I know the area code:This can be dialed from anywhere in Australia;
I know the number is in Melbourne by the area code, and if I'm at a pay phone,
I'll need to keep hoppering coins into the phone, cos I live in Sydney!

    One last point; If you definitely know the area code you want to dial,
but aren't sure of the area code the phone you're dialing from is in, it
doesn't hurt to include the area code - you still get charged the same.

    My mail is broken at the moment :-( so if you want more info, mail to:

        [e-mail]

    regs,
        Greyham

--
# Greyham Stoney:    (disclaimer not necessary: I'm obviously irresponsible)
# [e-mail] - Ausonics.        [phone] (my_phone@work)
# replys WILL bounce; try:    [e-mail] - Uni of Technology, Sydney.
# WARNING: Reply mail is VERY broken at present. Any replys to utscsd.oz pls

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 23:51:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: pagers

I am currently using a Motorola Display pager from MetroMedia and was
wondering is there was any way of amplifying the signal that comes into
the pager.  The problem is that my office is located in the basement of
a computer center and every so often I will be able to receive a page
down there.  I guess the signal that gets down to the basement is just
strong enough sometimes to get down there but most of the time it doesn't.
Is there some device I can hook up that will "broadcast" the signal in
my office to make it just a bit stronger.  MetroMedia says there is nothing
that can be done.  The frequency that this pager uses is 158.7000 Mhz.
I have heard of pagers that operate in the 900 Mhz range.  Unfortunately
there is no company that I know of in the Providence, Rhode Island area that
uses this frequency.  So I guess that is out of the question.  How about
hooking an FM amplifier up to an antenna in my office.  Would that help any?

Thanks,
Chris

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

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:12:57 EST
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: direct dialing USSR

I think that the USSR enabled direct dialing from the US for the Moscow
Olympics but then turned it off sometime later.  Perhaps it was too much
work to listen to the increased volume of calls?


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

Subject: Re: Telco As a 'Housemate'
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 12:40:48 -0500
From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>

If I were that lady, and IBT came to the door because they needed
access to work on one of the lines that came to that box, I would
give it to them -- as soon as they showed me the document granting
telco the easement.  Not before.

Another tack--
Is there some way a noisy electrical device (an old refrigerator or
something) next to the box might cause noticeable noise on the lines?
That also might provide some impetus for them to move the box (or
really make it dead).  After all, they can't tell her what she can or
can't have in some corner of her den.

    /JBL

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

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1989  22:00 MST
From: "Frank J. Wancho" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Is/Should Be The Role Of Moderator?

[Moderator's Note: The following is a portion of a letter received. Parts
of the letter dealt with the technical problems in delivery of the Digest
and have been eliminated here. The rest I am sharing with all.  PT]

Patrick,

Finally, I must commend you for taking up the task of moderating the
digest and its mailing list.  However, the classical moderator usually
stands in the middle on issues, rather than expressing opinions *as a
moderator*.  It would appear to some, in so doing, that you are
unfairly taking advantage of your position as moderator and subtlely
converting the forum to a personal soapbox.  Thus, I would suggest
that the messages you contribute expressing your opinions be inserted
as from you and in separate messages, rather than from the moderator.

--Frank

[My reply to the above portion of his letter follows. PT]

As for your other comment regarding neutrality, it would be different if the
input to the digest were tightly controlled and not everyone was allowed to
present an opinion; but the fact is I am probably the most liberal moderator
around, since I print *everything* received, even if some of the messages
tend to be repetitive of others. There are no opinions given -- even those
critical of me -- which do not make it into print. That being the case, there
is no reason I should not continue to express my own opinion; and I think it
would be silly to deliberatly use another account under the name 'P. Townson'
for posting merely to avoid having the user given as 'Telecom Moderator'
instead, when everyone knows the two are the same person anyway.

Also, I have never claimed to be neutral on many subjects relating to
telecom. I would be a liar if I said I was. Regardless of how the 'classic
role of moderator' is supposed to work (I have never seen it written down
anywhere) I view myself as more of a facilitator, editor and list administrator
than as a ruler around here; which is another way of saying why should anyone
place any more weight on what I say than on what anyone else says here.
Again, it would be different if I were to pick and choose among submissions
in order to cull those of a particular viewpoint. I do not do this, and you
can be assured, if you read the Digest regularly, that when my opinion on
something is in the minority -- as is often the case where AT&T is concerned --
others will tell me promptly. And they receive equal time and space with
messages of mine.

*There is no virtue in neutrality. There is virtue in allocating network
resources fairly to all, regardless of personal persuasions.*

I have, for Digest purposes, edited your message to eliminate references to
the control-h problem, since that is not pertinent to the majority of your
comments which deal with how you feel [Telecom Digest] should be administered.

Thanks for writing me.

Patrick Townson
Telecom Digest Moderator


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #75
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Mar  2 02:24:48 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA15257; Thu, 2 Mar 89 02:24:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26043; 2 Mar 89 1:13 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26038; 2 Mar 89 1:08 CST
Date:     Thu, 2 Mar 89 1:08:07 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #76
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Mar 89 00:20:50 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Predicting NPA Splits or loss of 7D dialing in Metro DC (Greg Monti)
    Philippines-N.A. data transmission (John Chew)
    How To Obtain A '900' Number (John Boteler)
    Re: pagers (Peter Desnoyers)
    Weak signal to pagers (Mike Morris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Feb 89 21:38
Subject: Predicting NPA Splits or loss of 7D dialing in Metro DC (Greg Monti)

Re:  Predicting NPA Split(s) and/or loss of 7-digit inter-NPA dialing in
     Metro Washington (Greg Monti, National Public Radio)

BACKGROUND:  The Washington Metropolitan Area, which includes all of the 202
NPA and parts of the 301 and 703 NPAs, allows 7-digit dialing for local calls
between area codes.  In practice, this allows there to be an area which "acts
like an area code" for purposes of prefix assignment, even though it ovrlaps 3
NPAs.  It also affects out-state portions of 301 and 703 whose prefixes and
dialing procedures must be compatible with prefix usage in the populous 7-digit
area.

     On 1 November 1987, the local phone companies which serve the three NPAs
began requiring 1 + 10 digit dialing for all long distance calls, whether
intra-NPA or not.  This allowed the assignment of prefixes in all three area
codes which had 1 or 0 as the second digit.  (The vast majority of the new
prefixes are being assigned in the Washington areas of the 301 and 703 NPAs.)
This is often considered a sign that an area code is within a few years of
splitting.  For example, the 212 NPA went to 1 + 10 digit dialing in 1980 and
split in 1985.  In this case, it's a sign that the Washington Metro pseudo-NPA
area will be in need of a split or other remedy within the next few years.
When will it happen?

PREDICTING THE SPLIT:  At the time that the approximately 160 additional
prefixes became available, there were 204 unused prefixes (including the 160
new ones) in the area that could be dialed with 7 digits from my Northern
Virginia exchange.

     On 2 January 1989, a scan was done to determine how many prefixes had been
used up in the 14 months since the extra 160 prefixes were added.  43 new
prefixes had been put in service, not all of them having a 0 or 1 as the second
digit (not that it matters).  This scan doesn't take into account eveyone's
possible 7-digit calling area but it can be used as an indicator.

    If prefixes continue to be used up at that rate (43 prefixes in 14 months
is 3.07 prefixes per average month), the seven digit area I scanned would run
out of prefixes 52.4 months after January 1989 (161 remaining prefixes divided
by a rate of 3.07 prefixes per month).

     52 months after January 1989 is May 1993.  If the current growth rate
continues, that will be the month by which 7 digit inter-NPA dialing ceases or
the month by which NPAs 301 or 703 split or by which some combination of those
events occurs.  If the split or dialing procedure change precedes the actual
running out of prefixes by 6 months and if there's a 3 month transition period
prior to that, then the split and/or dialing procedure change would occur in
August 1992.

     Based on the places where the 1 or 0 center digit prefixes are being
assigned, it is obvious that the 301 NPA is the fullest (even though I don't
have a full list of all 301 prefixes to prove that).  More than likely, the
first event to occur would be a split of 301.  That would provide relief
between the two population centers in 301 but the Washington area would still
be stuck with a prefix shortage.  (Prefixes used in out-state Maryland now are
virtually all duplicated in 202 or 703 in the Washington area.)  The time will
probably quickly come when the number of prefixes local to each other exceeds
the 790-odd prefixes that could possibly be made available.  At that time, no
number of area code splits could help and local inter-NPA calls would have to
be changed from 7 to 11 digits.  It might turn out that, to minimize the length
of time the disruption (which will be substantial) will take, splits of 301 and
703 and a change to 11 digit inter-NPA local calling should all occur on the
same day (plus permissive dialing period).

     Is anything wrong with the timing predicted above?  I hear that the 415
split in California is being planned already for the early nineties.  If this
split needs to happen at roughly the same time, then why hasn't a 301 split
been announced by now?

     Something that could skew the prediction:  from any given phone not every
3 digit prefix is available for 7-digit local calls.  Some must be excluded
because of oddly-shaped local calling areas and because of the places where
prefixes have already been assigned.  For example, the (301) 531 prefix in
Columbia, Maryland could be re-used in the 703 NPA, one exchange outside the
opposite side of the Washington Metro area (Dulles Airport, for example) with
no 7-digit ambiguity.  However, if 531 already exists in, say, Roanoke,
Virginia, (fictitious city, not known if it has a 531 prefix) which is also in
the 703 NPA, then 531 could never be used within the 7-digit area scanned until
the 703 NPA splits.  [531 will have already been used once each in 301 and 703
and it cannot be used in 202 because of 7-digit ambiguity with Columbia.]
Careful planning could prevent this, but prediction of growth patterns 20 years
ago (when 531 might have been assigned) could be wildly inaccurate today. This
would skew the results in the direction of running out of prefixes FASTER than
the above prediction.

     Something else that could skew the prediction:  Customers in The Herndon,
Braddock and Engleside exchange areas in Northern Virginia, which are just
outside the Washington Metropolitan Exchange Area, were given the option of
having their phones hooked up to Metro prefixes by paying only 50 cents extra
per month for the unlimited local calling plan.  This new level of service
became available on 1 January 1989.  [Previously, this service was available,
but C&P Telephone required a mileage charge to the nearest Metro exchange plus
the 50 cents a month which deterred many customers from buying it.]  The new
plan gives incentive to these customers to Metro-ize their phones.  Customers
who do this must change their phone numbers to new or existing Metro prefixes.
This could have already temporarily accelerated the need for additional Metro
prefixes in the 703 NPA, which are all within 7-digit distance of the point
where the scan was done.

     This would temporarily skew the results in the direction of a quicker
split, but would probably slow down after the initial flurry of Metro orders
come in.  So, the above prediction could indicate that things are in a bigger
hurry than they really are.

Greg Monti, National Public Radio, 2025 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
        [phone]

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

From: John Chew <trigraph![e-mail]>
Subject: Philippines-N.A. data transmission
Date:     Tue, 28 Feb 89 15:47:12 EST
Reply-To: John Chew <trigraph!gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Trigraph Inc., Toronto, Canada


I need to know what rates of data throughput I can expect over
a regular telephone line using a pair of TrailBlazers between
Canada (specifically, Toronto), and the Philippines (I suspect
Manila, but I am not sure yet).  Has anyone on the net had any
experience with this particular connection?

John

--
john j. chew, iii             phone: [phone]     AppleLink: CDA0329
trigraph, inc., toronto, canada   {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john
dept. of math., u. of toronto     poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}

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

Date: Tue Feb 28 09:55:44 1989
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Obtain a '900' Number

[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator):
>                            " 9 0 0 "
>                      Phone  Numbers  Available
>                           Immediatly
>                        No  Call  Minimums
>                   For Details Call  201-947-3200

My guess is that they buy bulk 900 service and resell it to folks
who can't meet the minimums set forth by the service providers.

bote
uunet!cyclops!csense!bote


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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: pagers
Date: 28 Feb 89 17:36:49 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA



A gross kludge would be to leave your pager in an office where it
receives properly and hook up a cheap intercom so you can hear the
beep down in the computer room. Then you've got to run upstairs before
you get another beep and read the message :-)

                Peter Desnoyers

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: weak signal to pagers ( was: pagers )
Date: 2 Mar 89 05:28:17 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Organization: What - me organized?


Pardon - my outgoing mail is broke, but followups seem to work, so...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 75, message 2 of 5

Edited to reduce bandwidth...

>I am using a Motorola Display pager and was
>wondering is there was any way of amplifying the signal that comes into
>the pager.  ...my office is located in the basement
>and every so often I receive a page
>down there.  I guess the signal that gets down to the basement is just
>strong enough sometimes to get down there but most of the time it doesn't.
>Is there some device I can hook up that will "broadcast" the signal in
>my office to make it just a bit stronger.  MetroMedia says there is nothing
>that can be done.  The frequency that this pager uses is 158.7000 Mhz.
>
I used to work for a paging company, and I had this same question popped to
me on several occasions.  The answer is: maybe.  I am not familair with the
particular pager in question, but most of the metal case units use the case
or the belt clip as the antenna.  If this is the case, all you should have to
do is attach an antenna to the belt clip, perhaps with a alligator clip lead.
On a plastic case pager I've used a small coil wrapped on a cardboard tube,
with the belt clip clipped onto the tube.  One end of the coil wire was
hooked to a cold water pipe ground, the other end to a spare pair in the
telephone cable that went up to a wire closet in the 3rd floor (i.e. an
antenna).  The installation was in a basement.  A later redesign put the
inductive pickup intothe charger base, with the 3rd wire in the power cord
for ground, and a bananna plug for the antenna connection.

The above solution, however "traps" the pager into one spot.  There are
a couple more solutions that will allow you to leave the pager on your belt,
but are more expensive.    One trick I used was to roof mount a directional
antenna pointed to the paging transmitter, run good quality coaxial
cable (_not_ the cheap stuff Radio Shlock sells for CB) down into the
building, mount an amplifier tuned to 158.7 in a phone closet, and run
more coax to the area in question.  There a small ground plane antenna
(omnidirectional) was hung from the ceiling (upside down - coax on top).
This worked _real well_.  the amplifier was custom made for the job, but
cost < $75 using all new parts.  Running the coax was the hardest part.

BTW, most of the "FM" amplifiers have circuitry that limits the frequencies
amplified to the 88 to 108mhz range - way to low for your application.

If none of this makes any sense, print this out and show it to a technically
oriented ham radio operator.  You mailing address suggests that you are at MIT,
there is a ham club there.

Again, sorry for posting.  My incoming mail seems to work, but all the
outgoing bounces.

US Snail:  Mike Morris                    UUCP: [e-mail]
           P.O. Box 1130                  Also: WA6ILQ
           Arcadia, Ca. 91006-1130
#Include disclaimer.standard     | The opinions above probably do not even

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #76
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Mar  2 03:19:08 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA18858; Thu, 2 Mar 89 03:19:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27198; 2 Mar 89 2:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27187; 2 Mar 89 2:02 CST
Date:     Thu, 2 Mar 89 2:02:00 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #77
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Mar 89 01:55:38 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Men Accused of 'hacker' crime (Michael C. Polinske via comp.risks)
    New Sprint Card (Will Martin)
    976 numbers (Peter Desnoyers)
    Rate Caps (Sam Ho)
    Re: Published Unpublished Numbers (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' (Mark Brukhartz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 10:12:07 CDT
From: Michael C Polinske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Men accused of `hacker' crime

[Moderator's Note: This item appeared in comp.risks v8.n31, and I am
re-printing it here for those who may have missed seeing it in PGN's
thoughtful journal. The people who commit hackercrime and phreakcrime need
constant exposure.  PT]

This appeared in Friday, February 24th's _Milwaukee Journal_

2 MEN ACCUSED OF `HACKER' CRIME

By James Gribble of the Journal staff.

Vowing to step up efforts to stop computer crime, a Milwaukee County
prosecutor has charged two Milwaukee men with fraudulently obtaining
free long-distance telephone service.

The felony charges filed Thursday against Alan Carr, 35 and David
Kelsey, 26 are the first so-called hacker crimes to be prosecuted by
the district attorney's office.

Working independently, using home computers and similar software
programs, the men are alleged to have obtained calling card codes for
customers of an independent long-distance telephone company, Schneider
Communications.

They then used the codes to bill their personal calls to Schneider's
customers, according to a criminal complaint prepared by Asst. Dist.
Atty. Jon N. Reddin, head of the district attorney's White Collar
Crime Unit.

Reddin said the total theft probably was less than $1,000, but he
said the case reflected a growing problem.

"I have the feeling, from our investigation, that there's a lot of
people out there doing this," he said.  "The only way to stop it is to
prosecute them, because this is theft.  It's almost like someone
stealing your credit card and using it to make purchases."

Schneider Communications was the victim in this case, Reddin said,
because the company had to write off the customer billings for which
Carr and Kelsey turned out to be responsible.

According to court records and Reddin, the investigation was prompted
by a complaint from Schneider Communications.

The company's computer keeps track of all calls that are rejected
because of an improper access code.  Clients dialing incorrectly would
cause 10 to 30 rejected calls a month, but sometime last year the
number jumped to 1,000 or 2,000 per month.

Computer printouts showed the unknown parties were repeatedly dialing
the computer and changing the access code sequentially, Reddin said.
Hundreds of calls at a time were being made in this fashion, and each
time the code was changed one digit at a time until a working code was
encountered.

Because the company had no way of knowing where the calls were coming
from, Wisconsin Bell placed a tracing device on the line, through
which the calls were traced to the phone numbers of Carr and Kelsey.

The men were apparently unaware of each other and simply happened to
be involved in similar schemes, Reddin said.

Carr is alleged to have used a bootleg computer called "Hacking
Construction Set Documentation."  Kelsey is alleged to have used a
similar bootleg program called "Mickey-Dialer."  The programs were
seized in raids at the defendant's houses, according to court records.

Reddin acknowledged that technological safeguards can detect such
thefts after the fact but not prevent them.  What Carr and Kelsey are
alleged to have done can be done by any computer buff with the right
software and know-how, Reddin said.

The key to deterring computer crime, in Reddin's view, lies in it's
prompt reporting to authorities.

"The best way I can think of to do that is by filing a complaint with
our office," Reddin said.

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

Date:     Wed, 1 Mar 89 14:54:22 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New Sprint Card

The following is from the "Federal Bytes" column on the last page of Federal
Computer Week, Feb. 13 '89:

PHONE ID
US Sprint announced last week at Comnet that it is testing a telephone
calling card this is activated only by the card holder's voice.

Fred Lawrence, Sprint's executive vice president for network
development, said the Voicecard would work a little like the company's
Foncard: Callers dial the phone number printed on the card, adding a
second number such as a birthdate, and then give a two-second verbal
password. Sprint equipment compares the voice print with one that is on
record. The call goes through only if the voice prints match, Lawrence said.

Sprint plans to evaluate its test results this spring to determine
whether there is a market for the card.
***End of item***

What isn't clear, of course, is if you go through all this before you
can actually begin to dial the number you are trying to call. Maybe this
is a way to call an 800 number and then get into a mode so that you can
make a series of calls authenticated by the initial voiceprint signon
process. It seems a lot of overhead for a single short call. If the card
has a magstripe and you run it through a reader on the phone, and then
only have to speak your "password" phrase before dialling the number you
want to reach, it won't be too bad.

I wonder how easily the user (or a cracker) can change the voice
"password" (if at all), and the actual degree of matching that is
performed on it. How will noisy environments (airports, etc.) affect the
recognition/verification process? Anybody out there participating in
this test? Please post your comments and evaluation!

Regards, Will Martin

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976 numbers
Date: 1 Mar 89 20:55:20 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


I am interested in a list of the various services provided over 976
numbers, especially the non-pornographic ones. (I hope to use this
list as an example in a presentation - I don't think dial-a-porn will
go over well as an innovative use of new technology.) Is there a
directory, or someone on the net with encyclopedic knowledge of the
subject?

                Peter Desnoyers

[Moderator's Note: A full explanation and listing of all 976 services
provided by Illinois Bell for areas 312 and 815 is available by calling
1-800-922-2976 within the 312 area, or 1-800-522-2976 from outside 312.
This recorded message is about five minutes long; is interactive, with
the caller requested to push buttons to make selections, and is free.
Information providers names and addresses are given, along with rates for
each call and other details.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 10:04:19 PST
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rate Caps


Last year, Pacific NW Bell (since renamed US West Communications) asked
the Washington State Legislature for a rate cap similar to the AT&T
proposal.  The proposal consisted of:

- Limiting basic telephone rates to 3% or inflation, whichever is
less.  This would have replaced the rate-of-return regulations.

- Declaring Centrex and leased line service to be unregulated.

This second part caught the attention of some major companies (Boeing,
MCI, etc.) locally, as they suspected their own networks were about to
cost a lot more.  Their lobbyists made enough noise to slow the bill
enough for other groups to look at the issue.

Consumer groups noticed that the Utilities and Transportation was
reviewing PNB's rates for possibly exceeding the rate-of-return limits,
and suspected that PNB was trying to lock in overcharges.

PNB responded by mailing a paper four leaf clover ("don't gamble on
phone rates") and a set of postcards, addressed to the local
legislators, to every telephone customer in the state, pushing the
proposal.

Legislators, disgusted with the heavy-handed lobbying, killed the
bill.

This year, PNB is proposing a bill containing neither the rate cap nor
the leased line deregulation.  PNB also talked to Boeing and MCI
beforehand.

Sam Ho

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

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 21:31 PST
From: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Published Unpublished Numbers

> When the Bell Atlantic directory came a couple of months ago, I checked
> and I was NOT listed. Fine. Well, YESTERDAY, a copy of "YOUR COMMUNITY
> TELEPHONE DIRECTORY" or some such schlock came in the mail. YES, I was
> LISTED!
>
> I called NJ Bell and the publisher. Each could not account for the error,
> though NJ Bell volunteered to change the number again.

This is because some of these directories are compiled backwards from
the street address directory.  To avoid being listed, you need to call
your business office and ask them to delete you from the street address
directory.
---
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: Mark Brukhartz <laidbak![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'
Date: 1 Mar 89 19:16:45 GMT
Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc., Naperville, IL


> After continued negotiations, IBT still insists it needs $1200 to remove its
> equipment and give up its easement rights. In the meantime, the lady won't
> budge, and she is living there with a Pandora's Box filled with legal
> ramifications for a 'roomate'. The search goes on for an official record of
> the easement with someone's signature on it. I suspect if and when it is
> found it will be the signature of the former owner.
>
> Patrick Townson

This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I believe
that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to the property,
including a written description of any easements. He (or his title insurance
company) are probably responsible for Illinois Bell's claim of easement.

I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into permanent
rights after some (forgotten) interval.

            Mark Brukhartz
            Lachman Associates, Inc.
            ..!{amdahl, masscomp, nucsrl, sun}!laidbak!mdb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #77
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Fri Mar  3 01:54:46 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA00883; Fri, 3 Mar 89 01:54:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03080; 3 Mar 89 0:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03073; 3 Mar 89 0:37 CST
Date:     Fri, 3 Mar 89 0:37:31 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #78
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Mar 89 00:28:43 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Placing AT&T Card Calls via AOS Lines (Doug Scott)
    FCC rules on COCOTS, AOS, etc.? (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Atlanta, Nashville, eh (*Hobbit*)
    Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers (Robert J Woodhead)
    virtual networks (Robert J Woodhead)
    Phone fraud (Shakil Ahmed)
    25-pair wiring (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 3 Mar 89 01:14:08 EST
From: Doug Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Placing AT&T Card Calls via AOS lines

Hello!

In response to numerous posts about AOS outfits and placing AT&T
Card Calls on payphones serviced by an AOS:

If you are able to get an AT&T Operator, either through the AOS by
asking for one or by dialing 10288+0, then you can get the regular
(direct dial calling card) rate by telling the AT&T Op. that you
are having trouble completing the call by dialing 0+number
(or 0+area code+number), and that you would like her to complete it
for you at the regular, non-op. assist. rate.

I've done this lots of times allready, and never have I been billed
the $1.50 Operator Assist Rate (or whatever it is.) I have had
2 mistaken calls where I had asked for the lower rate through New
York Telephone Ops., but after I called the business office they
were glad to credit me the difference ($1.50 for Op. Ast. vs. $.47
for direct dial calling card), and gave me no trouble whatsoever.
(I guess it's because NY Tel uses it's own operators for intra-LATA
calls, and they don't seem as experienced as AT&T Ops....Another
great new outgrowth of Divestiture! :-)   )

AT&T in their "Reach Out America" plan literature recommends this
itself, so if THEY say to do so, it's good enough for me!

Incidentally, I read in the New York Times on Tues Feb 28, 1989 that
the FCC introduced some rulemaking forcing five AOS
outfits (ITI and NTS are two of them which come to mind) not only
to clearly post their rates at each phone or location, but to allow
equal access to all other LD services by use of 10xxx codes.
(This only applies to five big AOS outfits, not to any of the
smaller ones...But since most COCOTs use one of the 5, I'm
happy!...The AOS does not have to connect you - or tell the COCOT
to connect you - as you have to know the 10xxx code and dial it
yourself. )  I can't wait to go down to my local COCOT and say
"Hey, what's AOS operator, what's your name please? Did you know
it's a federal rule now that you HAVE to let me access AT&T? I'd
like to see what they say...[probably just hang up :-) ])

Good luck getting an AT&T Op!

Doug
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
usereafj
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 10:43:18 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <@ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@ll-micro>
Subject: FCC rules on COCOTS, AOS, etc.?
Reply-To: @ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@micro
Organization: None obvious

I heard a fragment of a news item on the radio 2 days ago that the FCC had
ruled that COCOTS must be clearly labeled as belonging to "Bum-stench
Communications", or whomever, and that access to any of the user's choice of LD
carriers must be freely allowed.  Charges must be supplied upon request.

This really doesn't solve the problem, but it will help air travellers, people
on highways, etc.  I guess local callers still get screwed.

Did anyone else get this story, is the above reasonably accurate?

Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173
Phone [phone]     Fax [phone]  black@[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1989 4:38:24 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlanta, Nashville, eh

Haw!  I went through Nashville last summer and had a chance to play with
these very same COCOTs.  I attempted to find out from whoever I got when
I dialed "0" who ran the things, and went through hell and hold buttons,
and eventually gave up in favor of more constructive knowledge-seeking.
I quickly learned that it wasn't hard to confuse the internal parser, and
that the phone was connected to an ordinary outgoing line.  Whereupon I
completed some calls via Sprint or something.

_H*

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangers of Wrong Numbers
Date: 2 Mar 89 14:39:54 GMT
Reply-To: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
ucl.ac.uk (Geoff Rimmer) writes:
>A big problem I have had with the FAX cards is that they are too dumb
>to know the difference between a voice phone and a busy fax machine.
>
>I would be grateful if anyone could post or email details about how I
>could get round this problem - perhaps there is a FAX card that can
>make this distinction (between a voice phone and a FAX machine in use)?

Well, standard modems can detect a US busy signal.  My Hayes does that.
The problem is that busy signals are different around the world.  I
would suggest that your best solution would be not hardware, but software:

1) When a new telephone number is added to your database, treat it as
   suspect.  Until you have successfully done a fax transaction on the
   line, assume that it isn't a fax number and treat it as follows:

      Make 1 (one) attempt to transmit.  If it fails, ask for human
      intervention.  Pop up a dialog box saying; "Boss, I wasn't able
      to send your fax.  Can you please dial {number} and verify that
      it is a valid fax number?".  Thus you use that most wonderful
      hardware, the human ear.

2) Once a number is validated, then make more retry attempts (I would
   give up after 5 or so that didn't connect; as opposed to those that
   failed due to line noise).  If you continue to fail, maybe the
   number is out of service or has been changed; so again ask for human
   intervention.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert J Woodhead      !uunet!cornell!biar!trebor     CompuServe 72447,37 |
| Biar Games, Inc., 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850  607-257-1708,3864(fax) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Games written, Viruses killed   "I'm the head honcho of this here spread; |
| While U Wait.  Take a number.    I don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: virtual networks
Date: 2 Mar 89 14:53:40 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


I recently heard that the phone companies were setting up virtual X.25
packet networks for customers.  I have a client who is interested in
setting up a network so that people pretty much anywhere in the country
can access his computer via a local phone call.  Currently he is
planning to use Telenet and Tymnet, but I was wondering what the story
was on these networks.

I called NYNEX and they said, "yes, we do this, but we don't offer it
in your area".  Quite frankly I got the impression the lady didn't really
understand what it was that I was asking about.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert J Woodhead      !uunet!cornell!biar!trebor     CompuServe 72447,37 |
| Biar Games, Inc., 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850  607-257-1708,3864(fax) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Games written, Viruses killed   "I'm the head honcho of this here spread; |
| While U Wait.  Take a number.    I don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

From: Shakil Ahmed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone fraud
Date: 2 Mar 89 21:24:29 GMT
Reply-To: Shakil Ahmed <[e-mail]>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158



A very good friend of mine is being charged with fraudulent phone use.  She
faces two semesters of suspension for something she should not do.  I am
trying to gather information on how she could have been framed.  A description
of what happened follows.

At Yale, each student in the dorms is given a toll authorization number.
What has happened is that someone has been using my friend's toll authorization
number as well as two other ones, AND making it look as if the calls
were initiated from her telephone.  The resulting bill is phenomenal and
things do not look good since the calls appear to have come from my friend's
telephone.  The telephone company claims it is impossible to make it look
like a call is coming from some other phone.  I do not believe this.  Does
anyone know of any way this could have been done?  Has anyone heard of any
similar incidents?  If you have any information at all which could be of help,
please send e-mail to me as soon as possible.

-- Shakil Ahmed
===============================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science        ARPA  : [e-mail]
PO Box 2158, Yale Station        BITNET: [e-mail]
New Haven, CT 06520              UUCP  : {ucbvax,decvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
===============================================================================

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: 25-pair wiring
Date: 3 Mar 89 02:46:02 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


    25-pair telephone wiring is typically terminated on two
kinds of "punch-down" terminals.  The older type consists of
vertical plastic blocks with horizontal rows of "jaws" as described
by the original poster.  These are designated 66B4 (if they have
four jaws) or 66??? for other configurations.  They are generically
called 66-blocks.

    The newer high-density terminals (horizontal plastic blocks
with two layers of wiring, one in front of the other) are called
110-blocks.

    The sequence in which a cable is punched down (called a
cut-down) is Tip first, Ring second.  The wire pairs are usually
identified by pair numbers, from 1 to 25 within a cable.  The Tip
and Ring designations only apply to those wires conducting talking
circuits.  Other circuits (signalling, lamps, etc) sometimes appear
in those cables, and carry their own designations.

    In a 50-or-more pair cable, there is a blue-white binder
wrapped around the first 25 pairs, and an orange-white binder
wrapped around the second 25 pairs, etc.  They get a lot of use out
of those two groups of five colors!

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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #78
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Fri Mar  3 02:17:08 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA02433; Fri, 3 Mar 89 02:17:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03448; 3 Mar 89 1:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03444; 3 Mar 89 1:01 CST
Date:     Fri, 3 Mar 89 1:01:47 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #79
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Mar 89 00:55:35 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Australian Telephone System (Dave Horsfall)
    Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' (John Allred)
    Re: Voice-verified SPRINT card ("David E. Bernholdt")
    Re: 976 numbers [TELECOM Digest V9 #77] (Ed Frankenberry)
    Re: 976 numbers (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: Int'l FAX (was Int'l Rate Options) (Charles Bryant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Australian Telephone System
Date: 1 Mar 89 03:04:27 GMT
Organization: Alcatel-STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] writes:
|
| I have the good fortune of being able to travel to Australia next
| month. While looking through a travel guide, I noticed the following
| types of phone numbers listed for just one state (Victoria):
|
  (numerous examples omitted)

| As you can see there doesn't appear to be any kind of formating involved! I
| gather that the number prior to the / is a type of area code, but that
| isn't always given or even the same number of digits. I would really
| appreciate someone enlightening me how the phone works in Oz. Numbering
| schemes, pay phone procedures, typical rates, etc. In other words,
| a short tutorial to keep me from fumbling around would be
| appreciated. Responses to the digest would be fine. I suspect
| we do too much on the North American system and this would be
| an interesting change...

Allow me...

The usual written format for a telephone number is (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ.
The (XXX) is the STD code (on a state & wide area basis), so that
Sydney is (02), Melbourne is (03), Yungaburra (no kiddin'!) is (070)
and so forth.  Note that the initial "0" is left out when dialling
from overseas, so a Sydney number will be +61 2 YYY-ZZZZ.  This STD
code (or area code) is either two or three digits.  If the code is left
out, it's assumed to be the local area (since 02 Sydney is the entire
metropolitan area, and people outside will assume 02 anyway).

And in case "STD" is an unfamiliar term (it's not a disease), it stands
for Subscriber Trunk Dialling - you don't need operator intervention.

Now for the YYY-ZZZZ bit.  The YYY is the local telephone exchange, and
the ZZZZ the line itself.  However, these rules can be broken, if you
are big enough.  So IBM Sydney (for example) is 234-5678, even though
they are not on the 234 exchange.  And some exchanges only have two
digits, and a few inner-city ones have one (e.g. 2-0944).

However, beings will be beings, and phone numbers are frequently expressed
verbally as e.g. double seven double seven triple two for 777-7222, and may
be written that way in marketing blurb.  Personally, I prefer to say
"triple seven (pause) seven triple two" but I'm a techie.

And yes - the 008 numbers are toll-free - you pay a local call, the other
end picks up the bill.  By the way, we don't have those cutesy numbers
like 800-CALL-UNIX or whatever - our phones lost their letters many years
ago when exchanges became automatic (stagger-by-stagger etc).  Although
there are few step-by-step exhanges around, and the existing cross-bar
exchanges are being replaced with AXE.

Speaking of AXE, you don't get anywhere near the flags and whistles that
you Yanks are used to.  No credit card service (although I believe it
is slowly being introduced), a few basic services like speed-dial, re-dial,
STD/ISD block, delayed hotline etc.  I summarised them in a previous posting,
when replying to Henry Mensch (Hi Henry if you're reading this!  How is
Australia to your liking?).

The entire system is controlled by our favourite monopoly Telecom, who
do what they like, charge what they like etc etc.

Pay phones - nuthin' special.  You dial your number and drop your shilling
when the party answers.  The later ones that are STD-capable are supposed
to refund unused coins, but being a "civilised" country the coin-return
chute has probably been blocked off by the local nerds.  That's assuming
you find a working public phone in the first place, although they are
slowly becoming vandal-proof.  There are also newer phones which allow
you to carry credit over until the next call, and the airports are slowly
installing credit-card phones - I've never used 'em.

You'll also see "red phones" - they are usually found outside shops etc
and get taken in for the night, so are usually in working order.  The
shop proprietor gets a cut of the takings, and so they cost a bit more.

Hotels - you get ripped off as usual.  Local calls are sometimes charged
at STD rates, STD calls are expensive etc.  Although the situation is
not as bad as America - I guess having a monopoly hath its advantages.

Two versions of mobile phones exist - the old MTS (Mobile Telephone
Service), and this is being slowly replaced with Cellular phones.
Oh - it's not illegal to listen to mobile phones - scanners abound -
but you'l get busted if you reveal the contents or make use of it.

Oh yeah - all calls are charged.  Local calls are a flat fee, increasing
every year or so.  I think it's 18 cents for home phones, whereas public
phones naturally take 20c coins.  There is pressure to put in timed local
calls (to free up equipment), and equal pressure to resist it (from BBS
sysops, Little Old Ladies etc).  This gets debated annually, but I can
see it coming.  It's usually glossed over just before elections, then
mentioned just afterwards, as always.  STD calls are charged depending
on distance and time.  Sydney to Melbourne is 63c/min 8am-6pm Mon-Sat,
42c/min 6pm-10pm Mon-Fri, 30c/min elsewhen.  No, I don't know if the
scale adjusts when crossing a time rate...

And some random stuff - most of Oz is pulse-dial, with AXE providing
tone-dial.  The mark/space ratio is not the same as USA.  The ring
tone is BRRRP BRRRP (pause) BRRRP BRRRP etc.  So don't expect your
fancy modem/phone/answering machine to work.  Speaking of modems,
Oz (in line with most of the world - sorry) speaks CCITT - V21, V22,
V22bis and V23.  Yes - we have Trailblazers - the USA board is put into
a different box, with a Telecom-approved interface, and EPROMS supplied
by Netcomm.  I don't think they have precisely the same facilities.
However, since most of the Unix network is based on ACSnet (a full-duplex
protocol), not UUCP, 'Blazers don't give that much of an advantage in that
environment.  They are used on various private networks though.  Oh, you
aren't supposed to connect anything to the phone socket without informing
Big Brother first, then they come out and install another socket and hit
you for $60 or so.  Hah!

Summary?  Still pretty primitive, by US standards, but getting better.

Disclaimer - I believe the above to be accurate, but I haven't used
public phones for ages.  It's not pleasant standing in a box which the
last occupant obviously mistook for a toilet...  No, it's not that bad,
but bad impressions last the longest!  People complain about a string of
red lights when they're driving, but ignore a string of green lights.
A technological wonder in itself, and inappropriate for this group, but
it does involve leased lines between traffic computers etc.  Remind me
to tell you about SCATS someday (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic
System, as exported to Hong Kong and other places).

Hope you have a fun time in Oz - and don't forget to get an account!

--
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: John Allred <ames!mailrus!BBN.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'
Date: 2 Mar 89 16:40:10 GMT
Reply-To: John Allred <ames!mailrus!vax.bbn.com![e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> laidbak![e-mail]
(Mark Brukhartz) writes:

>This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I believe
>that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to the property,
>including a written description of any easements. He (or his title insurance
>company) are probably responsible for Illinois Bell's claim of easement.
>
>I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into permanent
>rights after some (forgotten) interval.

I think the interval is 20 years for "adverse use" of property.  Your
mileage may vary.
____
John Allred
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.
([e-mail])

"Send lawyers, guns, and money ..."

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice-verified SPRINT card
Date: 2 Mar 89 17:52:40 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 77, message 2 of 6
>
>Callers dial the phone number printed on the card, adding a
>second number such as a birthdate, and then give a two-second verbal
>password. Sprint equipment compares the voice print with one that is on
>record. The call goes through only if the voice prints match, Lawrence said.

How do they intend to handle cases where more than one person is
authorized to use the card?  For example, I have two cards on my MCI
account - one for me, one for my wife.  Do they intend to give
everyone their own individual card?  What about "corporate" cards?

This sounds like a real pain even beyond the fact that you have to go
through this verification rigamarole for every call.

Is there really so much phone-card fraud going on out there that the
long distance companies feel this kind of step is necessary?
--
David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

Subject: Re: 976 numbers [TELECOM Digest V9 #77]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 89 12:52:58 -0500
From: Ed Frankenberry <[e-mail]>

FYI, the IBT numbers which you listed don't seem to work from 617.
I get "you have dialed a number which cannot be reached from your
calling area" when dialing 800-522-2976.  Does Illinois Bell derive
any revenue from inter-LATA calls to their 976 numbers?
    Ed Frankenberry

[Moderator's Note: Sorry, I don't know. The Chicago phone book says the
above number is good from 'outside the 312 area'. Unfortunatly it does not
say how far outside.  PT]

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 numbers
Date: 2 Mar 89 19:08:14 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


In article <[e-mail]> our moderator sez:
>
>[Moderator's Note: A full explanation and listing of all 976 services
>provided by Illinois Bell for areas 312 and 815 is available by calling
>1-800-922-2976 within the 312 area, or 1-800-522-2976 from outside 312.

Unfortunately, this service is not available from here. (408 in
California) Does anyone know if PacBell operates a similar number?

                Peter Desnoyers

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

Date: 2 Mar 89 22:48:25 GMT
From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Int'l FAX (was Int'l Rate Options)
Reply-To: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Organization: Maths Dept., Trinity College, Dublin


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(e118 student) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 72, message 5 of 6
>
>I've seen advertised that MCI has a dedicated FAX network, which
>could be useful -- the echo-suppression circuitry in normal voice-
>quality lines plays havoc with FAX transmission.

Huh? Anything that dosen't want echo suppression sends a 2100 Hz tone at the
start of the call and echo suppressors are disabled until a period of silence.
(Maybe that only applies in CCITT-land here in Europe?)

[echo cancellers are disabled by phase reversals in the 2100 Hz tone as
required for V.32 modems]
--

                Charles Bryant.
Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #79
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sat Mar  4 01:42:16 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA20619; Sat, 4 Mar 89 01:42:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05386; 4 Mar 89 0:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05381; 4 Mar 89 0:24 CST
Date:     Sat, 4 Mar 89 0:24:47 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #80
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Mar 89 00:04:17 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T combines with AOS/COCOTs (Will Martin)
    0800 UK numbers (Clive Carmock)
    Current 11-digit local call in DC area (Carl Moore)
    Re: Phone Fraud (Bill Cattey)
    Re: Phone Fraud (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Predicting NPA Splits or loss of 7D dialing in Metro DC (Joel B Levin)
    Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' (Darren Griffiths)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 3 Mar 89 16:24:54 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T combines with AOS/COCOTs

An item from "St. Louis Computing" newspaper, March '89, "Newsbytes" section:

AT&T LINKS WITH PAY PHONE COMPETITORS TO WIN L.A. AIRPORT DEAL

Dallas, Texas --

Two dealers for Intellicall have won a contract to run pay phones at the
Los Angeles Airport Commission in a joint venture with AT&T. The two
dealers, KELLEE Communications Group of New York, and Own-A-Phone, Inc.,
of San Diego, get an order for 450 phones immediately, plus any
additional phones needed over the next five years. Intellicall will
handle operator services on its dealers' phones.

Here's one result of phone deregulation. Pay-phone companies are paying
the managers of public places to let them put in the equipment. The
property owners get a percentage of the phones' take and, often, cash
up-front. That take can get pretty hefty since the pay phone operator
gets to pick his own preferred long-distance company, the one through
which callers who just dial "1-plus" will be connected. These
alternative operator companies then pay off the pay-phone companies for
bringing in the customers, lease lines from the big long-distance
outfits, and mark up the bills to suit themselves. Some companies hide
their charges by sending tapes of transactions for billing on bank
credit cards up to 18 months after calls are made. Once you get your
bill, it's too late to complain, although news reports indicate a call
made through an "alternative operator" can cost 2-3 times more. On the
front end, the L.A. airport will get $12 million for 1,350 phones and
that money will come from somewhere.

One of the dealers pointed out proudly that this is the first time a
company like AT&T has signed up with pay-phone and alternative operator
competitors to land a contract. Very likely, AT&T had to do business to
come up with enough cash to pay off the airport.
****End of item****

I thought the list would be interested in this. First off, it's bad news
for anyone travelling through LAX. Secondly, we've discussed these
issues here a lot, but it is good to see the facts coming out in more
general publications and not just amongst ourselves. True, a
computer-related paper is catering to a technically-aware select
minority audience, but any publicity on the evils of COCOTs and AOSs
is good. I only wish this article, worded as it is, would have been in a
major newspaper! (There's no indication of where the news item came
from, so I don't know if the wording and attitude expressed originated
in this local paper, or in their source for this story.)

Regards, Will Martin

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

From: Clive Carmock <mcvax!cs.exeter.ac.uk![e-mail]>
Subject: 0800 UK numbers
Date: 3 Mar 89 19:27:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK


I have noticed that a lot of 0800 (toll free) numbers in the UK lead to
the USA.  Numbers in the ranges 0800 891 xxx,0800 892 xxx and 0800 893 xxx,
seem to connect to the US.  For instance 0800 892 003 connects to a recorded
message in New York telling me that a completely different number has been
disconnected and that no further information is available.

Does anyone know why this happens?
Clive Carmock
([e-mail]  OR [e-mail])


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

Date:     Fri, 3 Mar 89 3:20:31 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Current 11-digit local call in DC area

A reminder that the following special case exists now for local calls
from 621,261,858 prefixes in Maryland (these are DC area prefixes
serving the Laurel & Annapolis areas):
dial 1-301-569-xxxx (NOT a toll call) for 569 prefix in Severn, Md.
(all other local calls are made with 7 digits, including 569-xxxx for
that prefix in Springfield, Va.)

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

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 15:20:50 EST
From: Bill Cattey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Fraud.

A friend of mine was recently having the same problem from his
apartment.  Someone was using his line to dial dial-a-porn.  He had a
tough time contesting the charges until one day, a telephone repair
man happened to be in the building.

(My friend did not explain why the following was the case but...):

The repairman happened to be listening on my friend's line and
noticed that indeed someone was placing calls on it.  My friend found
this out when, he picked up his phone, heard someone else speaking on
it, and then a little while later when making a call of his own his
line was cut off.

He called repair service on another line and asked what was up and the
repairman in the building told him that he observed someone using the
line, and disconnected it to be sure it was his line.

I believe ATT was reluctant to credit the charges, but the local
operating company's service rep witnessed the situation, so ATT did in
fact credit the call.

Having lived in dormitories, I've seen how UNSECURE telephone line
routing is.  All someone would have to do is to go to a closet in the
dorm, clip a phone onto the block, and listen until your friend gave
her access number.  (If the number is keyed, it might take a little
work to listen for the keys and repeat them, but it's not hard.)

After that, the REAL perpetrator of the fraud needs only return to the
phone closet, clip in, and dial.

So, although it is convenient for the phone company to say it's
impossible for the calls to appear to be on your friends line, it's
not true.  Ask the the phone people if every "punch down block between
her subscriber set and the central office is physically secure".  You
will get a little more respect if you ask the question in their own
jargon.  Write the question down and say it like you know what you are
talking about.

If they answer that yes they have checked and the line is physically
secure, tell them to look for someone with unauthorized access to the
phone closet.

I do believe that the most likely explanation is that someone has been
tapping into your friend's line.  Although it is possible to dial up
the telephone company's switch and tell it to change someone's
telephone service, and although this kind of knowledge is often
available on college campuses, it's difficult to do, and not commonly
done.  Tapping lines (even just by walking up to the phone closet and
clipping on) is much more common.

Good luck,

  From the 'desk' of     _   /|
  Bill (the) CATTey...   \'o.O'
                         ~(___)~       THSHVPPPOOO!
                            U                ACH!

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Fraud
Date: 3 Mar 89 18:27:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


At least around here, it is trivial to bridge in to someone else's
line.  You run the risk that the person whose phone it is will
pick it up while you're using it, though.

-Ron

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

From: Joel B Levin <ames!mailrus!BBN.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Predicting NPA Splits or loss of 7D dialing in Metro DC
Date: 3 Mar 89 13:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: Joel B Levin <ames!mailrus!BBN.COM![e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Covert) writes:
|Re:  Predicting NPA Split(s) and/or loss of 7-digit inter-NPA dialing in
|     Metro Washington (Greg Monti, National Public Radio)

|     On 1 November 1987, the local phone companies which serve the three NPAs
|began requiring 1 + 10 digit dialing for all long distance calls, whether
|intra-NPA or not.

This is a bit misleading; I was in Silver Spring, Md (in the Metro
Washington calling area, area code 301) in the very early '70s.
7-digit calling to any Md., Va., or DC number in that area; but to
call Baltimore, for instance, also in 301, required 10 digits, even
though it was in the same NPA.  However, you could NOT dial 1+, which
is I guess what is new.  (Note: what I have just said does not
necessarily apply to any local area outside Silver Spring.)

|For example, the 212 NPA went to 1 + 10 digit dialing in 1980 and
|split in 1985.  In this case, it's a sign that the Washington Metro pseudo-NPA
|area will be in need of a split or other remedy within the next few years.
|When will it happen?

This may be a sign of a split, but it is not a necessary one.  Until
eastern Mass. was split into 617 and 508, toll calls within 617
required a 1+ but not an area code (the latter may in fact have still
been prohibited.

An aside; from Boston, I used to call my parents (in Silver Spring) by
dialling 1+202+ instead of 1+301+ as I was supposed to.  It worked, as
one might surmise from the way the Metro area was numbered.  In
addition, it let me use the direct Washington line from work (it might
have been an FX line, I'm not sure) for faster (and cheaper) access.
=
UUCP:     {backbone}!bbn!levin        POTS: [phone]
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'
Date: 4 Mar 89 01:13:09 GMT
Reply-To: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:
>
>Her independent workman took another look and confirmed what Bell had said:
>The box was in fact alive, and nearly 500 working pairs were terminated
>inside. Together they went back to Bell, and got the price for removal of the
>box negotiated down to only $1200.

It seems like it should be pretty easy to get the box removed.  Simply have
the lady go down to Radio Shack and buy a line kit that can be connected
straight to the punch down block that's probably in the box.  Whenever she
has some spare time try a few of the lines, see who's talking and interrupt
them.  If they aren't to angry at someone listening to their phone calls
then she could explain the situation and have them call IBT.  If they are
angry I'm sure they'll call IBT anyway.

  --darren

Darren Griffiths                                          [e-mail]
Lawrence Berkeley Labs
Information and Computing Sciences Division


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #80
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Mar  6 01:19:29 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA22314; Mon, 6 Mar 89 01:19:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16411; 6 Mar 89 0:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16402; 6 Mar 89 0:03 CST
Date:     Mon, 6 Mar 89 0:03:25 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #81
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Mar 89 00:01:09 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Where Is Everyone From? (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Weak signal to pagers (John DeArmond)
    Random Dallas Telephony News (Paul Fuqua)
    The NTS scam (Gabe M Wiener)
    Where is ETCO? (Roger Clark Swann)
    Bridging onto someone elses line (Douglas Humphrey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 5 Mar 89 23:43:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Where Is Everyone From?

A while back I or someone commented on the wide distribution of [TELECOM
Digest] and I said I wondered where all of our readers came from. We get
letters frequently from the UK and from Australia; and in addition, I have a
single name in Singapore, Malaysia on the mailing list. Several people wrote
notes to me responding to my query, and below is a selection of them. The
net is a wonderful thing, isn't it?  Our community is the world. I do not
want to risk sounding too melodramatic, but I never cease to be amazed by
the tireless effort so many people make to insure the success of Usenet on
a day to day basis.

                      ####################

>From: "Dik T. Winter" <[e-mail]>

You requested information about who read your digest.  I am from Amsterdam,
Nederland.  The digest arrives here pretty fast after mailing, the last
digest arrived Feb 20 08:18:43, while it was sent out Feb 20 0:39:50.
Note however a time difference of 7 hours, so actually it arrived here
just 40 minutes after sending out.  Cheers,
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland

                      #####################

>From: Doug McPherson__PDM1-1/G5__DTN 291-0626 <mcpherson%csgdec.DEC@decwrl.
dec.com>

       Well, I'm a Texan.  Does that count, seeing as how I'm living in a
       foreign country (Massachussetts) right now, working for Digital???

       ;^) ;^) ;^) ;^)

       /doug mcpherson (on john covert's digital re-distribution list for
                   telecom digest...)

                      ######################

>From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>

You want to know who we are?
I am a college student at Rutgers, majoring in Computer Science.  I am
also a part-time Computer Consultant in IBM PC type computers, and
miscellaneous other computer work.

Oh, I live in Tenafly, NJ as home, adn New Brunswick, NJ for school.
Mark
                      ######################

>From: David Wilson    ([e-mail])

P.S. To moderator for your list of foreign sites.
I read comp.dcom.telecom in Wollongong NSW Australia.

                      ######################

>From: Bob Kelley  PCI
Pat,
I am an avid reader of the dcom conference.  I get it on Portal.
I am the president of PCI.  It is the Owner of PacNet (DNIC 5351)..
a Packet Network for remote Pacific Islands.  I reside on Guam.

Please keep up the good work.  If I can help on data questions,
please write.

Bob Kelley
PCI
                      #######################

>From: tukki![e-mail]

Well, at least all of scandinavia is on the list.

Otto J. Makela (with poetic license to kill), University of Jyvaskyla

                      #######################

>From: [e-mail]

I read the list in Switzerland, and there is at least one other guy in
Basel who does too.  Not really fair, though, since I am American, and
got hooked back in the US.  Funny, every time I submit something to
the Telecom, it disappears.  Wonder if this makes it through?

                      #########################

>From: Steinar Overbeck Cook <mcvax!fdmetd![e-mail]>
>Organization: Fellesdata a.s, Oslo, Norway

(Message appeared recent issue of Digest)

                      #########################

Thanks to all of you who responded. You have helped make the Digest a truly
worldwide journal of telecommunications enthusiasts and professionals.

PAT

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: weak signal to pagers ( was: pagers )
Date: 3 Mar 89 20:47:47 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., Atlanta, GA


In article <[e-mail]> Mike Morris <[e-mail].
nasa.gov> writes:
>
>Edited to reduce bandwidth...
>
>>I am using a Motorola Display pager and was
>>wondering is there was any way of amplifying the signal that comes into
>>the pager.  ...my office is located in the basement
>>and every so often I receive a page
>>down there.

>The above solution, however "traps" the pager into one spot.  There are
>a couple more solutions that will allow you to leave the pager on your belt,
>but are more expensive.    One trick I used was to roof mount a directional
>antenna pointed to the paging transmitter, run good quality coaxial
>cable (_not_ the cheap stuff Radio Shlock sells for CB) down into the
>building, mount an amplifier tuned to 158.7 in a phone closet, and run
>more coax to the area in question.  There a small ground plane antenna
>(omnidirectional) was hung from the ceiling (upside down - coax on top).
>This worked _real well_.  the amplifier was custom made for the job, but
>cost < $75 using all new parts.  Running the coax was the hardest part.
>
>BTW, most of the "FM" amplifiers have circuitry that limits the frequencies
>amplified to the 88 to 108mhz range - way to low for your application.
>
>If none of this makes any sense, print this out and show it to a technically
>oriented ham radio operator.  You mailing address suggests that you are at MIT,
>there is a ham club there.
>

One each, ham operator at your service :-)  The above solution works but
can lead to intereference from other amplified signals and is possibly
illegal because it could be considered an unlicensed transmitter.

The good news is an amplifier is not necessary.  I use a similiar setup in
my basement office in order to hear the local VHF ham repeater.  I have
a small yagi antenna on the roof connected to a ground plane antenna in
my basement (mounted just like above).  I carry my handi-talkie in my
hip pocket while in the office.  Works like a champ.  the best part for me
is that it is 2-way - I can transmit into this system too.

You should be able to get all you need from a ham radio store.  If there's
not one in your area, Email me and I'll give you a couple of 800 numbers.
You will want to buy about a 9 element yagi for 2 meters (cushcraft is a
good brand), some RG-214 coaxial cable, and a 5/8 wave magnetic mount
mobile antenna for 2 meters. (Larson or Antenna Specialists is fine).  This
setup should cost you perhaps 125 bux or so depending on the length of
coax you need.  Simply mount the yagi on the roof pointed at the paging
transmitter and the 5/8 wave magmount on a convenient file cabinet.
Hook the 2 together with the coax and away you go.  Unless you are in
a real fringe area (not indicated by your statement that it sometimes
works in the basement), this should work 100% with the pager on your
belt.  Will work for everybody else on the same paging system too.

The above assumes your paging frequency is near the 144-148 mhz ham band
(frequency is normally on the nameplate)  If your pager is in the UHF
band (45x mhz) then you will need to buy the same type antennas but for
the amateur 440 band.  Amateur equipment is generally cheaper than
commercial gear of the same type.

And Hey! While you're at the ham store, get a license manual and consider
getting a license.  You'll have a blast.

73 john


--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!stiatl!john                     | just GOTTA Know!!!


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

Date: Sun, 5 Mar 89  17:11:26 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Random Dallas Telephony News

     My latest phone bill (Southwestern Bell, Dallas, Texas) brought a
larger-than-usual collection of inserts, some of which are newsworthy:

 - An insert discussing 976 service.  It describes 976 service, how it
   is billed, how it may be restricted, and a brand-new service called
   SPIDS.  New details are:

    (a) 976 offerings are recorded only (no more live conversations)
    (b) SWBell may refuse to allow "unsuitable programs or language."
    (c) A customer's phone cannot be disconnected for non-payment of 976
        charges, and those charges will disappear from the bill after 60
        days of non-payment, though the "information provider" can
        report it to a collection agency.
    (d) Voluntary 976 blocking is free.
    (e) "Non-suitable" programs may be made available through SPIDS, the
        Special Prefix Information Delivery Services network, which you
        have to subscribe to to get.  SWBell will not bill for them, and
        they may include "adult" and "live" programs.  The prefix for
        SPIDS will be 703 in Dallas, 892 in Fort Worth, and 766 in
        Houston and San Antonio.

 - An insert describing how "other long distance providers will join
   AT&T and Southwestern Bell Telephone" in providing 0+ long-distance
   calls from SWBell pay phones -- in other words, AOS comes to SWBell
   pay phones.

 - An insert describing a new plan by which SWBell can extract their
   bill payments directly from your bank account, if you choose.

     Meanwhile, SWBell, Sammons Communications (a local cable-TV
company), and American Lightwave (a Connecticut electronics company),
are teaming to install a common telephone/TV fiber-optic network in a
test area in Fort Worth ("100 households in the luxury development of
Mira Vista in southwest Fort Worth").
     The trial system will carry four video channels and two voice
channels, which sounds like allowing four separate cable-TV hookups and
two phone lines.  The rest of the newspaper article was spent discussing
the politics of the situation, unfortunately.


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail]
                               {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center
PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265

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

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 18:27:05 EST
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: The NTS scam

I've been reading a good deal about the whole business of MCI's charging
unsuspecting COCOT users excessive fees when they key their AT&T code
into a payphone.

Here's a question:  How on earth is MCI (or their assignee, NTS) able to
charge you via an AT&T charge #?

I've occasionally punched my AT&T # into a COCOT and gotten the "Thank you
for using NTS" message, at which point I promptly slammed the receiver down
and used a 10XXX code.

Thanks,

------------
Gabe Wiener        Columbia University
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Where is ETCO?
Date: 4 Mar 89 21:35:31 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA



I was cleaning out some things here and found an old file of invoices
etc. from ETCO Electronics, USA. This outfit is (was) a surplus equip-
ment vendor and importer/exporter. They used to have lots of telephone
equipment of every discription. However, I haven't gotten a catalog
from them for several years now and was wondering if they are still in
business. I tried calling the phone number I had , 518-561-8700, but
there was no answer. I tried calling directory assistance for AC 518
as well as 800, but neither had a listing for ETCO. By the way their
address was North Country Shopping Center, Route 9, Plattsburgh, NY.

If anyone knows the scoop regarding ETCO, please post / email.

-----------------------------------------------------
   Roger Swann     |  uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
        @          |
The Boeing Company |


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

Date: Sun, 5 Mar 89 13:48:13 EST
From: Douglas Humphrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: bridging onto someone elses line


When bridging onto someone elses line, the only real danger is that
they will pick up the line and hear you. This is best fixed by
disconnection them from their own line (which you are going to use)
and bridging them onto someone elses line. Now, in order to get
into trouble, two people have to decide to make phone calls at the
same time; not very likely. This can lead to interesting billing of
long distance calls onto the wrong persons line, but since you are
in the middle of tapping and abusing someone service, it has to be
assumed that this does not bother you too much.

When you are done with the persons line, remember to put things back the way
you found them. Neatness counts when breaking the law.

Needless to say, telco plant is hardly ever secured. In high rises
for residential service there are often not even the electrical-panel
style locks on junction boxes. The situation in commercial buildings
ranges from non-locking closet doors, to nice solid doors with pretty
real locks (nothing you couldn't pick of course). In most cases, the
keys that the cleaners have will get you into the closet, and in all
cases the mechanical master will do the job. For single family
residential, only the family dog stands in your way......


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #81
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Mar  7 02:04:37 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA19863; Tue, 7 Mar 89 02:04:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20212; 7 Mar 89 0:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20187; 7 Mar 89 0:46 CST
Date:     Tue, 7 Mar 89 0:45:51 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #82
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Mar 89 00:18:23 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Article on FCC action re AOS providers (John R. Levine)
    PDN UUCP (Gary Schaps)
    1+ Dialing (Scott D. Green)
    Billing From COCOT Firms (Hobbit)
    Re: Phone Fraud (hfsi![e-mail])
    Re: Predicting NPA Splits or loss of 7D dialing in Metro DC (Carl Moore)
    Area code 708? (Ken Levitt)
    Re: New Phone Guide Available For Usenet (Stelios Sartzetakis)
    Reading Comp.dcom.telecom (Jeff Schriebman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 02:21:38 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Article on FCC action re AOS providers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Inc.

[From the Dow Jones broadtape, excerpted without permission.]

02/28 (WJ) FCC Imposes Mild Curb On 5 Alternative Phone-Operator Svc

MEMO TO ARCHIVES: ON MARCH 15, 1989 I WAS NOTIFIED BY JOHN R. LEVINE
THAT DOW JONES WROTE HIM TO COMPLAIN ABOUT  A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION FOR
HAVING SENT THIS MESSAGE TO THE DIGEST WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.  AT
THE REQUEST OF  MR. LEVINE TO AID IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF
DOW JONES, THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN MADE UNAVAILABLE FOR FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION.

I REGRET HAVING TO LEAVE THIS 'HOLE' IN THE ARCHIVES.  PATRICK TOWNSON
3-15-89

--
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.

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

From: Gary Schaps <uflorida!novavax![e-mail]>
Subject: PDN UUCP
Date: 6 Mar 89 02:22:53 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL


In an earlier posting I solicited throughput data for uucp over public data
network X.25.  Here's a (very) brief summary:

    throughput            hosts
    ------------            -----------------------
    200-220 cps            Vax 750 <--> "Sun 1 equivalent"
      3-329 cps            Sun 2 <--> Sun 2

If anyone requires details, send e-mail.  My thanks to Kevin Quinlan in the UK
and Brad Yearwood in the US for their responses.



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

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 09:38 EST
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1+ Dialing

Greetings!

A unique dialing situation has surfaced here in Bella P.A.-Land.  It seems that
we can now dial 1+xxx-xxxx to any number in 215 whether its "measured local
usage" (untimed local and metro area calls) or toll calls.  Previously,
1+non-toll call would get intercepted.  Dialing 1+215+xxx-xxxx gets
intercepted, no matter what type of call it is.  The major inconvenience of
this arrangement is with my Call Accounting System that kicks in a long
distance rate when ever it sees a 1+, and transient users that are used to long
distance dialling, and tack on a 1+ no matter what.  Has anyone else seen this?

It's almost like being an AOS - charging $3 for a local call!


-Scott Green
[e-mail]
Pat. Pending

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

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1989 4:56:53 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing From COCOT Firms

The COCOT outfits delay *18* months?  yow.

Isn't there some item in the tariffs dealing with reasonably prompt billing,
i.e. a company can't charge you after x months since the call?  Hell, in the
case of 10xxx from home and the associated billing snarl, you could have
*moved* before some of the less-efficient Mom-n-Pop carriers finally bill
you.  But the longest delay in that context was 3 or 4 months...

_H*

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

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 11:01:19 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Pat)
Subject: Re: Phone Fraud.
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Pat)
Organization: Honeywell Federal Systems Inc., McLean VA.


I would look for someone hacking the local college switch.  Yale is
a big operation and they probably have their own switch. The telco probably
bills as a service and YALE is making some money off it.  If it was
direct wire, SNETCO would not have any influence to get someone suspended.
At C.U.T. we had people with big bills and NYTEL(Now NYNEX) would just
not give them further service, but clarkson just had CENTREX 3 service.
I think YALE has decided to go into the phone business themselves.
While tapping the punch blocks is suprisingly easy, hacking the
switch is even easier, Just read comp.risks for some examples.



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

Date:     Sun, 5 Mar 89 20:48:34 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Predicting NPA Splits or loss of 7D dialing in Metro DC

202 area code currently is good for all but the outermost suburbs
(the latter case includes points like Laurel, Md. & Herndon, Va.).
I did hear that 703-860 in Herndon, Va. is outside area 202 (but
local to DC), but before the 1+ came in it had 10-digit long distance
as described below for DC area.

Yes, the leading 1+ is new in the DC area.  Long distance in Md./DC/Va.
up to that point was like this:
DC area (includes all but some of the outermost suburbs): 10 digits
(did not need leading 1), even within Md. or within 703 area in Va.
Elsewhere in Md. & Va.: 1+number within your own area,
1+areacode+number to other areas.

That 1987 change you noted does not affect the 804 area in Va.
But 1+areacode+number is now required THROUGHOUT 301,202,703 (not
just the DC area), even within 301 or within 703.  I can only guess
now that those N0X/N1X prefixes are presently being implemented
only in the DC area, although they can theoretically be used anywhere
in Md. or in 703 area (might cause some complications if they appeared
in an exchange local to part of an area other than 301,202,703, how-
ever; for example, 301-755 Warwick is currently a 7-digit local call
away from 302-378 in Middletown, Del.).

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

Date: Mon, 06 Mar 89 23:27:49 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area code 708?


A while back someone published a list of area codes containing the following
line:
           708 Aurora, Elgin, and Highland Park, (Northeast) Illinois

I can't find any reference in my phone book to area code 708 and when I
called New England Telephone directory assistance, they told me that the
area code for Aurora IL was 312.

Can anyone explain this to me?  I need to correctly fill in my area codes
database.

Any private replys need to be sent to the address below because my fidonet.org
addressing is still messed up.

Ken
--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: 708 will come into existence on November 11, 1989
when area 312 is split. Area 312 now covers all of Chicago and suburbs in
northeastern Illinois; after the split, 312 will serve only the city of
Chicago, and 708 will serve all the rest of northeastern Illinois. The
present boundaries for area 815 will be maintained.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 21:36:49 +0200
From: Stelios Sartzetakis <mcvax!ariadne![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Guide Available For Usenet

Could you please send me a copy of the file ?
Do you know if there are any European directories like that?
Thamks in advance,

Stelios Sartzetakis             Office: [phone], 229302,229368,229346
                                Fax   : [phone]...........(Preferred)
Systems Analyst                 Telex : 262389 CCI GR...(if all else fails)
Foundation of Res.&Tech Hellas    UUCP  : {mcvax,inria,unido}!ariadne!stelios
Institute of Computer Science   P.O.Box 1385, Heraklio, Crete Greece 711 10

[Moderator's Note: A copy of the Area Code Guide for North America
will be mailed to you when I next sign onto bu-cs.bu.edu later this morning.
I do not know of a similar publication strictly for Europe. Readers??  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 17:14:49+0900
From: Jeff Schriebman <unisoft!jusoft!jusoft.jusoft.junet!jeff@ucbvax.
berkeley.edu>
Subject: Reading Comp.dcom.telecom

As a point of information I read telecom here in Tokyo, Japan.

    Jeff Schriebman
    Nippon Unisoft Corporation

[Moderator's Note: Its nice to see Japan and Greece added to the far flung
parts of the earth where {TELECOM Digest}/comp.dcom.telecom show up. PT]
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #82
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Wed Mar  8 02:19:41 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA28248; Wed, 8 Mar 89 02:19:41 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25412; 8 Mar 89 0:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25407; 8 Mar 89 0:53 CST
Date:     Wed, 8 Mar 89 0:52:57 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #83
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Mar 89 00:13:44 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update (Judy Scheltema)
    Re: The NTS scam (John DeArmond)
    University system woes...Help! (Gabe M Wiener)
    More phone fraud and ways to catch it (Richard Snider)
    Re: Phone Fraud (Miguel Cruz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 23:18:58 CST
From: Judy Scheltema <[e-mail]>


I don't know if you are interested in the battle against Southwestern Bell,
but they have decided to get rather underhanded in Oklahoma City. Attached
is a letter I received from a person there detailing their situation, along
with his permission to post it publically. This was posted in alt.bbs, but
that does not get the distribution that comp.dcom.telecom does. Since I got
permission from Sean to post a private message he sent to me regarding
Southwestern Bell's behavior in Oklahoma City, here is the text of his message.

>From: uokmax!srpenndo Mon Feb 27 22:02:05 1989
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 22:02:05 CST
>You are welcome to post anything that I send you to the nets.

    Well, from what I hear about the BBS's here in the Oklahoma City
Area (OKC), it's pretty much a stalemate.  SWB is using a war-dialer in
an attempt to find out what numbers are actually BBS numbers.  Several
hobby BBS's have already gone down.  However, in support of the BBS
community is a major TV news station (CBS I believe) and several
corporate lawyers have also taken an interest in our side.  The lawyers
say (and this is second hand info to me, so I don't know how reliable it is)
that a court case had come up several years ago concerning BBS's and SWB.
In that case SWB lost which meant that it is illegal for SWB to raise our
rates here.

So far, I have heard that SWB is contacting sysops as they find out about
BBS numbers.  They are using a trick to get the sysops to say that they are
"Non-Profit" BBS's.  These poor victims are getting their rates increased.
It has spread through the BBS community here like wildfire warning other
sysops to NOT to agree to this non-profit ploy.  Non-profit implies that
you are taking in income to offset your expenses, but do not make a profit.
This is simply not true for the hobby boards.  We don't take in anything.
I am sure that you have run into this yourself, but I felt I ought to
mention it.

Fortunately, we have very vocal users here and many of them are calling
SWB by the hundreds telling SWB that if they raise the rates of the BBS's
they will have their secondary lines taken out.  Many sysops have said the
same.  This is the stalemate right now.  Apparently, the SWB executives
are realizing that if they do this they will actually make LESS money than
if they leave us alone.  After all, their whole purpose is to make more
money.  A user orginization is being put together here in an attempt to
stir up enough opposition to this move by SWB for them to reconsider.
So far it is working, though we are far from a settlement.

The latest news I heard from one of the leaders of this new user group was
that some major big-wig of SWB and AT&T just flew into OKC in an uproar
about the actions taken by SWB here so far.  Apparently, they do not like
what the local executives are doing.  More to be seen on this soon.
In addition, he told me that the lawyers who have agreed to help us are
investigating an incident out in California about this.  Right now, that
is all I know.

We have support here, more than I expected.  I will let you know about any
new developments as they arise.  Please send me info on the Houston area when
you can.  Thanks.

--
Sean R. Penndorf         |                        |  Programming and Fantasy
!texsun!uokmax!srpenndo  |  Welcome to Macintosh  |  go hand in hand...
[e-mail]     |                        |  They're both a pair of
GEnie: S.PENNDORF        |   Ultimatum Software   |  dream worlds.
--
Judy Scheltema                |                     uunet!nuchat!moray!judy
Houston, Texas                |                 bellcore!texbell!moray!judy
Fido address: 1:106/889.5     |                     urchin.fidonet.org!judy

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The NTS scam
Date: 7 Mar 89 06:24:15 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., Atlanta, GA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 81, message 4 of 6
>
>Here's a question:  How on earth is MCI (or their assignee, NTS) able to
>charge you via an AT&T charge #?

Very easily.  The sign billing agreements with the local BOC and then
accept pretty much anything that looks like a credit card.  Most credit
card numbers have digits that are related algorithmicly so this testing
is cheap.  As far as whether it's an active number or not, most AOS's
just don't care.  They figure that at the profits they're making, they
can affort to throw away 20 or 30% of charges as bad.
>
>I've occasionally punched my AT&T # into a COCOT and gotten the "Thank you
>for using NTS" message, at which point I promptly slammed the receiver down
>and used a 10XXX code.
>
Well, you still MAY have been charged.  Better watch your bill.  Also be
aware that you are not guaranteed (yet, at least) to get AT&T with the
10288 prefix.  At least one of the systems I know of routes these calls
to the AOS operator and flags them as to the nature of the call.  The
operator then imitates the AT&T operator.  Best thing to do is raise
holy hell with whoever sponsored the phone you got clipped on.
Public pressure is about the only thing on the horizion with any
hope of defeating these scams.  I've started carrying my portable
cellular phone with me on trips.  It may cost a bit more but at least
I know where my dollars are going.

John

John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!stiatl!john                     | just GOTTA Know!!!


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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 16:35:04 EST
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: University system woes...Help!

Hello people.  Columbia University has recently installed a new digital
Rolm system to replace the old centrex.  This changeover has raised
furor in the hearts of many students because:

       the system is incompatible with modems and answering machines,
       and the university is using this option to charge "rental fees"
       for data-comm equipped telephones and extra space on the
       PhoneMail system above and beyond the 3 message limit.

       has blocked all access to 976 and 540 numbers simply because the
       billing software on their "state of the art" system is not
       able to track them.

       a $5 surcharge on every collect call received.

       the necessity to dial 9 digits (91+Personal Security Code) just
       to get an off-campus dialtone.

       a $100 limit on the Personal Security Code (PSC).  i.e., if your
       account runs over $100, they turn your PSC off, even if it's in
       the middle of a billing cycle, and even if they didn't bother
       to let you know that your account was nearing $100.

       A billing system whereby you are billed for a call 45 seconds
       after you stop dialing **regardless of whether or not the
       call goes through.***   i.e., if you call long distance and
       let the phone ring more than a few times, you're billed for
       it even if the person doesn't answer.

       the local calls are now timed as opposed to the untimed trunks
       we used to have.

       there are only 400 trunks for over 8,000 phones.  Re-orders are
       not uncommon.

       the phone-mail answering machine type service does not have
       enough channels.  i.e, you could find the message-waiting light
       flashing on your station, but you might have to dial the message
       retrieve code 15 or 20 times becuase you can't get a circuit.


Is there any FCC ruling that the university is violating by imposing these
restrictions on us?  Their attitude is more one of, "Well, that's just the
way it is.  If you don't like it, pay New York Telephone to draw wires into
your room."  Indeed, I have put in a private line.  But there are a lot of
people who just cannot afford to do that, and are being shafted right up
to their tonsils.  Any advice?

Thanks,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ --- /=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
BITNET: gmw1@cunixc                  \\*// Gabe Wiener
INTERNET: [e-mail] \|/  1410 John Jay Hall
COMPUSERVE: 72355,1226                />\  Columbia University
WUI: 650-117-9118                    / < \ New York, NY 10027    U.S.A.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/  >  \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
*** Message from daemon@cunixd ***  >  |  <"At times it wiser to remain silent
Lo! The end of the world is nigh!   >-----< and be considered a fool than to
Please log off.                > --- < speak and remove all doubt." -Shaw
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=->  -  <=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

From: xrtll![e-mail] (Richard Snider)
Subject: More phone fraud and ways to catch it...
Date:     Tue, 7 Mar 89 23:04:08 EST


One of the common ways that people acomplish phone fraud in apartment
buildings or (room above room above room) dorms is by simply taking
the cover off the box where the line comes into their room.  In
many buildings, they have been constructed in such a way that all that
has been done is that conduit has been run between floors and the
wires pulled in from either the top or bottom of the building.

This makes setting up the phone system relativly simple for the
installers since they just tap off a pair on each floor when they
need one and if they need more they just find an unused pair and
tap it as well.

It is fairly obvious that anyone wanting to make fraudulent phone calls
need only to tap the pairs available untill they get a dial tone (or
conversation) and then call away.  Getting access codes is simply a matter
of time (and listening on the line).

To check for this sort of thing happening, you can hook an LED in series
with a 4k or so resistor.  Hook this across your pair in the direction
that makes the LED light up.  When the phone is off hook (Anywhere, not
just in your room) the LED will go out.  Of course if the little LED does
not gather enough attention, you can make something (or get someone to)
that hooks up to a desk lamp or other electrical appliance.  So now,
if you are not using the phone and the light goes out, pick up the
reciver and see if there is a conversation going on, and if there is,
you have the option to be abusive, or to simply call up the Telco on
a friend's line and tell them what is going on.  You also know that
it is someone living above or below you that is making the calls!

This all of course assumes that this is all happening within the building.
The light will behave the same way if someone was tapping into access points
outside the building as mentioned in other articles so this may be useful
even if the wiring is not the same as described.
Good luck
                                        Richard Snider

Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider    Also:  [e-mail]
"Hey !  Whats with all the blue lines on the RGB Monitor ???"
"Ummm.....Looks like.....well....Ethernet!"

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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 04:55:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Fraud

response to Douglas Humphrey's antisocial :) "bridging onto someone
else's line":

If you were connected to someone else's line, for the benefit of free
calls, you could probably afford the hassle/annoyance of connecting
a device that would automatically disconnect you from the line as
soon as someone else picked it up.  Hopefully whoever you were talking
to would catch on and hang up.  That way they would never hear your
voice and recognize you ('they' being the lawful user of the line).

Also, if you made long distance calls, when your victim got their bill
it would be a small matter for him/her to call the numbers you called
and ask them who you talked to... or they could just have the phone
company compare the numbers you called on their line, to long distance
calls you regularly place on your own line.  or they could ask the
phone company to reverse-directory the numbers and compare last names.

Bridging and making a bunch of long-distance calls doesn't seem all
that clever to me.  Too many ways for the perpetrator to get caught,
and pretty darn mean.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #83
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Mar  9 04:20:16 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA13223; Thu, 9 Mar 89 04:20:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06756; 9 Mar 89 3:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06751; 9 Mar 89 3:03 CST
Date:     Thu, 9 Mar 89 3:03:37 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #84
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Mar 89 02:22:13 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A Monopoly may *not* save you from ridiculous phone charges (John Covert)
    Long Distance Phone Line Comparison (gong)
    Re: International Dialing Codes (John Murray)
    Transmitting Alpha Characters To Pager (Joseph L. Chan)
    Running out of area codes ([e-mail])
    Lack Of Security (rja)
    Illinois Bell 800 numbers (Linc Madison)
    900, 700 resellers (Al Housel)
    Sources for phone techical information wanted (Karl T. Braun)
--------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Mar 89 08:39
Subject: A Monopoly may *not* save you from ridiculous phone charges

A reader in Australia writes:

>Hotels - you get ripped off as usual.  Local calls are sometimes charged
>at STD rates, STD calls are expensive etc.  Although the situation is
>not as bad as America - I guess having a monopoly hath its advantages.

A monopoly won't necessarily save you.  In Germany, the Post Office has an
absolute monopoly on all communications (postal, telephone, radio, television,
and so on).  This does not prevent hotels from charging rates many times higher
than anyone could expect to pay -- but at least it's done openly.

In Germany, a message unit costs DM 0,23 (US$0.12 or AUS$0.15 at today's
rates). There is a message register for each extension in every Post Office
approved PABX, so the charging is guaranteed to be accurate.

But hotels always charge at least DM 0,50, and generally charge DM 0,70 per
unit.  That's US$0.38 or AUS$0.47 -- more than three times the rate you'd be
charged from a pay phone or at a Post Office.

Couple that with the high rates -- a message unit every 12 seconds on a call
over sixty miles, and a TEN minute call from a hotel will cost you US$18.88
or AUS$23.29.  Compare that with the AT&T calling card rate for a ten minute
coast-to-coast call with a $1.00 hotel surcharge:  US$4.55 or AUS$5.61.  An
AOS might rake you over the coals for 2.5 times that, but nowhere near what
it can cost from a hotel in Germany.

BTW, a ten minute call to the U.S. from a hotel will cost you DM223 or $120.
There you can at least save yourself by asking to be called back -- if you can
get your correspondent to take down your number in less than 30 seconds it's
only $6, or using USA direct (which will only cost you a message unit every
eight minutes and a AT&T rate of $14.25 for ten minutes).

Italy appears to be just as bad; a friend of mine checked out of a hotel in
Milan last month with a bill for $2500 in telephone charges after only a couple
of days.

/john

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

From: [e-mail] (Gong)
Subject: Long Distance Phone Line Comparsion
Date: 6 Mar 89 14:25:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois

This is somethng interesting I just read from netnews att.compete group:

> There aren't many differences between the major
> long-distance phone services.  A comparison of AT&T, MCI and US
> Sprint in the March Data Communications magazine found:  Calls
> placed over Sprint lines were slightly louder than those placed
> over AT&T or MCI lines.  All the calls, however, could be heard
> clearly.  AT&T connected its calls more quickly...Sprint had the
> fewest foul-ups....When information was sent from one computer to
> another over phone lines, AT&T lines had the fewest glitches. ...
> USA Today, 1B.

J.G.



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

From: John Murray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Dialing Codes
Date: 9 Mar 89 01:01:22 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dan Ross)
writes:
> Why is it that some countries are (according to the phone book) not
> direct-dial accessible from the USA despite their inclusion in the
> world numbering scheme?  ........
>                                 .... (for example, the USSR is
> listed in the French directory as having code 7, while calling there from
> the US requires an operator-assisted call).
> Also, how does one actually make long-distance calls to/within the USSR?
> Do they have "city codes" similar to Europe?

One can dial direct to major cities in the USSR from Western Europe. The
country code is indeed 7. The city code for Moscow is 1, Leningrad is 2
(I think), etc. The city code formats are similar to Europe.

AT&T produce a neat little book listing all the country codes available
from the US, major city codes, charging and call collect info, etc.
It contains references for countries not dialable direct from the US.
As I recall, most of these are severely economically deprived nations,
although Albania, Cuba, and the USSR were included. The book is great for
phone enthusiasts; I got mine from the AT&T shop in SF Airport.

- John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My opinions only. No endorsement intended.)

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

Date: 7 Mar 89 07:40:29 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Transmitting Alpha Characters To Pager
From: [e-mail]

Is there any way I can transmit alphabet or msgs. to a digital display
pager. If there is a way it can be done, I would like to find out how.
Thank you all in advance.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 17:35 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: running out of area codes

With the current rate of growth, does anyone know when the
country will run out of area codes?  I assume at that point
we will go to 11-digit dialing?

-bob

[e-mail] or
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: NO. You assume incorrectly. See related articles in
TELECOM Digest in mid-January, 1989. We will continue with ten digit
dialing, and area codes will simply change from what they look like
now to other three digit numbers. Also see 'Guide to North American
Area Codes' in the TELECOM Digest Archives at bu-cs.bu.edu.   PT]

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

From: rja <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Mar 89 00:12:27 GMT
Subject: Lack of Security
Organization:  GE-Fanuc North America

The recent article on 'bridging' makes me mention a case where
no security has ever existed.

At the University of Virginia, there is a dorm complex known as
Monroe Hill.  The cross-connect patches for each stairwell's rooms
are on a wooden panel affixed to the wall in the basement hallway
which is open to all.  One could tweak the wiring, steal long-distance,
or merely tap someone's phone with a pair of headphones and two pieces
of wire or a $2.95 throwaway phone and there would be nothing to stop
one.  Centel (the local telco) has no intention to do anything about
making it more secure.

This is more typical than atypical in telco installations world-wide.

  [e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 23:47:30 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell 800 numbers


800 numbers can be tailored to very specific geographic areas.  I would
assume that Illinois Bell offers its "976" information number to Illinois
Bell customers, especially since you "aren't supposed to" call 976
numbers from out-of-state.  Thus callers in Massachusetts can't call
Illinois Bell, but "aren't supposed to" have reason to.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]


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

From: Al Housel <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900, 700 resellers
Date: 8 Mar 89 14:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: Jo Castel <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories



After seeing an the article on the 900 services number reselling I
did some research in the Ohio area.  I found another company
named Consolidated Network Services, Inc. that provides you with
complete interactive services and no minimum usage requirements.
Their number is (614) 445-INFO.



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

From: "Karl T. Braun" (kral) <amdahl!drivax![e-mail]>
Date: 7 Mar 89 19:30:21 GMT
Subject: Sources For Phone Technical Inforamtion Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Karl T. Braun (kral))
Organization: Digital Research, Inc.


Could someone pls email me pointers on info on the following subjects?  The
ref material can either be books or Official Party Propogande.  Thanx.

1)    Bell wiring stds and phone functionality (std home style telephone
    stuff, for the adventerous hacker).

2)    Bell wiring standards for business (Premises Distr, etc).

3)    CCITT 'V.' stds (V.22, etc).  (see below)

4)    Bell 212A, etc standards.  I want functional descriptions as well as
    technical details.

I know these questions probably get asked alot here.  Thanx for any and all
replies.  Summaries posted if requested.


--
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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #84
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sat Mar 11 02:10:05 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA29077; Sat, 11 Mar 89 02:10:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21773; 11 Mar 89 1:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21757; 11 Mar 89 0:54 CST
Date:     Sat, 11 Mar 89 0:54:15 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #85
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Mar 89 00:20:42 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Calling party ID (ulysses![e-mail])
    USSR city codes (John R. Covert)
    Cellular service (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Rate Changes Effective 4-1-89 (Steve Lemke)
    Re: Where is ETCO? (Dave Ritchie)
    Re: Billing From COCOT Firms (Jim Gottlieb)
    Archives (Eric Swenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ulysses![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 89 16:28:37 EST
Subject: Calling party ID

N.J. Bell is now offering calling party ID.  How complete is the CCIS network
needed to support this?  What are the odds on getting the number on an
inter-LATA call?  An intra-LATA call but from a different switch?  Also,
how is the number communicated?  Does the ring signal carry some sort of
extra modulation?

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Mar 89 08:51
Subject: USSR city codes

>One can dial direct to major cities in the USSR from Western Europe. The
>country code is indeed 7. The city code for Moscow is 1, Leningrad is 2
>(I think), etc. The city code formats are similar to Europe.

Nope, Moscow is +7 095;  Leningrad is +7 812.

Back in 1980 we had direct dialling from the U.S. as well, but only to about
seven cities.  In late 1980 or early 1981 the USSR shut the whole world off,
claiming they were upgrading their international exchange (which was known to
be a falsehood).  It was only in the summer of 1987 that direct service was
reinaugurated from Western Europe.  About 20 cities are diallable.

Other codes: Riga +7 013, Minsk +7 017, Gorky +7 831, Talinn +7 014, Vilnius
+7 012, Odessa +7 048, Kiev +7 044, Buka +7 892.

/john

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular service
Date: 10 Mar 89 05:07:44 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its
installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be
raised. Having recently visited the LA area as a roamer from GTE
Mobilnet, San Francisco, it seems that the good people of southern
California are being taken for a ride.

PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
answered or not. This means you are charged for busys, no answers,
reorders, etc. It also means that you are timed from the button push,
not from the point that the call is answered.

While I was there, about 90% of my calls failed to complete, ending in
nonsense nonsequiter recordings or reorders. When calls did actually go
through it took 20-25 seconds for ringing to *begin*, as compared to my
home system where it takes 4-5 seconds. (This extra time had nothing to
do with my roaming; subscribers to PacTel informed me that it always
takes a long time for calls to go through.)

This all appears to be the biggest legal scam I have ever seen. First,
charge for *everything*, then make sure most calls simply bomb (while
charging for the attempt), and after that take a long time to complete
calls thereby ensuring that each and every call is at least two minutes
long.

Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy?
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: Steve Lemke <ivaux![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Rate Changes Effective 4-1-89
Date: 6 Mar 89 18:50:51 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Lemke <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Products Design, Santa Barbara, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:

}X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 73, message 1 of 2
}AT&T filed with the Federal Communications Commission on February 15, 1989 for
}several interstate price reductions. These new rates will become effective on
}April 1, 1989 (except where noted).

[rate info deleted.]

}These rates will take effect on 4-1-89 (or 7-1-89) pending final approval of
}the FCC.

Is there any reason they wouldn't approve it for immediate action (4/1)??
Should we write to someone to tell them to approve it?  Bring on the lower
rates!!  Go AT&T!!

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

[Moderator's Note: The rates are expected to begin 4/1/89. The few exceptions
are cases where some modification in billing software is required
which will take a month or two longer to implement.  PT]
------------------------------

From: Dave Ritchie <hp-sdd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where is ETCO?
Date: 7 Mar 89 23:34:36 GMT
Organization: HP Elec. Design Div. -ColoSpgs


   ETCO was also in Canada. I have seen an ad in the not too distant
past for them. Could they be across the border from the NY location you
mentioned?

                Dave

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing From COCOT Firms
Date: 10 Mar 89 05:05:15 GMT
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(*Hobbit*) writes:
> The COCOT outfits delay *18* months?  yow.
>
> .... in the
> case of 10xxx from home and the associated billing snarl, you could have
> *moved* before some of the less-efficient Mom-n-Pop carriers finally bill
> you.

Here in Los Angeles, we had a carrier a few years back named "American
PTT", supposedly owned by one of the European PTTs.  They were the most
hokey LD carrier I have ever heard.  Many of their trunks howled, and
many of us were convinced that it was run out of someone's living room.

The good part though, was that in their one year of existence, they
never billed for any casually dialed (10APT) calls.  They said they
were working on getting a billing agreement with the local telco, but I
guess they never did because we all got about a year of free long
distance calling from them.  Now _that_'s the kind of carrier I would
like to see more of.
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 10:16:49 EST
From: Eric Swenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Archives

Where are the archives of back issues of telecom?

[Moderator's Note: The archives are located at Boston University; on
the machine this Digest used to use: bu-cs.bu.edu.  Anyone with 'ftp' ability
can visit and take as desired. You would 'ftp bu-cs.bu.edu'.  Then
login as anonymous, with some password. Just follow regular ftp
protocol.  You would then 'cd telecom-archives' and 'ls' to view the selections
available which include almost every issue of the Digest since its beginning
in June, 1981, and numerous other essays and articles of interest.

Which raises another point: 'some people' put the squeeze on jsol, and
he in turn put the squeeze on me. I responded by doing the honorable
thing and putting the squeeze on the archives. Now instead of having
10+ megs of material on line, we have 5+ megs of mostly *compressed* stuff.
Volumes 1-7, covering 1981 through 1987 were compressed this week. The volume
for last year (8) is still regular size, as are the various articles and
essays. Likewise, 'telecom-recent', which at any given time is the
last 20-30 issues, is regular size.

In order to use the compressed material, which is indicated by a .Z after
the file name, your system must be able to uncompress anything you bring
back with you via ftp. If you cannot uncompress, then you will need the
file called 'compress.tar' which is also in the archives. You will need
to take the desired file and untar it and compile it on your end. In a
real pinch, I will uncompress an entire volume and send it to you if
you have no other way of getting the stuff. I will NOT run it all through
the editor looking for individual issues/articles, etc. You can do that
part.

Another archives beginning with Volume 9 will be started soon here at eecs.
nwu.edu. I think.    Patrick Townson]
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #85
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Mar 13 02:06:50 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA11234; Mon, 13 Mar 89 02:06:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02294; 13 Mar 89 0:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02289; 13 Mar 89 0:52 CST
Date:     Mon, 13 Mar 89 0:52:32 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #86
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Mar 89 00:39:09 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Two Men Seized As Phone Looters (TELECOM Moderator)
    International Toll Free Numbers. (julian macassey)
    Calling party ID (Frank Prindle)
    Calling Party ID Suspension (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 13 Mar 89 0:33:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Two Men Seized As Phone Looters

Two phony repairmen wearing stolen Illinois Bell hardhats and carrying around
stolen repairman tools have demonstrated that ripping off payphones is not
small change.

Arrested here in Chicago last week were George W. Parratt, 47, of Sauk Village,
IL and Arthur P. Hopkinson, 40, of Hickory Hills, IL; two south suburbs of
Chicago.

The two men, posing as Illinois Bell repairmen, and driving a white and
blue van disguised to look like an Illinois Bell truck, have stolen many
thousands of dollars from pay telephones all over Chicago. Their average
take was about $200 per phone -- and they have hit some phones two or three
times.

Just the cost of repairing the phones damaged in the past year cost more
than $50,000 said IBT spokesman Tony Abel.

These two fellows were making a full time living looting pay phones, although
Mr. Abel did not have the final total of the amount looted immediatly available
when we discussed the case.

Abel said Illinois Bell employees spotted the phony van on two
separate days and notified the security department of Bell. Security
representatives were able to trace the license plate on the van, and
they found it parked in Parratt's driveway. The investigators secretly followed
the van and watched Parratt and Hopkinson loot two pay phones in
Calumet City, Illinois, and two in Hammond, Indiana; a community on
the stateline served by Illinois Bell.

When the two men drove back across the stateline into Calumet
City, and started breaking into another payphone, the investigators
arrested them. Cook County sheriff's Lt. Thomas Oulette, called to the
scene, said the two had $120 in change and $650 in stolen tools from
Illinois Bell at the time of their arrest.  He said they were able to
break into a coin box, dump it and get away in less than three
minutes.

"It was a pretty good scam," said Oulette, who noted that the
investigators from Illinois Bell told him they believed the company
had been hit by the pair for about $35,000 in the nine months the
company was specifically aware of them without knowing who they were.

Parratt and Hopkinson were released on bond, and are scheduled to
appear in Circuit Court (Markham, Illinois branch) on April 17.

Patrick Townson


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

From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo![e-mail]
Subject: International Toll Free Numbers.
Date: 11 Mar 89 23:46:50 PST (Sat)



         There has been  some discussion about  0800 numbers from
the  UK  and also 800 numbers  from  the US to the UK.  But wait!
There's more!

         Reading  the Economist magazine  of Feb 25 (I am  not  a
slow reader, just behind) There are a couple of interesting ads:

         Our  buddies AT&T have an  ad touting AT&T International
800  service. It is the usual  obtuse AT&T add that  can only  be
understood  by people who understand telcospeak. At the bottom of
the page in 6 point type is the  most interesting part of the ad:
"AT&T International 800 Service now available from 27  countries.
Call  for  details."  Don't  you  would  think  that  naming  the
countries might have made the ad more effective? Anyhow as the ad
says: "-all with a simple toll-free call to the U.S." If you  are
in  the U.S. and really  want to know what the  27 countries are,
you  can  call [phone]  ext  355 6 am to Midnight  Central
Standard time.

         Also  in the same edition  of the Economist was an  even
more  interesting ad. This one was placed by the BBC (The  Beeb).
It  was an ad for a video tape  subscription service  called "BBC
Video World". THe ad says  "Ring the FREE orderline." The ad then
lists  the following: In UK 0800 44 41 41, In Australia  0014 800
125 777, In USA 1 800 247 8979,  In Hong Kong 008 2248,  In Japan
00 31 44 40 09.

         Being  an obedient boy, I did what I was told: "Ring the
FREE  orderline." I called the USA 800  number and after a couple
of clicks got that old strident  brr-brr Brit ringing  cadence. I
was  answered by "Lillian" who told me that the center was in the
UK, handled all the toll  free calls from all  over the world and
was staffed 24 hours per day.

         Life  has been confusing enough in the past calling what
you thought was the local airline at  the airport and talking  to
the  reservations  center  in Atlanta. Now we will  have to start
guessing what country the 800 number will be routed to.


Yours

--
Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio)  n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 20:09:27 EST
From: Frank Prindle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling party ID

A strange twist of (legal) fate has caused Bell of PA to temporarily suspend
offering Calling Party ID service here in the Philadelphia area.  It seems
that there are two reasons:

    1. There is apparently a state law on the books which makes tracing
       a phone call illegal unless ordered by a law enforcement agency.
       Thus, Calling Party ID is being considered as a violation of state
       law!

    2. Consumer advocate groups are protesting introduction of this service
       based on "invasion of privacy" to the caller.  Curiously, Bell is
       pushing the service as one which protects the privacy of the callee.
       At issue here are situations where, for example, a battered wife
       tries to contact her children from a shelter, but for obvious
       reasons doesn't want the shelter's phone number (and thus her
       whereabouts) flashed up on the phone when it rings.  It has been
       suggested that Bell provide a means for the caller to withold
       identification by dialing a special code, but Bell contends that
       this would render the service useless, since any bothersome caller
       could do the same thing to "protect" his (dubious) privacy.

So Bell of PA has postponed introduction of this service for several weeks
while the legal eagles come up with a solution.  I don't suspect much will
come of it - even "Baby Bells" still have plenty of corporate clout.  Also, the
service has been in operation in NJ for 6 months or more and there have been
no major problems.

Sincerely,
Frank Prindle
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Mon, 13 Mar 89 0:11:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Calling Party ID Suspension

Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me
sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are
somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making
phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is
calling us before we answer the phone.

A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered
the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be)
illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give
testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their
victim(s).

Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in
the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know
ahead of time who has come to visit you. What of the rights of computer
system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of
people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night?
Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than
the rest of us.

What truely makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by
this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge
-- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity
of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to
'tracing a call'. If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before
she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in
violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than
an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what
is your call about?'

So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea
they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me.

Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed.

Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #86
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Mar 14 17:15:35 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA05180; Tue, 14 Mar 89 17:15:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10130; 14 Mar 89 0:31 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10126; 14 Mar 89 0:24 CST
Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 89 0:24:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #87
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Mar 89 00:06:36 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (David Albert)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Scott Alexander)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Sidney Markowitz)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Ken Levitt)

[Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is devoted to responses to
my comments yesterday on the temporary suspension of Calling Party ID
Service, pending legal review in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In the
Wednesday Digest, I will have comments by Mike Royko from his column
on Monday, and some additional rebuttals.     P. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 14:53:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension

I can't let the moderator's flaming regarding caller ID go unanswered.

If I knock on your door and refuse to identify myself, you don't have to let me
in.  If I refuse to identify msyelf to your secretary over the phone, you don't
have to take the call.

The problem is not with caller ID per se, but with making it compulsory.  I see
nothing wrong with providing callers the option to disable automatic forwarding
of caller ID to callee.  If I am a drug prevention hot line, I will choose to
accept all calls whether or not the caller has disabled forwarding of his/her
ID.  On my home phone, I will probably choose not to answer or let my answering
machine pick up, if caller ID has been diabled by the caller. It is technically
not very difficult to allow for disabling of caller ID.  In California where
some 20+% of all lines are unlisted, Pactel has responded to the marketplace
and indicated that it will allow callers to disable caller ID either on a per
call basis, or by presubscription.  However, anyone who does that will have to
take the risk that I won't answer their call.

As we enter the ISDN age it will be a trivial matter for me to program my phone
so it doesn't even ring if the caller has suppressed caller-ID.  However, if
the monopoly local network reveals my number, even over my objection, I have no
choice but to give up using the phone -- a rather high price to pay, I would
argue.

The economic theory of legal property rights argues that rights should be
allocated in such a way as to minimize the total social burden associated with
exercising and protecting these rights.  It makes far more sense to put the
burden on the callee to refuse to answer if the caller chooses to remain
unidentified.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University
internet:  [e-mail]
bitnet:    ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 14 Mar 89 01:28:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 86, message 4 of 4
>
> [volumes of vehement verbiage concerning the lack of moral fiber and
>  general unworthiness of people who want to preserve their privacy when
>  they call, and a few gratuitous insults directed at the ACLU.]

Why should it bother you if people are allowed to call you without
reporting their number? Just program your phone to ignore those
calls :-)

More practically, I would note that providing the calling party ID
provides no more and no less information than "tracing a call" - a
dated phrase that does not accurately describe the process it
identifies. (and hence is an ideal candidate to become legal
language.) They are both inquiries, without specification of
procedure, and return the same information, from the same source -
that looks like good enough grounds for equivalence to convince me.

If someone is making harassing phone calls, there is a service you can
get today to allow you to trace numbers and report the call to the
telco. (they charge for it, which they shouldn't) The point is that
it exists to report harassing phone calls. Period. Not so some
advertiser can get my number and sell a telemarketing list. Not so
someone in Telecom knows everyone who calls me at work, and can
distribute that information.

Anyway, I think there are reasons that a law-abiding citizen might
occasionally want to be able to call anonymously, although I can't
think of one off the bat. There are also reasons why the rest of us
might want to. (the IRS help line?) Mr. Townson is focusing on what
he wants to do to other people, and not on what they want to do to
him.

                Peter Desnoyers

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

From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 13 Mar 89 16:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: David Albert <harvard![e-mail]>
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA



>Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me
>sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are
>somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making
>phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is
>calling us before we answer the phone.

While I agree that I do not have the right to invade your privacy, and
that you have the right to know who is calling before picking up the
phone, I believe that at least one of the proposed solutions would safeguard
your right without causing what I consider to be extremely important
problems.  If I am able to block my number from being sent, you could
see from your calling-number-ID display that I have done so and refuse to
answer.  I imagine that the technology could be put in place that would
even keep your phone from ringing under these circumstances.

Nevertheless, calling-number-blocking MUST be made available to people who
want to call the Samaritans, the police (at their business number), the
IRS (or almost any government office), and arguably to people calling
any business number.  It really makes me sick to think about the whiners
and complainers who so callously want to throw away *my right to privacy*
when making calls to provide information to or ask questions of people who
have *invited* these calls, especially when such information could later
be matched to my name and used for telephone solicitation, blackmail,
criminal charges, etc.

>So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea
>they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me.

People should be able to remain anonymous when calling businesses,
government bureaus, and talk and help lines.  If such lines could be
permanently barred from receving calling-number-ID info, fine, otherwise
some sort of blocking system must be developed.  Again, you are free to
completely ignore (or even never be made aware of) anonymous calls.

David Albert                  |"To hardly know him is to know
UUCP: ...{think, rutgers}!harvard!albert  | him well."  Cary Grant, in
INTERNET: [e-mail]      |   _The Philadelphia Story_

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

Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:01:02 -0500
From: [e-mail]

I would have no objection if the phone company were providing a service
whereby a little box on the side of the phone were to indicate that
Scott Alexander was calling.  This would be the same service that one
gets with your doorway peephole.  However, Calling Party ID gives
an additional piece of information.  If my phone number appears on your
CPI box, you can now call me.  For the vast majority of the calls that
I make, I don't mind giving out my phone number.  Howerver, there are
times when I make calls to businesses or governmental agencies when I
want to retain anonymity.  For instance, if I call Sears, I don't want
to be added to their junk phone call list.

I believe that I saw proposed on this list a more complex service where
one would be able to block remote Calling Party ID.  Instead of my number
appearing on your box, you would get a *** sort of display.  At this point,
you may decide not to answer my call or to let your answering machine
answer it.  However, you would also have the option of requesting that
the call be traced and my number become available to Bell if the call was of
some illegal nature.  This strikes me as a more reasonable balance of my
privacy against your right to be secure against annoying, phone-based
intrusions.

As a side note, to make my biases somewhat more clear, if it does go through
in Pennsylvania, I'll almost certainly get CPI for my phone.  If Pa Bell were
to take my suggestions as the solutions to all their problems, I would tend
to carefully block all calls that I made to non-residences because I believe
some large business is going to start collecting numbers fairly soon.

Scott Alexander
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 15:44:26 EST
From: Sidney Markowitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID Suspension

The controversy has reached Massachusetts, with NYNEX talking about
following New Jersey's lead of instituting calling party ID that can
not be blocked. MIT's new phone system has calling party ID, but a
caller can block it on a per call basis by entering the appropriate
code. The student-run peer counseling hot line dealt with the privacy
issue by announcing that they had removed the lcd indicators from
their phones.

It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the
idea of being able to screen my calls. At the same time, the very same
facility would force me to provide my home number to any business I
call in exchange for the convenience of calling from my home. The
correct balance would allow anyone to choose whether or not they
announce their number before I answer the phone, and allow me to
choose whether to answer the phone from an anonymous or unfamiliar
number. Perhaps even better would be an additional feature that would
allow me to press a button and have the caller's (blocked) ID recorded
at the telco office, where they would only release it under proper
legal circumstances. That would provide both caller and callee with a
useful degree of service, privacy, choice and protection from harassment.

The worst solution in my opinion is the current New Jersey one of
alleviating the current lack of privacy of the callee by decreasing
the privacy of the caller. I find myself on both ends of the phone
too often to want to take only side.

-- sidney markowitz <[e-mail]>

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

From: Bob Frankston <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 8:19:39 EST

I'm shocked to see the overreaction to a very reasonable concern
about privacy issues associated with the calling party ID feature.
In fact, it IS a serious invasion of privacy.  The same thinking
would ban unlisted numbers since why would anyone but a criminal want
an unlisted number?

In any case, it would be fairly simple to allow the caller to
suppress this feature automatically or selectively.  The telco would
still have the information in case the call must be traced under
appropriate (a loosely defined word) authority.

In school back in the 50's (remember them?) we had to write letters
to various embassies to get information.  We were warned that if we
wrote to a socialist embassy the post office would record our names
and addresses.  Good thing they were inefficient.  Somewhere, in some
basement is my name and address.



Full name: Bob Frankston



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

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:26:10 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID Suspension


<In a message dated 3/13/89, Patrick Townson writes>

>A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered
>the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be)
>illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give
>testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their
>victim(s).

By this logic, you would have to outlaw testimony from handwriting experts
in a kidnapping case.  Of corse the kidnapper could have used a typewriter.
Then again, the caller could go out and use a pay phone.  If anyone can see
a difference here, I would like to know what it is.

Ken Levitt

P.S. I have passed along comments on this subject to the FidoNet Law
Conference.  If I get any good replies, I'll post them here.

--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #87
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Mar 14 17:17:53 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA05302; Tue, 14 Mar 89 17:17:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12036; 14 Mar 89 1:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12032; 14 Mar 89 1:32 CST
Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 89 1:32:05 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #88
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Mar 89 01:16:10 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Bell Plans To Avert Outage (TELECOM Moderator)
    Cellular billing - unanswered calls/timing before answering (John Covert)
    COCOT Offers Store & Forward Service (Carl Moore)
    Re: Archives (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: International Dialing Codes (Tom Hofmann)
    Washington DC Payphone Scam (Pat)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 89 1:10:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Bell Plans To Avert Outage

Illinois Bell will install an $80 million safety system to prevent
another widespread telephone outage like the one caused by the fire in
Hinsdale, IL last year.

The fire on Mother's Day, May 8, 1988, wiped out service to 38,000 Hinsdale
customers. An additional 475,000 customers were unable to make calls outside
their local communities. Because Mother's Day call volume is traditionally
very heavy, the loss of the Hinsdale gateway that afternoon caused a network
traffic jam of monumental proportions throughout the Chicago area
until calls were re-routed. It was the worst outage in the history of the
telephone industry, and took Illinois Bell close to a month to restore service
to everyone.

Under the new plan, to be fully implemented by 1992, each central
office will connect to two larger area offices. If a fire or other disaster
strikes one area office, or toll center, calls would automatically be
routed to another gateway. The worse that could happen under this plan
would be an isolated outage wiping out service to 80,000 customers.

Bell is also constructing three alarm centers to monitor all central offices
around the clock; they are installing new sprinkler systems in major offices;
and are switching to flame resistant electrical cables.

Bell anticipates having one million customers connected to backup systems,
or alternate gateways, by the end of this year. They expect to have over
two million customers thus configured by the end of 1990, and the remainder
cut over by the end of 1992.

Illinois Attorney General Neil F. Hartigan last Frday again demanded
that Bell create a fund to compensate businessmen and other customers
who he claims suffered more than $100 million in damages. Bell says it
is not liable for such damages under state law.

Also on Friday, the state fire marshall and the Illinois Commerce
Commission released results of a ten month, $1 million dollar probe
into the Hinsdale fire. Illinois Bell paid for the study.

The fire began when an exposed power cable came in contact with
another metal-covered power cable. Investigators believe workers inadvertently
stripped insulation off the exposed power cable while doing work a few months
earlier.

The Hinsdale station was unmanned on that Sunday. At 4:20 PM, an automatic
fire alarm system tripped in the alarm reporting station in
Springfield, Illinois, alerting a technician. Instead of calling the Hinsdale
Fire Department, as required by Bell's operating procedures, the technician
chose to first ignore the alarm (because it had falsed on a frequent basis
in recent days). When the alarm tripped again, a few minutes later, the
technician called a Bell supervisor at home in Wheaton, Illinois. Some ten
minutes later, the supervisor tried calling the Hinsdale and Downers Grove
fire departments, but by this time area phones were going out of service.

Meanwhile, a Bell employee arrived at the Hinsdale office. He saw
smoke and went inside to assess what was happening. He tried to call
the fire department both from inside the building and from his car phone,
but both were dead. He then flagged a passing motorist who finally notified
the police department at 4:58 PM -- some 38 minutes after the
technician in Springfield first learned of the fire.

Fire fighters from Hinsdale and several nearby communities fought the fire
for over two hours. They finally got it extinquished at 7:15 PM after they
were able to cut power to the building. They might have been able to
put the fire out sooner if Bell had installed a simpler system to cut power,
the report said.

During the fire fighting effort, fumes from burning batteries in the building
required the evacuation of several residences within a two block area
of the central office. Firemen had to work for a few minutes inside,
then come out and be completely doused with a solution designed to
protect them from skin irritation.

After the fire was extinquished, employees were not permitted to enter the
building for several hours, until about 4:30 AM Monday morning, due to the
noxious fumes which had built up inside which had to be vented from the
building.

The first order of business was to restore service to Ohare International
Airport and the Federal Aviation Administration. Circuits between the
control tower at Ohare and the FAA flight center in Aurora, Illinois were
routed through Hinsdale. From Sunday afternoon through mid-day Monday,
communications between the control tower, the FAA and aircraft in flight
were in chaos. Make-shift circuits were wired up as soon as Bell employees
were able to clear through the rubble and get to this critical network.

Hinsdale was totally without telephone service for two days. On May 10,
limited service was given to area hospitals, police, fire and other government
agencies. The following day, May 11, service was partially restored to about
12,000 Hinsdale residents. On May 20, partial service was restored to the
remaining Hinsdale residents. May 23 brought the restoration of full service
to 475,000 west suburban community residents and businesses. During
the final week of May and the first week of June, full service was
restored to Hinsdale. By mid June, most special services were again operating.

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Mar 89 23:55
Subject: Cellular billing (unanswered calls / timing before answering)

>PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
>charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
>answered or not. This means you are charged for busys, no answers,
>reorders, etc.

PacTel isn't the only one; the so-called competition in L.A. (L.A. Cellular)
is tariffed by the California PUC for exactly the same rates.  The tariff
provides that airtime is charged at 50% of the going rate when calls
are not answered.

Bell Atlantic in Washington, D.C., charges something like ten cents for
each incomplete call.

>Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy?

Ameritech in Chicago doesn't charge their own subscribers for incomplete
calls -- but they charge roamers twenty-five cents (plus tax) for incomplete
calls.  It will show up on your bill as "INCOMPLETE CL".  That, in my opinion,
is even slimier.  A roamer who tries to make one call while changing planes at
O'Hare will be billed $2.25 plus .11 Illinois tax plus federal tax, even though
the call didn't answer.

>It also means that you are timed from the button push,
>not from the point that the call is answered.

Almost all systems begin charging airtime from when the send button is
pressed (but mostly only on completed calls).  Cellular One in Washington was
not one of them, but has announced that they will begin to do so shortly.

Some systems begin charging airtime on incoming calls from the point at
which the phone is found in the system (shortly before it begins ringing).
Here in Boston, NYNEX was doing it until I pointed out that their tariff
provided for charging from when the phone was answered (and also pointed
out that I think it's a safety hazard to rush a driver into answering the
phone because the meter's running rather than sizing up the traffic situation
and possibly looking for a place to stop).

/john

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

Date:     Mon, 13 Mar 89 14:22:37 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  COCOT Offers Store & Foreward Service

At the Jiffy Mart (Suffolk Road and Rt. 140, Finksburg, Md.) is
a COCOT with this item:

MESSAGE FORWARDING
Leave a one minute message in your own voice any time of the day.
Great for unanswered or busy calls or just to leave a personal
message.  ITI will attempt to deliver your message every thirty
minutes for up to eight hours.  Bill it to your major credit card
or telephone calling card.
DIAL 0+214 MESSAGE
Ask for Message Forwarding

and on the lower instruction card of the phone, I saw:

5% DISCOUNT ON LONG DISTANCE CALLS TO ANYWHERE WITHIN THE STATE on
all operator assisted (0+) calls billed to VISA, MasterCard, Ameri-
can Express, Discover, Diners Club, or Carte Blanche.  All other
long distance calls may be billed at higher rates.
Quality service by ITI.

214-MESSAGE is apparently not in service (I tried it).

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Archives
Date: 13 Mar 89 22:17:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


[e-mail] (Eric Swenson) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 85, message 7 of 7
>Where are the archives of back issues of telecom?
>[Moderator's Note: The archives are located at Boston University; on
>the machine this Digest used to use: bu-cs.bu.edu.  Anyone with 'ftp' ability
>can visit and take as desired....

I might add that recent issues are being archived here at the USENET
gateway, starting with volume 8 issue 110.  Comp.dcom.telecom readers
can drop me a line at [e-mail].
--
Chip Rosenthal     [e-mail]    |      Choke me in the shallow water
Dallas Semiconductor   214-450-5337    |         before I get too deep.

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

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Dialing Codes
Date: 13 Mar 89 09:19:10 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(John Murray):
> One can dial direct to major cities in the USSR from Western Europe. The
> country code is indeed 7. The city code for Moscow is 1, Leningrad is 2

The city code for Moscow is +7 095.

Tom Hofmann    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:55:41 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Pat)
Subject: Washington DC Payphone Scam
Date: 13 Mar 89 16:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Pat)
Organization: Honeywell Federal Systems Inc., McLean VA.


How does this sound as a phone scam?
I was in Washington DC and went to make a local call on what first appeared
to be a public phone, it really was from Atlantic Telephone. I shoved in
20 cents dialed the number and got a message please deposit $1.00 to complete
the call. I dialed 0, got the Atlantic operator was told the same story,
was not allowed to talk to a supervisor and hung up on.  I walked into
a restaurant used the C&P phone and made my 20 cent call.  I was wondering
can these companies just set their own rates on local direct dial calls??

BTW  C&P has their own scam, local calls in Washington are 20 cents,
MD and VA 25 cents.  They don't mark any of the DC phones for rates to
fool people into depositing 25 cents.



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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #88
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Wed Mar 15 03:37:51 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA06818; Wed, 15 Mar 89 03:37:51 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18096; 15 Mar 89 2:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18091; 15 Mar 89 2:20 CST
Date:     Wed, 15 Mar 89 2:20:04 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #89
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Mar 89 02:02:36 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (John B. Nagle)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Re: Calling Party ID (David G. Cantor)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Bob Kelley)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Mike Newton)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Joel B Levin)
    Do you need a court order to trace a phone? (Cliff Stoll)

[Moderator's Note: Such an uproar! I was going to run excerpts from
various print media today, including Mike Royko's comments on Calling
Party ID and the {Chicago Sun Times} Tuesday editorial. But the mail
from you readers is so heavy I decided to hold off on those other items
until tomorrow; I would rather see your comments get on line first.
At least today, a couple people agree with me on the subject; and to
give you fair warning, so does Royko, the {Sun Times} and a few other
biggies in the media.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 15 Mar 89 04:40:47 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University



     The Orlando FL area was the first area with caller ID services,
offered under the name TouchStar.  But the rules seem to vary from
area to area.  I read in that area that calls from an unlisted number
displayed as the word "private" on caller ID displays.  Even without
a caller ID display, one could, using some sequence beginning with
an *, call back the last number that called you.  Whether this applied
when called from an unlisted number is not clear.

     Is there to be an FCC comment period on this?

     I propose the following:

    - A subscriber can select both whether calls from his number
      will be identified, and whether his number will accept calls
      from unidentified numbers.

    - A call from a nonidentifying number to a number that requires
      a caller ID results in an intercept message.

    - A call from a nonidentifying number can be made identifying
      by using some prefix.  This prefix should be mentioned in the
      intercept message.

This should preserve everyone's rights.

                    John Nagle


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling party ID
Date: 15 Mar 89 04:16:07 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, ulysses![e-mail]
writes:
> N.J. Bell is now offering calling party ID.  How complete is the CCIS network
> needed to support this?  What are the odds on getting the number on an
> inter-LATA call?  An intra-LATA call but from a different switch?  Also,
> how is the number communicated?  Does the ring signal carry some sort of
> extra modulation?


We just got CLASS(sm) Caller*Id Service from NJ Bell.  The calling
number is currently delivered only on intra-lata calls, and not from
all central offices in our lata.  The calling number is communicated
in a burst of FSK-encoded data, sent simplex (i.e. no ACK expected)
at 1200 bps between the first and second rings.  The data burst
includes the date and time, the calling number, or an indication
that the calling number is not available.  If you answer during the
first ring, no data are received.

Now, can someone (perhaps at NJ Bell) tell me what *62 is supposed
to do?  It results in a confirmation tone, but I can't seem to
discover what it's confirming!

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


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

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 15:42:51 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <@ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@ll-micro>
Subject: caller ID service
Reply-To: @ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@micro

Patrick, a big yes vote with your side!  How the hell does a caller have the
right to anonymity! THEY SURE AS BLEEP know who you, the recipient, are!
The ACLU is better off defending Nazis in Peoria, or other All-American
wholesome activities.  If a caller wants to be untraceable, they can use the
time-honored technique of using a payphone (yes, even a dreaded COCOT!). This
has been a technique beloved of careful whistle-blowers, informants, bookies,
u-name-it.  I would allow anonymity to callers, but at a $2.00 charge, half to
the phone co., half to me!

Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173
Phone [phone]     Fax [phone]  black@[e-mail]

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

Subject: Calling Party ID
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 03:22:33 PST
From: [e-mail]

There are valid reasons why an individual might wish to place a
telephone call without revealing the telephone number he or she is
using.  Similarly there are valid reasons why a person might not wish
to receive a telephone call without knowing the telephone number of the
caller.

There is, of course, a reasonable solution to the problem.  When a
person calls a telephone which is using the calling id system, he should
be (at his option, of course) advised (perhaps, by a special tone)
that the called phone is using this system and be given an option to
terminate the telephone call BEFORE the called party telephone rings and
BEFORE the calling number is presented to the called party.

I, for example, if (when?) given the option, will take the "calling
party ID" service.  If someone wants to call me anonymously, they won't
be able to.  I'm quite willing to risk the loss of not receiving such
calls.  HOWEVER, I very much doubt that agencies like the FBI wnat to
take such a risk!  It is my understading that anonymous "tips" play a
major role in their investigations.  If this suggestion were adopted,
then they will continue to (or at least, in my opinion, should) have
numbers without the "calling party ID" service.

I do not expect a solution of this nature, which protects both parties,
to be acceptable to the telcos.

Is it possible to fool the service by using call-forwarding?  Or more
precisely.  Suppose I set telephone line A to forward calls to line B
which has this service.  Then I dial A from C.  Does B receive the
number of A or of C?

Finally, on a closely related matter.  A note to the moderator:  It IS
POSSIBLE to discuss matters of this nature without ad hominum arguments,
such as your statements "A group calling itself the American 'Civil
Liberties' Union has also . . .  " and "Next thing you know, the ACLU
and others will want to outlaw peepholes . . .  ", etc. Your arguments,
asking about the rights of people who get "anonymous, harassing phone
calls in the middle of the night" are quite valid (though the proposal
above would answer them) and you weaken your case by your unnecesary and
uncalled-for comments.

dgc

David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]
UUCP:      ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: Tue, 14-Mar-89 14:36:20 PST

Patrick Townson,
I could not agree with you more regarding number ID and privacy.  My thoughts
regarding ACLU and others trying to "force" right of privacy for the worlds
misfits belongs in another conference BUT if a customer wants to pay the
phone company for the privilage of knowing who called, it should not
be stopped by peceived privacy issues.

I am in the common carrier business... a strange but very short leap
would be that I am NOT legaly allowed to obtain caller ID for billing..
after all that would invade the "privacy" of someone trying to steal
my services..and since that is against the law on Guam as well as the rest
of the US... and since the caller's nuber is provided upon placing
a call for billing.. he would incriminate himself.  I really see
little difference in an individual, small carrier or AT&T obtaining
the caller ID.  If this issue is found in favor of privacy, when will
the common carriers lose access to this information?

Bob Kelley
PCI
Guam

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

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 01:19:50 HST
From: Mike Newton <kahuna![e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID Suspension (Mike Newton)


There is one "solution" to the problem, though it is expensive.  It
does have the advantage that it is close to what many people on this
list already do:

[1] Have a private (unlisted) number that you give to friends
    and people that you would like to call.  Put a normal
    phone on this line.

[2] Have a second line which is your "outgoing" line.  Put a phone
    on it that has the ringer disabled.

Note that #2 would also make a very good computer line...

- mike

ps: I agree w/ the suggestion that "allow blocking by caller, but that the
called number can have the phone co. record the info".  However, if that
isn't implemented, the above would be _my_ solution.

Of course, Hawaii has GTE, and this island is so backward i suspect they
still use step-by-step, so i dont have to worry much....

    From the bit bucket in the middle of the Pacific...
Mike Newton                [e-mail]
Caltech Submillimeter Observatory    kahuna![e-mail]
Post Office Box 4339
Hilo Hawaii 96720            808 935 1909
    "Reality is a lie that hasn't been found out yet..."

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

Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 13:07:06 -0500
From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>

Are you seriously saying that if I pay good money to the local telco
for a non-published number, I can no longer make a call without
telling every Tom/Dick/Harry what my number is?  Why do you think I
would have been paying for an N.P. number all this time?

CPID service with caller suppressible ID and an answering machine
seems like the ideal combination.  I don't have to tell you my phone
number if I don't want to and you don't have to answer my call (live
or at all) if you don't want to.

    /JBL

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

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 16:24:39 est
From: Cliff Stoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do you need a court order to trace a phone?


Federal law 18 U.S.C.A. 3121 regulates phone traces.

In section 18 USCA 3121 (b) (1) and (b) (2), the federal
code explicitly states an "Exception to general prohibition
on trap and trace device use"

The law says that if the person whose phone is being traced
gives permission for the line to be traced, a court order
is not necessary.

From this argument, automatic calling party identification
is completely legal.  The person who installs such a phone
gives permission to the phone company to automatically trace
her own lines.


Note that this is a federal statute;  state laws may be different.

For other references, see my article in the May 1988 CACM,
Stalking the Wily Hacker.

Cliff Stoll      [e-mail]      617/495-7147
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #89
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Wed Mar 15 04:00:38 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA08382; Wed, 15 Mar 89 04:00:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18900; 15 Mar 89 2:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18895; 15 Mar 89 2:47 CST
Date:     Wed, 15 Mar 89 2:47:30 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #90
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Mar 89 02:26:15 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    MCI, PAC*BELL in cahoots? (Jeff Woolsey)
    Pay phones that disable the keypad (Bruce Hamilton)
    Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan. (Bill Cattey)
    Re: SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update (James Sterbenz)
    Re: Cellular service (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Phone Fraud (John B. Nagle)
    Re: ETCO (Ray Guydosh)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Barry C. Nelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Woolsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI, PAC*BELL in cahoots?
Date: 15 Mar 89 04:21:18 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara


I just got off the phone with a nice (but relatively uninformed) lady
from MCI who called to interrupt my dinner and tell me that their
Around Town service eliminates the charges for local calls, such as
those between my phone in Mountain View, CA, and somewhere like San
Mateo or Berkeley, for which Pacific Bell charges long distance rates.

I was under the impression that IECs were prohibited from carrying
intra-LATA traffic; has this changed????  Asking her this produced a
puzzled repetition of her earlier spiel.

(Come to think of it, until I set her straight, my girlfriend used to
call me on her MCI card only because we live in different area codes.
The call is still local, and free for flat-rate customers.)

Further wonders of modern telephony:  I was on the phone with this
salescritter long enough for another salescritter from, alas, the local
cable TV outfit to interrupt our pleasant repartee and try sell me a
premium channel or six for a four month trial.  And I pay $x.xx per
month for this convenience!

Alas, also, it only occurred to me two minutes after I hung up to
assert that I already had MCI as my primary carrier (i.e. lie) and use
the miracles of 3-way calling and company code dialing to produce MCI's
recorded message thanking me for selecting them.

Nevertheless it was interesting to see what happens when the informed
meet the enlisted.
--

Qualify nearly everything.

Jeff Woolsey  [e-mail]  -or-  [e-mail]

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

From: Bruce Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay phones that disable the keypad
Date: 14 Mar 89 06:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xerox Corp, El Segundo, CA


I was recently at the Louisville (KY) Convention Center.
I tried to call an 800 number to use the audiotex service
that tells me where the nearest ATM is.  First I tried
two coin phones.  Both connected me to the 800 number,
but then disabled the keypad!  If I pressed a key, the
earspeaker would go dead, as if I had gone off-hook.
Finally I tried the adjoining non-coin, credit-card phone.
It worked fine!

Is this some sort of conspiracy by AT&T & South Central
Bell to prevent me from calling, say, US Sprint's 800
number and then dialing out?  A guy at the convention
thought it might have been related to the recent enabling
of 800 numbers on the pay phones in question.

This definitely seems like a bug, given the WIDE presence
of 800 audiotex systems.  I'm curious as to whether this
problem is widespread.

[Please reply by e-mail since I only scan comp.dcom.telecom occasionally.]

--Bruce
CSNet: [e-mail]
UUCP: xerox.com!hamilton.osbuSouth

[Moderator's Note: But readers who answer, please carbon replies here also.]
------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 16:16:01 EST
From: Bill Cattey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan.

I hope that somewhere in all that money they are going to spend is an
allocation for a human being to be on-site 24 hours a day, and for
hard wired lines to police and fire from the central offices.

None of these features were mentioned in the plan, but seem to be the
things that would have really saved the day in Hinsdale if they had
been present.

  From the 'desk' of     _   /|
  Bill (the) CATTey...   \'o.O'
                         ~(___)~       THSHVPPPOOO!
                            U                ACH!

[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, no. Not a nickle for an employee to
be on the premises 24 hours per day. You are correct that it would be
one way to insure the Hinsdale tragedy was unlikely to occur again.
But Illinois Bell, in the persona of Mr. James Eibel -- in all candor,
a man I would have canned the day after the fire, since it was *his* technician
who chose to ignore the alarm; *his* supervisor who bungled the job in the
moments after the fire was discovered; and *his* decision that million dollar
switches don't need attendants at all times -- has decided to continue playing
it reckless. PT]

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

From: James Sterbenz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update
Date: 14 Mar 89 19:03:36 GMT
Reply-To: James Sterbenz <wucs1![e-mail]>
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis, MO


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Judy Scheltema)
writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 83, message 1 of 5
>
>I don't know if you are interested in the battle against Southwestern Bell,
>but they have decided to get rather underhanded in Oklahoma City.

[details on SWB vs. private BBS's in Oklahoma City]

If anyone wants to complain to Southwestern Bell, you can try
800-392-2608.  This is the general managers office; I got the number
after being bounced around a few times through various SWB departments.
It might be useful to call this number and indicate that the bad publicity
is spreading outside of Oklahoma City; maybe SWB will rethink their position.

By the way, I just called it myself; the person I talked to said that I
would be contacted with a response.  I'll post if it contains any useful
information.


--
James Sterbenz  Computer and Communications Research Center
                Washington University in St. Louis 314-726-4203
INTERNET:       [e-mail]
UUCP:           wucs1![e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular service
Date: 15 Mar 89 04:20:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john
@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:
> With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its
> installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be
> raised. Having recently visited the LA area as a roamer from GTE
> Mobilnet, San Francisco, it seems that the good people of southern
> California are being taken for a ride.
>
> PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
> charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
> answered or not....

Nynex mobile service, the wireline carrier here in the New York City
CGSA, also charges air time for incomplete calls.  But the local
non-wireline carrier (MetroOne) only charges for completed calls,
and only charges from when the called party answers.

Ironically, the major shareholder in MetroOne appears to be
Pacific Telesys!  Does that mean that we really have two "wireline"
cellular carriers here?

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


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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Fraud
Date: 15 Mar 89 04:48:49 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University



     If you think that someone is bridging onto your line and making
calls, a good solution would be to hook up one of those Radio Shack
$99 call recorders that prints all numbers dialed and call times for
the line to which it is attached.

                    John Nagle

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

Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 89 15:12:57 LCL
From:     [e-mail]
Subject:  RE: ETCO

The ETCO in upstate NY was the US outlet of a Montreal based company.
It isn't listed in the latest phone directory here, nor the last one.
As you probably know, the phone had been disconnected.  There is no sign
of their store in the old location.  There was a major fire there a few
years back, but since I didn't know they were gone, I don't know if there
is a connection between that fire and ETCO's leaving.

ETCO did have a couple or three stores in Montreal, I couldn't find them
in my Montreal Yellow pages, but I can hardly ever find anything there.
You might try the 514 area information number.  ETCO's old number for
mail order in Montreal was 514-288-6218.

Ray Guydosh -- State Univ of NY @ Plattsburgh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[e-mail]   (SNYPLAVA.BITNET by summertime?)

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

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 08:37:30 EST
From: "Barry C. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID

Some people worry that their private number will be displayed at the called end
and others worry that they won't always know who is calling (as today). I note
that there have been machines on the (USA) market for years which prevent
unwanted calls from "ringing through" without the caller knowing an access
code.

One approach for dealing with a masked incoming number is to provide the called
party with the option of immediately calling the *telco* and logging the number
of caller. The called party has *no* indication of the caller's number, but of
course the telco has it stored, pending some action.

Similarly, the called party who receives a call with a masked number could be
given the ability to call *BACK* the previous caller without knowing what the
number actually is.

B.Nelson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #90
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Mar 16 01:59:11 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA17642; Thu, 16 Mar 89 01:59:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15232; 16 Mar 89 0:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15228; 16 Mar 89 0:43 CST
Date:     Thu, 16 Mar 89 0:43:14 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #91
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Mar 89 00:05:18 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Print Media Reaction to Calling Party I.D. (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (rja)
    The Caller ID Foofaraw (*Hobbit*)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Dr. T. Andrews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 15 Mar 89 23:09:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Print Media Reaction to Calling Party I.D.

The Calling Party I.D. offering now being made available by Bell of
Pennsylvania, and soon to be offered by all the Bell Operating
Companies has drawn a tremendous amount of commentary in the print
media. All the items I have seen thus far have come out strongly in
favor of this new service. While I am sure there have been articles in the
papers speaking against Calling Party I.D., I have not seen any.

Perhaps if you have seen some negative reactions you will be so kind as
to forward some specific cites to my attention in a message. Please
include excerpts when possible ** except from Dow Jones ** to share with
others here. At least the name of the publication, and date of issue, etc.

Here are two positive reactions --


Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune, Monday, March 13, 1989

In a column entitled "Just Whose Privacy Needs Protecting"  Royko praises
this technological advancement and notes, (excerpts from column)

"There is nothing impolite about asking who is standing outside your door,
and why, before you open it. If you have a peephole, you can look out. If
you see a Girl Scout standing there with boxes of cookies, you can
safely answer the door. If you see a man with a ski mask over his
face, then it would seem wise to grab the phone and call the cops....."

"There is nothing more precious than your fundamental right to privacy and
security.....when you are in your home, no one can enter without your
consent. Even a cop has to have a search warrant to cross the threshold.
You are under no obligation to answer the knock at your door. You can simply
ignore it."

"But then we have that wondrous and most devilish device: the telephone.
Every day millions of Americans get phone calls they do not want or need...
few unmarried women listed in big-city phone directories have not received
at least one obscene call. Some creeps will call the same female dozens
of times. Some women have been harassed by the same creep for months..."

"For obvious reasons, my home phone number is unlisted. But a guy once
managed to find it and amuse himself by making drunken, abusive calls late
at night. After several nights of this, I had to change my number..."

"I have always thought it would be nice if there was someway of knowing
who was on the other end of the phone when it rang."

".....Through a strange twist of logic, the new service is being called an
'invasion of the privacy of those who make the phone calls....they say
their privacy will be violated because the person they call will know the
number of the phone they are using. And by knowing the number, they can
detirmine who you are and where you are calling from.... Therefore, their
precious right to privacy -- the right to phone you without you knowing
who they are -- will be violated."

"Huh???????"

"Well, that's what they say. My logic may be cockeyed, but it seems to me
the person whose phone rings has a first option on privacy and freedom from
jerks."

"The phone company in Pennsylvania argues that this service acts as a sort
of peephole in the door, so you can see who is calling. The critics
say the caller has the right to put a finger over the peephole. If someone
knocks on my door and covers the peephole, they will soon find a cop
knocking on their back...."

"When this service is offered around here, I will be among the first to
subscribe."


                    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


Still another example of positive acceptance by the press to this new
service offering is found in the [Chicago Sun Times] on Tuesday, March 14.
In an editorial entitled "Wrong Call On Privacy", the editor notes --

"Is anyone stupid enough to argue that you don't have the right to
know who is calling you on the phone? You bet there is. Over in Pennsylvania
you will find consumer 'advocate' David Barasch and the American Civil
Liberties Union complaining that phone subscribers must not be allowed to
buy a device that displays the caller's phone number before they pick
up the phone...."

"Can you believe this? The ACLU is claiming this device violates the *caller's*
privacy..."

"May we be permitted an observation? Saying that a caller has a greater
right to privacy than the person called is about as dumb as saying
that somebody who shows up on your front porch or puts something in your
mailbox has a greater right to privacy than you do..."

"People who enter your home, whether it is on your porch, through the mail
or on your phone give up some of their right to privacy......in
today's world, increasingly populated with lunatics, people buy
answering machines so they can secretly listen to see who is calling
before they pick up the phone. Are the ACLU and the consumer
'advocate' going to argue that these devices trample on the privacy rights
of the lunatics, and therefore should be banned also?"

"Which leaves us with one question: When will they start selling this
service here in Illinois? "


                         /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

According to my contact at Illinois Bell, Caller I.D. service will probably
be available here early next year. The Bell Operating Companies are watching
the 'Pennsylvania experience' to learn something about the general
acceptance of the device prior to making it publicly available. She noted
that, "..the main obstacle to our being allowed to give our
subscribers this additional measure of privacy in their homes is the ACLU
and its claims that you have no right to know ahead of time about intrusive
callers; that you have no right to privacy and an immediate recourse to
people who would use the telephone to invade your home."  She noted that
'the telephone has traditionally been the media used by cowards and all
sorts of creeps to do their dirty work undercover.'


[In the next issue of the Digest, David Gast counsels "Just Say NO to Caller
ID" and John Covert shares a letter written to the public utilities people
in his state, and the consumer protection service. Next issue to be
distributed about 2:30 AM Eastern.]


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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 14:32:13 est
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Organization: unhtel.UUCP == UNH Telecommunications


Patrick,

    I am basically in agreement with you on this.  For those who feel
a need not to be identified to those they call, how about:

    1.  A per-call code (#xx, or some such) which would encode the
        calling number for that one call, and/or a chargeable service
        where an encoded I.D. would be the default

    2.  The encoded I.D. could be mapped to the caller's number BY
        THE TELCO on request of the callee (for cases of harrassment,
        etc.)  or IMMEDIATELY upon request of an emergency center operated
        by a public safety agency (fire, police, etc.)

    3.  The Telco would keep records of these I.D. maskings for a long
        enough time so that any question of abuse on either side
        could be proven (so the lawyers can get their unfair share...)

    4.  The encoded number of such a call should be displayed, and should
        be distinctive enough so that anyone who did not wish to receive
        an "anonymous" call could choose not to.

    As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner
guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I
paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience - not theirs."
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Paul S. Sawyer              uunet!unh!unhtel!paul     [e-mail]
UNH Telecommunications
Durham, NH  03824-3523      VOX: 603-862-3262         FAX: [phone]



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

From: [e-mail] (rja)
Subject: Re: Calling party ID
Date: 15 Mar 89 12:38:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization:  GE-Fanuc North America


The solution to the Calling Party ID privacy problem would seem
to be to let subscribers who already have unlisted/unpublished
numbers be hidden behind a "fake" telephone number.  If the
Caller ID person dialed the "fake" number a "this is not a valid
number, contact the business office" intercept.  If it was an
annoying caller situation then the business office could use the
"fake" number and find out who the real number that it associates
with is assigned to.

This way those of us with unpublished numbers would have our
privacy rights protected and there would still be a way to
address problems with abusive calling of one kind or another.

If CENTEL tries to do what NJ Bell has done, I'll probably
disconnect my phone altogether.

  [e-mail]




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

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1989 20:47:59 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Caller ID Foofaraw

What sez that you'll know before picking up that the number you see is that
of some pre-recorded tape that wants to sell you carpets?  Is the subscriber
supposed to not answer any call from a number he doesn't know off the top of
his head?  Ridiculous.  The concept is sort of neat within itself in a
technical sense, reminds me fairly strongly of the way internet connections
work, but for most people I don't see why they'd really want it unless there
were some sort of harassment going on.  [And for that kind of "tracing", of
course, the LOCs want extra money.  Bletch.]

_H*

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

Date: Tue Mar 14 06:48:24 1989
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <ki4pv![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension

Not to worry.  The woman calling from the shelter and the person
concerned with keeping his phone number secret will simply call
from a pay phone.

(I'm not entirely convinced that the anti-ACLU rhetoric was called
 for.  Many of the unpopular causes they support are important.  Sure,
 we all hate the nazis, or the drug dealers who object to the cops
 trashing their houses w/o warrents.  You'd mind if the republicans
 were barred from recruiting, though; you would probably also object
 if the cops came through and trashed YOUR house.)
---
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #91
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Thu Mar 16 02:41:42 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA20344; Thu, 16 Mar 89 02:41:42 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15595; 16 Mar 89 1:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15590; 16 Mar 89 1:24 CST
Date:     Thu, 16 Mar 89 1:23:51 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #92
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Mar 89 01:20:43 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Just Say No To Caller I.D. (David Gast)
    Calling Number I.D. (memo to Mass DPU & Atty General) (J. Covert)
    A Problem With Copyright (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 01:53:39 PST
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just Say No To Caller I.D.


Our dear moderator who is in favor of every new telephone gadget and
service (as long as it is sold by a baby bell or AT&T) has recently
flamed attempts to stop Caller ID.  While there are arguments on both
sides of the issue, I feel that Caller ID should not be approved.

1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order.
   Caller ID is in violation of most of these laws.  There are reasons
   for these laws, but even if they were repealed, there are reasons
   not to allow Caller ID.

2) Certain organizations offer anonymous help or trouble phone numbers.
   If they used Caller ID, would it not be fraud to say that all calls are
   anonymous?  Even if they do not use Caller ID, will people stop calling
   them because they fear that their lines would be traced?  If you
   saw a crime, would you be less likely to call the cops if you feared
   that your phone number would be traced, particularly given the corrupt
   nature of many police departments?

3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to
   call her children from a shelter.  Other examples like this exist.

4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares,
   for example, without disclosing his telephone number?  Risks
   recently reported that TWA is keeping a computer database of
   ``problem'' travelers.  The telephone and the computer would allow
   several types of abuses.  If the airline knows that the person did
   not buy a ticket the last time, it could route that call to the end
   of the queue.  With information about the caller, the airline would
   be able to tailor make the fare to the person, or even to ``red line''
   and say that the flight is sold out.  Database software that
   uses census information about locations might become frequently
   used with Caller ID.  Large companies would probably trade information
   much the way the now do.  (Every notice how if you order something from
   X, Y starts sending catalogs?)

5) There have recently been allegations in this newsgroup that certain
   Phone Companies have requested phone numbers and then ordered
   service.  With Caller ID, this type abuse would be much easier.  If you
   call a number, a business can quickly determine your phone number
   and hence your name.  Then it can just say that you ordered some
   product.  (With the current system it is much more difficult for
   that to happen because you can have anonymity when calling).

6) If users have to identify themselves when calling, should return
   addresses be required on all mail so that the receiving person can
   determine who the mail is from before opening it?

7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering
   machine.  The message could begin "I screen all of my calls, please
   tell me your name and phone number and I will decide whether I want
   to talk to you."  If this sounds obnoxious (and it is), it is no more
   obnoxious than having Caller ID.  Now the burden is on the callee
   instead of everyone.  (See below for financial considerations to see
   why the burden is one for everyone).

8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well.  What happens if
   you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone
   number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call?

9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of
   fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for
   outgoing calls.  There is just a clicker that increments based on
   the distance and the time of day.  At the end of the month, they
   send a bill based on the number of clicks.

In addition to these legal and ethical questions, there are the economic
questions.  Who should pay for this service?  Everyone, whether it is
desired or not, or just the people who use it?  The phone companies will
implicitly or explicitly force some of the cost on to everyone.

1) Allowing Caller ID has required new hardware and software.  Who
   is going to pay for that?  Will the monthly charges really pay for
   all of the expense?

2) With Caller ID, there will be more unanswered phone calls.  Who
   will pay for these?  (We all will with higher prices for completed
   calls).

3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a
   certain number, for example, and the Caller ID software would
   display where he is.  The same idea could be used to signal that one
   got home safely.  Should callers who want to talk have to subsidize
   those who want to send codes?

4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business
   customers with branches on the East and West Coast.  If it is cheaper
   to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the
   companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then
   call back in the opposite direction.  The business will make 2 calls
   instead of one, but pay less than before.

5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and
   not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by
   call basis.  Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra
   buttons to not get a service he does not want?

Finally, I think Patrick thinks Caller ID is a good idea because it
will allow us to screen out solicitors and crank calls.  In reality, it
is not likely to help that much.  The solicitors could block their
identification.  The solicitors could get phones under innocuous
sounding names--Bill Jones, for example.  Since only a few numbers
would be recognizably bad, the solicitors will just switch phone
numbers.  Today they call from 432-1211, tomorrow they call from
432-1212.  Finally, these solicitors will be gaining a huge data base
of calling patterns from which to tailor-make their calls.  The next
step will be to have the phone company collect data about an individual
and then sell it these companies.  (The consumer will probably end up
paying higher rates because of the extra cost, too).

As far as crank phone calls go, the phone company should have the right
to trace those, but only for determining where the crank phone calls
are coming from.  As long as your crank phone caller dials from
different numbers, Caller ID will not help you block the calls.
(Unless you happen to be able to allow only a small finite set of
numbers.  In that case, I hope a relative of yours does not have an
emergency from a different phone number than usual).

Overall, I believe that Caller Identification offers little to the consumer,
but a lot to businesses which want to invade our privacy more.  I hope it
never goes through, but if it does, I will not subscribe and I will block
all my calls (except if I want someone to call me back :-) ).

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

P.S. I will now respond some of Patrick's complaints.  I do hope he has
gotten over the dry heaves. :-)

> illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give
> testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their
> victim(s).

Well, there is the Fifth Amendment which guarantees the right against
self-incrimination.  Perhaps you would prefer living some place that
guarantees the right to self-incrimination.  Try 1-900-4STALIN for more
information.

> What of the rights of computer
> system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of
> people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night?

See above.  Sys Admins can always call people back if they choose, etc.

> Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than
> the rest of us.

No, they get the same rights as the rest of us.  You know, poor Ollie
is now protected by the very same rights against self-incrimination, etc,
that he thought were so bad when he was leading the Iran Contra Affair.

> What truly makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by
> this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge
> -- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity
> of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to
> 'tracing a call'.

Why isn't it?  What difference do you see? Is it really worth the dry heaves?

> If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before
> she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in
> violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than
> an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what
> is your call about?'

A person has the choice to answer or not.  He may say it is a personal
matter.  Do you want your secretary to know where every call to you comes
from?  What about your boss?  A person may give his name without giving his
phone number.  If I give my name, it is done voluntarily.  I have not
necessarily given my phone number.  That means that if I am at a friend's,
other business, or pay phone, you do not get to find out were I am located
and you cannot call back or sell to others that new phone number.  If a
lawyer calls a client and he is at another client, giving away the phone
number and hence name of the other client is a breach of confidentiality.
Lawyers and other professionals are not allowed to divulge client
relationships in such a manner.

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Mar 89 00:52
Subject: Calling Number Identification (memo to Mass DPU and Attorney General)

Date: 15 March 1989

To:   The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
      Department of Public Utilities
      Boston, Massachusetts 02202

Re:   New England Telephone Company -- CLASS Services
      Calling Number Identification

CC:   Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection,
      Utilities Division

From: John R. Covert, Consumer

New England Telephone has announced their intention to begin
providing a new family of telephone features called CLASS.
These features provide some useful enhancements to telephone
service, such as:

    - The ability to cause a call trace record to be
      generated by the telephone company for later inquiry,
    - The ability to automatically return a call from the
      last number which called a telephone,
    - The ability to block incoming calls from a list of
      one or more numbers,
    - The ability to enable distinctive ringing for calls
      from one or more numbers

All of the above mentioned features will be welcome additions
to the services offered by New England Telephone.  However, one
additional feature is of significant concern:

    - The ability for any subscriber to obtain the number
      of the telephone which is currently calling.

There are serious privacy problems associated with providing
this information to anyone except law enforcement agencies.

A subscriber may wish to call a business to obtain information
about a product without that business automatically being able
to place the calling telephone number on a list for follow-up
sales calls.

A subscriber may wish to place a call from a private number,
and would like for the called party to return calls only to
a number specified by the caller, not necessarily the number
from which the call is currently being placed.  For example,
a personal call made from a business number might properly
only be returned at home, or a business call made while at
home might properly only be returned to the business number.

            -2-

A woman in a battered women's shelter may wish to call her
children without making it possible for her husband to
determine her location.

The Massachusetts DPU and Attorney General should study the
privacy implications of this feature.  If calling number
display devices are to be permitted at all, subscribers must
be able to disable transmission of the number from which they
are calling, must be able to do this from any and all tele-
phones within the Commonwealth at no added cost, and must be
able to disable calling number transmission without remembering
to dial a special code before each call.

Sincerely,

John R. Covert

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

Date:     Wed, 15 Mar 89 22:05:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  A Problem With Copyright

In Volume 9, Issue 82, Message 1 we had an article by John R. Levine discussing
the AOS situation. His message included excerpts from an article which had
appeared earlier on the Dow Jones Broadtape for February 28, 1989.

Dow Jones has since contacted Mr. Levine to complain of copyright violation
in the use of those excerpts here without their permission, and they have
asked that copies of that message be deleted from our archives, and that
distribution of that message be halted.

I have removed the message from the telecom-archives file at bu-cs.bu.edu
and from the back.issues file here at eecs.nwu.edu. I have requested that
Chip Rosenthal delete the message from his archives file and that he issue
a cancellation notice to the net.

I am likewise asking those of you who read TELECOM Digest via any of the
several expansion lists fed from the master list to kindly remove
message 1 from volume 9, issue 82 and substitute this message in its place.

Other moderators and users may wish to take caution and use this as their
guideline when quoting/excerpting the publications of Dow Jones in messages
posted.

Thank you.

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #92
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Fri Mar 17 01:51:55 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA00138; Fri, 17 Mar 89 01:51:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08715; 17 Mar 89 0:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08692; 17 Mar 89 0:31 CST
Date:     Fri, 17 Mar 89 0:31:24 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #93
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Mar 89 00:04:32 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) (Fred R. Goldstein)
    ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments (Bernie Cosell)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Dean Riddlebarger)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Jeff Makey)
    Calling Party ID (Ken Levitt)
    Calling Number ID - Letter to N. E. Telephone (John R. Covert)

[Moderator's Note: After several days of the heaviest mail volume I have
ever seen on a single topic, we now have seen the numerous PROS and CONS
to Calling Party ID. Like it or not, I suspect it is here to stay. With
that in mind, what alternatives exist to protect the privacy of both
parties to a phone call? In this first part of a two part Digest, I've
saved the best for first: Fred R. Goldstein talks about Calling Line
Identification Restriction. When implemented, it will combine privacy
protections *and* ease of caller identification in one package.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Mar 89 09:35
Subject: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR)

All of this brouhaha (sp?) about Calling Line ID is guaranteed to add
heat, but I don't see a lot of light.  So in the interests of keeping
the flamage more to point, I'll volunteer a little more information.

I am a member of ANSI Technical Subcommittee T1S1, which is the US
standards body for ISDN and other new telephone network services.  One
of these services (in the ISDN context) is Calling Line ID (CLID).
Today it's a kludge, but in the ISDN protocols (which are almost the
same for circuit-mode telephony and packet-mode data), the incoming call
message includes the calling number.  Of course, you have to subscribe
to the CLID feature or that particular information element won't be
sent.  (BTW, the CCITT but not ANSI is working on Connected Line ID,
which tells you where you call was actually answered, if forwarded.)

One of the nice things about CLID is that it is accompanied by CLID
Restriction (CLIR).  To quote a very recent service description,

    Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) is a
    supplementary service offered to the calling party to restrict
    presentation of the Calling Line Identification, possibly with
    additional address information to the called party.

There are several modes of CLIR.  You can subscribe to it in
permanent mode, so it's active for all calls.  You number is thus
never displayed.  (This might be overriden for 911, but it's not
mentioned in the document.)  You can subscribe to it in temporary
mode, so that the called number is displayed or not displayed on
a per-call basis (either default is available).  There's also
provision for a User-Provided Number as well as the Network-Provided
Number.

The proposed CLIR is designed to answer most of the "privacy" issues.
Whether it costs extra is up to your (state) regulatory body.  Whether
it's implemented is up to the CO vendors (AT&T and NT, in the US) and
the telcos (who will tell them what to implement).  I expect that
within a couple of years, CLIR will be deployed along with CLID.
Provided that this actually occurs, the "privacy" issues should be
quelled.

It is the interim arrangements that are potentially more abusive.
Since people don't have the CLIR option today, there is potential
for abuse.  Defaulting unlisted numbers to restricted would probably
help a bit, but in any case this transition period won't be free
of conflict.

BTW, there are reasons why you definitely might want a business to
know your number.  If, for instance, your electric service goes west,
then if you call the electric company's ACD and there's a long queue
of waiting people (since your neighbors are calling too!), their
computer can do a lookup on the numbers and see that there's a flurry of
calls from a certain area.  Heck, if I had "CLIR Temporary - Default
Restricted", then in that case, I'd hit the override code!

I'd also note that 911 service for years has included calling party ID.
The police have long had it; now it's becoming available to the rest of
us.   And the "women's shelter" issue might also be mooted by CLIR, but
in any case, having their number wouldn't reveal the address.  Some
folks are looking for controversy where there needn't be any.
       fred

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

Date:     Thu, 16 Mar 89 10:09:59 EST
From:     Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments

It is nice to see that our national columnist think through these things so
clearly as they sit down to pour out their opinions:


> Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune, Monday, March 13, 1989
>
>
> "For obvious reasons, my home phone number is unlisted. But a guy once
> managed to find it and amuse himself by making drunken, abusive calls late
> at night. After several nights of this, I had to change my number..."

Right, Mike.  And the first time you call the local theatre to find out what
time the movie starts, your precious unlisted number ain't so hidden any
more.

In fact, the more I think about it, the less useful ANI becomes:
either you NEVER answer your phone if it isn't a phone number you
recognize (gee Mike, do you REALLY know the phone numbers of EVERY one
of your colleagues at the Tribune?  and if one has to call you from one
of *their* friends houses are they really out of luck??), or else you
DO.  And if you're being harrassed, it takes a *real* dimwit to do that
from their home phone (I agree that phone harrassment is a dimwit
activity, but to presume that such a person would be careful to use
their home phone seems REALLY naive, no?).

It is astounding to hear people talk about not answering *any* call
from an unrecognized number (and I hope that someday it
isn't your sister with an emergency calling from a pay phone).  So what good
*is* ANI?  Far as I can tell, about the only thing it is good for is to allow
you to recognize the number as being one of your "always-speak-to"s, and so
you answer it right away, whereas if it is from anyone else you screen it
with your answering machine.  Is that really it???  If so this is all quite
remarkable: all of this technology and all of these privacy questions *just*
so that you can receive calls from your friends without having your answering
machine intercede.  Sheesh...

   __
  /  )                              Bernie Cosell
 /--<  _  __  __   o _              BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238
/___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_             [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 06:44 CST
From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension

Patrick,

No rebuttal, I'm afraid; I don't disagree with most of your arguments.
The thing that interests me about the whole situation is simply why
people are suddenly getting hot and bothered over such a thing.  It may
have something to do with the fact that personal ANI is, well, personal,
and it usually takes a situation in which new technology comes in
the front door of your home to make you think about such things.
[Come on all you closet sociologists....let's have some opinions on
this!]

I would be a bit more worried about the fact that telco and governmental
agencies have had access to ANI-like functions [and more!] for years
and years, and we have seen demonstrated instances of abuse.  Review
a certain case involving Cincinnati Bell, various citizens and
officials, and the FBI if you want an example straight from current
events.  In addition, major companies will most likely add this
new offering much faster than average homeowners, such equipment
options have been known for a few years  [relating to ISDN oriented
announcements], and we have not seen half the furor that the home-use
announcements have caused.

When a new product, service, or option comes along it has always
proven very hard to legislate or adjudicate it out of existence.  Most
of the whiners would be better off if they focused on creating legal
structures to guard against or provide recourse in the event of
abuse.


Dean Riddlebarger
Systems Consultant - AT&T
[216] 348-6863
reasonable path: att!crfax!crnsnwbt!rdr

Disclaimer:  They pay the bills, but I don't pretend to represent their
views [and I suspect everyone prefers it that way!].


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

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 22:11:50 pst
From: Jeff Makey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID

In TELECOM Digest Vol. 9 No. 86, Patrick Townson writes:
>Where people get the idea
>they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me.

Since the invention of the telephone more than 100 years ago, callers
have always been anonymous unless they choose to identify themselves.
This is quite a precedent to be overcome.  As others have already
pointed out here in the TELECOM Digest, there are legitimate reasons
for a caller to be anonymous.

It amazes me that calling party ID technology has been developed
without two complementary options:

    (1) the option for the caller to make anonymous calls; and

    (2) the option to have an individual telephone line automatically
        refuse (without even ringing) incoming anonymous calls.

These two options (which one should be able to toggle on a per-call
basis) give the best of both worlds, allowing both the caller and
callee to protect their privacy as they see fit.

                        :: Jeff Makey
                           [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 11:10:47 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID


<David Gast <[e-mail]> writes>

DG> In reality, it is not likely to help that much.  The solicitors could
DG> block their identification.

With the proper equipment, I will route all calls with blocked ID to an
answering machine.

DG> The solicitors could get phones under innocuous sounding names--Bill
DG> Jones, for example.  Since only a few numbers would be recognizably bad,
DG> the solicitors will just switch phone numbers.

Again, assumeing proper equipment, I don't care what phone number they are
calling from.  All calls that are not from a list of known numbers in my
database will be routed to an answering machine at certain times of the day.

DG> Finally, these solicitors will be gaining a huge data base
DG> of calling patterns from which to tailor-make their calls.

I will be blocking my ID whenever a call to a business is made.  Without
the blocking feature, I am against the whole concept.

Ken Levitt

--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Mar 89 16:55
Subject: Calling Number ID - Letter to the President of New England Telephone

[This letter is similar to my letter to the Mass DPU and
Attorney General which appeared in V9#92.  I have replaced
identical portions with summaries in brackets.  --jrc]

16 March 1989

Mr. Paul O'Brien
President
New England Telephone Company
185 Franklin Street
Boston, Massachusetts  02110

New England Telephone has announced a new family of telephone
features called CLASS.  Many of these features provide useful
enhancements to telephone service.  I applaud the provision
of the following services:

    - The ability to cause a call trace record to be
      generated by the telephone company for later use
      in apprehending persons making harrasing calls,
    - [Return call]
    - [Call block]
    - [Distinctive ringing]

However, one additional feature is of significant concern:

    - The ability for any subscriber to obtain the number
      of the telephone which is currently calling.

Today, if I call a New England Telephone operator and ask for
the number I'm calling from, the operator will explain that
that information is private and may not be revealed.  Yet
calling number identification will transmit that information
to anyone I call.

[Reveal only to law enforcement, obtain product info without
being put on a follow-up sales call list, do not reveal
office number to personal correspondents or home number to
business correspondents.]

A woman in a battered women's shelter may wish to call her
children without making it possible for her husband to
determine her location.  Although she could go to a pay
phone, the area code and first three digits of the pay
phone will reveal her approximate location.

My objection is not that the caller is being identified.
I would not object if it were possible to display the name
of the person actually placing the call (even when the call
is being made from a phone listed in another name).

My objection is that a number, not necessarily a number at
which the caller wishes to receive calls, is automatically
transmitted to the called party.

[If provided at all, must be able to disable easily and at
no additional cost.]

Sincerely,

John R. Covert

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #93
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Fri Mar 17 02:28:34 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA02545; Fri, 17 Mar 89 02:28:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10476; 17 Mar 89 1:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10470; 17 Mar 89 1:14 CST
Date:     Fri, 17 Mar 89 1:14:26 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #94
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Mar 89 00:46:15 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular Service in Phoenix (David Dodell)
    Re: Cellular service (Donn F. Pedro)
    Cellular Service - Charging in New York (John R. Covert)
    Re: Do American phones work in Australia? (Dave Horsfall)
    British phone wiring (Jonathan Haruni)
    Re:  Pay phones that disable the keypad (Frank Prindle)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Marc T. Kaufman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 07:25:49 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Service in Phoenix


I guess we are lucky here in Phoenix.  Metro Mobile, the non-wireline
service,  only charges for completed calls.  Busy/No-answers accumulate no
charge.   There is also no charge for calling their customer service or
technical  numbers, 911 or the test number "TEST".

Another new thing instituted here, which is also no charge, is *33.  This is
a direct connection to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (our state
police) for reporting drunk drivers on the state highways.  I should add that
both Metro Mobile, and US West Cellular (the wireline carrier) have added this
service.

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]

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

From: Donn F Pedro <mcgp1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular service
Date: 17 Mar 89 04:32:49 GMT
Organization: THE WAR ROOM on Elliot Bay.


In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:
> With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its
> installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be
> raised. Having recently visited the LA area as a roamer from GTE
> Mobilnet, San Francisco, it seems that the good people of southern
> California are being taken for a ride.

Not by Cellular One......
> PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
> charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
> answered or not.

Cellular One in LA does not do this.
>
>
> This all appears to be the biggest legal scam I have ever seen. First,
> charge for *everything*, then make sure most calls simply bomb (while
> charging for the attempt), and after that take a long time to complete
> calls thereby ensuring that each and every call is at least two minutes
> long.
>
> Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy?

Dont like it. Vote with your wallet!!!!  When you get in the LA
area contace Cellular One and setup roaming with them.  Their
system is reliable and their billing is fair.  You do not get
charged for calls not completed.
> John Higdon
> john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

What can I say... I work for them.


    Donn F Pedro ................................ a.k.a. donn@mcgp1
        else: {the known world}!uw-beaver!uw-enthropy!thebes!mcgp1!donn
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 "You talk the talk. Do you walk the walk?"



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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Mar 89 07:30
Subject: Cellular Service - Charging in New York

>Nynex mobile service, the wireline carrier here in the New York City
>CGSA, also charges air time for incomplete calls.

I've never been charged air time by NYNEX in New York City except on
completed calls.  Are you sure?

/john

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

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do American phones work in Australia?
Date: 15 Mar 89 06:03:48 GMT
Organization: Alcatel-STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    bunny![e-mail] (Mark Feblowitz) writes:
|
| Please let me know if the phones are compatible with Australia's
| switches with or without modification. Also, do prevailing regulations
| permit the use of privately owned CPE?

Well, no-one else has answered (at least in public), so...

The answer is a firm definite "maybe" (apologies to Fred Flintstone).
Tone-dial phones should be no problem, but they are still rare in Oz.
Pulse-dial will work anywhere, but I believe the mark-space ratio is
different - 2:1 break/make or something like that.  And don't try
anything clever with call-progress indicators - they're different.

Legally, you can plug in your own device (they use a big 4-prong affair
by the way, but RJ-11 adaptors are available), but it needs Telecom approval.
This requirement is more often than not ignored - just unplug the device
and hide it if Telecom come a-knockin' :-)

Telecom also freak out over mains-powered devices on their lines, besides,
our power is 240 volt 50 Hz.

Summary?  They might work, then again maybe not.

Hmmm... just realised this is the 3rd enquiry on the Australian phone
system in a month or so...  Maybe I should be saving my replies and
just issue them as & when.

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel-STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
            Self-regulation is no regulation

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

Date:    Thu, 16 Mar 89 01:54:54 EST
From:    Jonathan Haruni <[e-mail]>
Subject: British phone wiring
Organization: University of Toronto

I'm moving to the UK.

My modem is supposedly "international" in that is has a software switch
to change the make/break timing when pulse dialing to match the US or UK
standards.

However, there is nothing in the manual about rewiring the plugs to suit
UK standards.  Does anyone know anything about that ?

I've looked inside some phones in the UK, and they seem to use a four-wire
system for a single line.  Is this true ?  If it is, how could my modem
possibly be used there, when it uses the north-american two-wire system ?

Can north american phones be used in the UK ?  Is the color coding of
the wiring the same on both sides of the ocean ?

Excuse my ignorance, please.  I've just never had any opportunity to
tinker with or read about the UK phone system, and I'd like to use my
modem there.  I'd appreciate any help.

Jonathan Haruni
[e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 08:52:02 EST
From: Frank Prindle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Pay phones that disable the keypad

I recently got very annoyed while trying to use a COCOT in a public place
for an emergency call (not 911, but a call to notify someone's relative of
an emergency).  Not having any coins handy, I proceeded to use my (non-Bell)
calling card which requires I dial a toll-free 800 number, then key in my
PIN and the number I was calling.  Naturally, you-guessed-it, the 800 call
went through, then the keypad went dead.  The call could not be placed.

Fortunately, the management was handy and found me another (private) phone to
use for the emergency situation.

Upon complaining to Bell of PA, I was informed that the BPA tarrifs do not
require that a COCOT be able to complete calling-card calls!  (the phone was
in violation on three other counts however: 1) no service number posted on
phone; 2) no phone number posted on phone; 3) charged $.85 to call 1-800-555-
1212.)

My point is that there are even more important reasons (than calling a tone
activated service such as a locator or a bank) that the tone-pad should
continue to work - namely any calling card except AT&T/Baby-Bell is likely
*not* to have an operator intercept to manually handle situations where no
tones can be generated.  I feel that the consumer should be able to rely on
any public phone (with a tone pad) to provide all the capabilities he normally
uses on a public phone.  Disabling the tone-pad at any time during a call
substantially reduces these capabilities.  I guess they expect everyone to
carry around a pocket tone generator in case a phone doesn't work right.

Sincerely,
Frank Prindle
[e-mail]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 17 Mar 89 06:17:32 GMT
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin
Sirbu) writes:

>The problem is not with caller ID per se, but with making it compulsory. I see
>nothing wrong with providing callers the option to disable automatic
>forwarding of caller ID to callee.  If I am a drug prevention hot line,
>I will choose to accept all calls whether or not the caller has disabled
>forwarding of his/her ID.  On my home phone, I will probably choose not to
>answer or let my answering machine pick up, if caller ID has been diabled by
>the caller...

I read (somewhere ?) that calls to 911 will not complete if caller ID is
disabled.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

[Moderator's Note: I think not. Calls to 911 complete regardless. For example
here in Chicago, dialing the number 312-787-0000 connects to Chicago Emergency
while leaving the police dispatcher with a blank for the calling
number. This number is intended for use by TSPS operators, whom it
seems are unable to dial 911 from their consoles.

In theory, when the operator receives an emergency service request, he is
supposed to stay on the line until 911 (actually 787-0000) answers and then
pass the number *as he sees it* to the emergency dispatcher. Not all
of them bother doing it. Likewise, emergency calls are sometimes
placed to the City of Chicago centrex operators; they hit a transfer
button and send the call sailing off to 1121 South State Street at 911 H.Q.
Calls transferred that way do not show caller ID to the dispatcher either.
PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #94
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sat Mar 18 03:04:09 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA09537; Sat, 18 Mar 89 03:04:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20972; 18 Mar 89 1:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20949; 18 Mar 89 1:48 CST
Date:     Sat, 18 Mar 89 1:48:09 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #95
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Mar 89 01:32:58 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Gary W. Sanders)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Chris Schmandt)
    Re: Calling Party ID (ulysses![e-mail])
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Amanda Walker)
    Re: Calling party ID (John B. Nagle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gary W. Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 17 Mar 89 15:57:40 GMT
Reply-To: "Gary W. Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> "John B. Nagle" <glacier!jbn
@labrea.stanford.edu> writes:

>    Not matter what happens with enable and disable, I would
>hope that emergency services or at least the operator could
>override system paramters and force a phone to ring.

    Also I dont know about the rest of you, but unless this
services is free I doubt that I would ever want it. At work I need
to answer the phone whenever it rings or at least have my machine answer
it. At home I answer the phone. Do people really hate answering phones that
much? Do you really have that few friends that you could enter their phone
number into the "answer list"? I know the salemen are a pain, but
"no I am not interested" seems to stop them or hang up the phone.

    About the only thing I would like from calling party ID is to
tell me if its one of those machines calling. I hate coming
home and having my answering machine tape used up talking to some
other answering machine. These things are as bad as the machines
that call YOU and put YOU on hold to wait for a sales person. What a pain!!!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
writes:

>    If the phone company is going to ship the phone number
>of the call down the line, then how about some more info. Tell me
>the name of the person calling or at least the billing name. Sending
>me a phone doesn't give me much info, how many phone number
>do you know, I know freinds and family. You folks going to refuse to
>answer the phone just because the phone number is unknown? maybe
>uncle Bob has moved and want to tell you his new number....

    It seems that the telco's are trying to nickle and dime
folks to death with "service". I still wonder how a telco can
charge for touch tone service. Seem to me that they would want
to switch things around to get the "aunt Martha" off of rotary dial
and into the 90's. How much additional cost is added to a switch
to support pulse dial. Its got to start adding up.

--
Gary Sanders (N8EMR) gws@cbnews (w) gws@n8emr (h)
614-860-5965 (353-5965 cornet)

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

From: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 17 Mar 89 16:44:50 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sidney
Markowitz) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 87, message 5 of 7
>
>  <talk about MIT's 5ESS and ISDN system>
>
>It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the
>idea of being able to screen my calls.

It is indeed true that call screening is very useful.  Note that our
LCD display shows calling party *number*, not name.  Because we have
calling party ID for internal calls only, it also lets me see when
I'm getting an outside call.  It is convenient to be able to treat the
two cases differently (an inside call is usually brief and let's me help
someone in my organization get something done; outside calls are more
likely asking *me* to do something).

I've noticed a lot of use of calling party ID.  People will answer
the phone with "hi chris!", and it's not just us phone hackers, so
it must be useful.

The obvious solution to the privacy issue is that I would like two bits
on my phone.
 1) I will or will not allow my number to be transmitted
 2) I will or will not accept calls which do not ID calling party.

<I'd argue that given the widespread use of telemarketing, I would not
want to give my number to ANY business>

The problem is, it must be trivial (automatic?) to en/dis able the
first bit.  Here I have to dial a 2 digit prefix for privacy (called
party sees "private number" on the display).  That's fine for
occaisional use, but I think it would be inadequate for my taste
in my house.

(personally, I might be satisfied with banning telemarketing and
prefix-override for those occaisional calls which really should be
anonymous).

Otherwise, great business for those AOS's running (anonymous) pay
phones!!

chris

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

From: ulysses![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:54:32 EST
Subject: Calling Party ID

I'll throw a few more packets into the fray, some of them maybe even
saying something (a) new, and (b) factual...

First, when telephone solicitors call, you will not gain any meaningful
ability to call them back.  Outbound-only lines like that, in a modern
exchange, do not even have a real phone number, just an internal line
id.  (The same is true, incidentally, of many hunt groups -- there's
only a single number for the whole thing.  I personally hate that,
since it keeps me from dialing past a dead modem.)

Even without that, it'll be a while before you get the number on
calls not handled by your switch, as best I can tell (and from the
few answers I've seen to my query); SS #7 just isn't widely-enough
deployed, it seems.

Second, most of the claimed benefits of calling party ID can be obtained
without giving away numbers.  There's already a ``trace'' function
as part of the package -- if you get a harassing call, you dial a special
code and the phone company records the number, to be revealed only
via proper investigative procedures.  The same sort of thing could be
done for call-blocking (I don't want to hear from this number), or via
a user-specified list -- you supply the switch with a list of numbers and
a category code, and it tells you what category a call is in.  It's not
hard to see how to feed that back to the switch after a call -- tell
it how to sort the last call you got.

Yes, those variants mean you give the telco your list of numbers, but
(a few abuses notwithstanding) the phone company has a pretty good record
of keeping such material confidential.  And of course, things can be
implemented so that these records aren't available to the maintenance
craft people, but only to those with special authorization.

Some saner laws making your calling records your property, and not the
phone company's, would make subpeonas for that type of information a
bit more rational; you'd have to be served with the papers (and hence
have the opportunity to contest it), rather than the phone company.

Third, several parties to this discussing have said they wouldn't mind
the feature if there were a way to disable it.  There isn't necessarily
such an option; in particular, NJ Bell has not enabled that code.
(If you think about it, of course, the phone company has very little
interest in unlisted numbers or anything else that hinders folks' ability
to call you; they make their money on calls.)

Finally, the whole topic can be discussed in much calmer language; I was
quite appalled by the tone of the Moderator's original posting (and for
that matter some of the quoted columns and editorials).  It's possible
to discuss the question without namecalling:  I'll promise not to call
folks fascist pigs if they'll stop calling me a pinko liberal commie....

        --Steve Bellovin

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

From: Amanda Walker <lts![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 17 Mar 89 21:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: Amanda Walker <lts![e-mail]>
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Reston, VA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

       As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner
   guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I
   paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience - not theirs."

This is basically my opinion;  I don't have a phone as a service to anyone
who feels they want to call me;  I installed it for my own convenience.
I pay for it, after all.  I should be able to decide how and when I use it.

Also, something I haven't seen mentioned in this debate is the idea that
there are businesses that would be hurt by mandatory caller-id reporting.
They may be annoying, but they're not illegal--things like high-pressure
telemarketing "boiler rooms."  It kind of takes the edge of a hard sell if
someone can say "I'll think about it and call you back..."

It's not black and white, and because of that I think that the ability to
disable caller id reporting is important.  It keeps the most options open
for everyone.

--
Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation
[e-mail] / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170
--
C combines the flexibility of assembler with the power of assembler.

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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling party ID
Date: 17 Mar 89 17:39:35 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


Questions:

1.    What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension?  Is
      the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk?  Even
      assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
      outward, is there a defined interface for this?  What happens when the
      outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
      is not that unusual?

2.    What about inter-LATA calls?  Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
      or plan to?  Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
      long distance carriers?

3.    What about international calls?

4.    Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
      not known"?

5.    Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?

                    John Nagle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #95
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sat Mar 18 03:44:30 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA12103; Sat, 18 Mar 89 03:44:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21782; 18 Mar 89 2:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21777; 18 Mar 89 2:24 CST
Date:     Sat, 18 Mar 89 2:24:16 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #96
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Mar 89 02:00:25 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan (Jeffrey Silber)
    Cellular in L.A. (John R. Covert)
    MCI, PAC*BELL in cahoots? (Linc Madison)
    Pay phones that disable the keypad (Linc Madison)
    Grounded in truth? (Guy)
    Dimwit (Robert M. Hamer)
    Number privacy for fee? (Barry C. Nelson)
    What is the purpose of *62? (W. Gregg Stephancik)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Lawrence V. Cipriani" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan.
Date: 17 Mar 89 13:17:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


> [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, no. Not a nickle for an employee to
> be on the premises 24 hours per day ...  Fire Eibel because ...
> *his* decision that million dollar switches don't need attendants at
> all times -- has decided to continue playing it reckless. PT]

The decision that switching machines don't need attendants at all times was
made many years ago in AT&T.  The centralized operation administration and
maintenance of switching machines saves phone companies millions of dollars
every year.  It isn't going to go away even with Hilsdale disaster.

I wouldn't hold any one person responsible for that debacle, except the
technician who ignored the initial alarms.  I almost certain Eibel couldn't
get a technician at every switch even if he wanted to.  After divestiture
many of the phone company operations and procedures went unchanged.  They just
make good economic sense, but that isn't to say there isn't room for
improvement.

By the way, some switches are literally impossible to have an attendant at
since they are in underground sealed vaults.

I speak only for myself, AT&T has nothing to do with this note.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbnews!lvc or [e-mail]

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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan.
Date: 17 Mar 89 14:45:03 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY



The inability to shut off power in COs is apparantly not uncommon.  During a
tour of our local NYNEX CO the foreman instructed us how to shut off the
incoming (power company) current, but said that there was no effective way
of shutting off the battery power, and no guarantee that even if everything
was done that the power was really off.  Not a really good incentive for
firefighters to go charging ahead.

It seems to me that halon protection is the most logical for these sites,
and that would be the most cost-effective from society's view.


Jeffrey Silber
Lieut. Cayuga Heights F.D.
--
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
                                                         --Sen. Everett Dirksen
Jeffrey A. Silber/[e-mail]
Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science &
Engineering

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Mar 89 12:17
Subject: Cellular in L.A.

In recent messages from John Higdon (zygot!john) and Donn Pedro (donn@mcgp1)

>>it seems that the good people of southern California are being taken for
>>a ride
>>
>> PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
>> charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
>> answered or not.
>
>Cellular One in LA does not do this.

There is no Cellular One in L.A.  (See my reply in V9#88.)

The "A" carrier is L.A. Cellular, and they charge *exactly* the same rates
as PacTel Cellular (.70 peak and .24 off peak) with incomplete calls charged
at 50% (so don't let that phone ring for a long time) by both carriers.

>Dont like it. Vote with your wallet!!!!  When you get in the LA
>area contact Cellular One and setup roaming with them.

Would be nice, but not only is there no Cellular One in L.A., but L.A. Cellular
won't even accept credit card roamers.  So unless your home carrier has an
automatic roaming agreement with L.A. Cellular, you're stuck with PacTel.

And if your carrier doesn't have a roaming agreement with EITHER carrier (as is
the case for BOTH Boston systems (NYNEX and Cellular One), then you have to set
up credit card roaming with PacTel, at a $15 charge for 1-30 days.

>Their system is reliable and their billing is fair.
>What can I say... I work for them.

I presume (from your mcgp1 address) that you work for McCaw Communications.
Too bad you didn't check your information about L.A. before posting it.

BTW, for the general edification of the rest of the readership, there is not a
single company called "Cellular One."  The name "Cellular One" is licensed from
Southwestern Bell for a nominal annual charge.  Most, if not all, McCaw owned
cellular carriers use the name Cellular One, however, the name is also used
by Southwestern Bell in Boston, Washington, and Chicago.  In those cities where
Southwestern Bell is the local wireline carrier, they do not use the name
Cellular One -- in fact the even license it to their competition!  In some
cities the name Cellular One is used by a local company having no outside
affiliations.

/john

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 17:34:56 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI, PAC*BELL in cahoots?

The MCI person was a bit confused.  As a happy user of MCI's "Around Town"
feature, I can fill you in on what they mean about eliminating charges for
calls from San Mateo.

If you use your AT&T or Sprint calling card, you are billed a surcharge
($1.05 or $0.55, or who-knows-what if it's intrastate).  However, if you
use your MCI card from any phone within a nebulously-described "local"
area around your home phone #, it goes through at the same rate as if you
dialed it from home -- no 55c surcharge.

The "local" area is actually rather generous: I live in Berkeley and made
a call from San Rafael, which is just across the line from ZUM-3 to Toll,
(about 20 miles in real terms) but it still went through as "Around Town."

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]
I have no connection to MCI except that I carry their calling card.
(In fact, my home service is on Sprint....)

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 17:39:55 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay phones that disable the keypad

I've run into the same problem with pay phones operated by AT&T
(their blue phones that don't take coins or cards).  It infuriates
me.  I can see no legitimate purpose in disabling the keypad.
One "800" number I frequently use is to my bank's computer, to
see if a check or deposit has cleared.

The experience with the AT&T phones has been mostly in Calif.,
but they seem to have changed their mind, at least in some areas.
Personally, if I can possibly help it, I use no pay phone other
than a genuine Pacific Bell.

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]
I have no connection to any company, except for the little
brown phone rumored to be hiding under the pile of stuff on
my floor.

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

Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 89 15:12:57 LCL
From:     [e-mail]
Subject:  Grounded in truth?

Can this possibly be true?  (I don't know its source.)

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

AN UNUSUAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CALL

This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual
telephone service call he handled while living in England.

It is common practice in England to signal a telephone subscriber by
signaling with 90 volts across one side of the two wire circuit and ground
(earth in England). When the subscriber answers the phone, it switches to
the two wire circuit for the conversation. This method allows two parties
on the same line to be signalled without disturbing each other.

This particular subscriber, an elderly lady with several pets called to
say that her telephone failed to ring when her friends called and that on
the few occasions when it did manage to ring her dog always barked first.
Torn between curiosity to see this psychic dog and a realization that
standard service techniques might not suffice in this case, Pat proceeded
to the scene. Climbing a nearby telephone pole and hooking in his test
set, he dialed the subscriber's house.  The phone didn't ring. He tried
again. The dog barked loudly, followed by a ringing telephone. Climbing
down from the pole, Pat found:

    a.   Dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron
         chain and collar
    b.   Dog was receiving 90 volts of signalling current
    c.   After several jolts, the dog was urinating on ground and barking
    d.   Wet ground now conducted and phone rang.

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 08:17 EST
From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dimwit

>     And if you're being harrassed, it takes a *real* dimwit to do that
>from their home phone (I agree that phone harrassment is a dimwit
>activity, but to presume that such a person would be careful to use
>their home phone seems REALLY naive, no?).

Several years ago I got harassing phone calls from a person who turned out
to be doing it from her home phone (after the telco traced it...).  Of
course, she WAS a dimwit...

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:58:04 EST
From: "Barry C. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Number privacy for fee?

After reading Bernie's input today I got the idea that there could be people
out there who REALLY don't want to have their numbers displayed under any
circumstances, and may be willing to pay for privacy services in areas where
there was no masking (CLIR) option available.

What sort of trouble would a company get into with the following scheme? Say
they opened an inward WATS (1-800) service someplace and then (for a nominal
fee) forwarded the calls of privacy seekers to their intended destinations,
whereupon THEIR outWATS number would be displayed, giving the recipient no info
as to the caller (except that privacy was precious).

(This is purely an academic question, of course.)

Barry


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

From: [e-mail] (W. Gregg Stefancik)
Subject: Class *62
Date: 15 Mar 89 18:33:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W. Gregg Stefancik)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department


A friend of mine in NJ has CLASS features enabled on his phone.  When he
dials *62 (an undocummented CLASS style number) he gets 4 beeps.  We would
both like to know what *62 is for.  Anybody have any ideas?

W. Gregg Stefancik < [e-mail] >

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #96
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Sun Mar 19 01:31:16 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA12111; Sun, 19 Mar 89 01:31:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17889; 19 Mar 89 0:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17883; 19 Mar 89 0:16 CST
Date:     Sun, 19 Mar 89 0:16:38 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #97
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Mar 89 00:00:17 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Roy A. Crabtree)
    Re: ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments (Clayton Cramer)
    Privacy of telephone calling records (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Do you need a court order to trace a phone? (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: att!mtdca![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 16 Mar 89 14:27:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:
> Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me
> sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are
> somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making
> phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is
> calling us before we answer the phone.

Yes.  During the divorce I am still going through, I went through a
2-4 month period where I was getting sporadic "silent" or "heavy breathing"
calls; when it finally hit me that this was not a random event, or
possibly not, I made a point of raising the topic in conversations
with those concerned.  I pointedly noted that some of the Telco
billing systems noted not only long distance, but also local,
telephone calls; not onyl who originated, but who hung up.

After that, the pattern changed from10-15 second "silent" calls to
1-2 ring "no party/dial tone" calls.  SO, I received some conirmation
of the source of the harrassment.  (Believe it or not, my attourney
advised me to simply let it go...  divorce is as bad in terms
of legal representation as you may have heard it rumored to be).

What I failed to mention was that ringing tome typically did a 2-second
here, 2-second there pattern, so that if I was clost to the phone,
I had a good chance of getting a pick up in the frst ring.  Nor
did I mention that billing records not typically printed with the
telephone bill would in some ESS areas would ID all local calls.

So, I have a very high interest in seeing this type of thing
available; I would prefer to have it on my telephone bill as well,
in terms of incoming calls to my phone(s).

> A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered
> the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be)
> illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give
> testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their
> victim(s).

This _can_be_ an area of great concern.  Look back to the 1920s, and later on,
when some legislators have made attempts to mandate the use of the
social security card as a national identity card.  The big thing
is that this opens the door on a lot of thing.  It is not a trivial matter;
fundamentally, your identity is your own, and _no_one_ should be
allowed to force you to have to reveal it (all other things being
equal, no crime in progress, etc.)  This is a basic principle,
which I agree with totally.

The flip side is, every _other_ individual has the right to require you
to identify yourself if they are going to deal with you.  This prevents
blindside harrassment opportunities.  So both sides are in the right
in this discussion.

> Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in
> the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know
> ahead of time who has come to visit you. What of the rights of computer
> system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of
> people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night?
> Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than
> the rest of us.

I would hope that the protection of both sides can be arranged.  In the
past being black, gay, having AIDS (cancer, tuberculosis, leprosy),
not being blue eyed Aryan, etc.  There is, by the way; read on.

> What truely makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by
> this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge
> -- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity
> of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to
> 'tracing a call'. If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before

Yah.  Judges have been known to make somewhat less than sanguine decisions;
such as having a three year old travel 3.5 hours round trip for a two
hour visitation.  (OH, I could go on).  But they are also human, and
prone to all of the ailments involved.  Getting the apporpriate
information to the judge involved at the right time (yes, it does
make a difference; the attourneys I have been involved with have been
frank frank in (very, very privately) noting that Judgements change
radically if there was no coffee for Him in the morning; they have also
commented on how weak a particluar judge may be).

    Pardon my sexist commentary: coffee for Her in the morning.

> she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in
> violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than
> an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what
> is your call about?'

Precisely:  there is an easy way out of this dichotomy.

> So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea
> they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me.

The main worry about this is that in a situation involving an overwhelming
preponderance of power, the act of attempting communication _at_all_
can be used as a suppressive means to _prevent_ the accurate transmittal
of attestments.  I have been involved with such a scene, to my horror;
being confronted with 4-5 police officers in an encloistered room with
no witnesses changes your idea about these protections, rather rapidly.

Please note I have no favor with the ACLU: I like their ideals,
disagree with some of their decisions and pursuits, and have been
in a bad scene with them as well.  When I attempted to pass on
this particular occurrence to them, they would not even listen to it
unless an act of actual _physical_ abuse could be demonstrated.

Please note:  the Gestapo did not carry out much physical abuse
during a large interval of the war; they did not have to:  fear of
them stopped most attempts at resistance, and for those that did,
there were other branches of the "government" to carry out the
"appropriate procedures" then in common practique.

> Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed.

So here is how to resolve the conflict, really simply:  I want to talk to you,
and you want to talk to me.  I do not want to abridge your rights, and you
do not want to enfringe on mine.  Neither of us wants to harrass the other.
SO, no calling party ID is needed; a verbal "Who are you?" is
enough; if you refuse to ID, I can hang up.

Given the new service available, the Telco on each end of the conversation
can ask each subscriber these questions:

    - Do you want to ID yourself to the called party?

        = name or unique identity (credit or
          calling cards can provide this)
        = station address (telephone number)
        = Unique anonymity code on a per call basis
          (I do not want you to trace me, but I am
          willing to allow later valid authorities
          to trace this call to a unique location and
          time)
        = Regional anonymity code (identified to a
          region, a Telco, or some broader form of
          anonymity); or various flavors if this.
        = Total anonymity

    - DO you wish to accept calls from parties who ID
      corresponds to any of the classes above? Do you wish
      to place calls to people who will not ID themselves
      as recipients?

    - Do you wish your calling party to know who you are?
      To what level? (The same as s/he is willing to let you
      know?)

    - Do you wish to see calling party information on your
      telephone right away or at billing time?  And in the
      reverse direction?

With computers which enable the calling party ID service at all,
this type of capability is no additional equipment expense; the
additional reverse channel communication should be zero in ALL
intraLATA (or whatever they call'em today) calls (the switch
has all the pertinent information); and for interLATA calls,
a toll chargeback agreement implies reverse channel billing information,
along with some kind of a verification protocol; the additional
cost would be one more message pass (AT MOST) before the remote
would agree to accept the call and the local would agree to continue
to place it.  In many cases this is already the case just to exchange
basic accounting information.

    Yes, occassionally Telcos are known Not to Minimize Costs

By setting the defaults to:

    - Anonymous caller (I will remain anonymous when I call)
        with unique anonymity code
    - Anonymous accept (I will accept calls from people who
        will not identify themselves) with unique
        anonymity code
    - Anonymous receipt (I will call whoever answers)
    - Anonymous placing (I will not identify myself to the caller)

you have the situation just prior to calling party ID services;
with the additonal proviso that the Telco should keep records of these
anonymous calls for some period of time, or should print on a billing record
at the request of the party an anonymous code (different for each end
of the link, with only the Telco having the tying information:  the
rquest of the customer to have it on the billing record would be
enough to require it being kept by the Telco).

Probably ID'ed caller with anonymous accept & receipt, with unique
anonymity code for anonymous placing would be sufficient, as long
as some level of trust is placed in our officials (and I do).

So both sides of the coin can be satisfied.

How about it, folks?

roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc US 201-957-6033

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments
Date: 18 Mar 89 00:45:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]., [e-mail] (Bernie
Cosell) writes:
>> Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune, Monday, March 13, 1989
>>
>>
>> "For obvious reasons, my home phone number is unlisted. But a guy once
>> managed to find it and amuse himself by making drunken, abusive calls late
>> at night. After several nights of this, I had to change my number..."

>  Right, Mike.  And the first time you call the local theatre to find out what
>  time the movie starts, your precious unlisted number ain't so hidden any
>  more.

How do you they know which unlisted phone number belongs to which
person?  It's just the same as a random phone call, if you don't know
who is at that number.

> In fact, the more I think about it, the less useful ANI becomes:
> either you NEVER answer your phone if it isn't a phone number you
> recognize (gee Mike, do you REALLY know the phone numbers of EVERY one
> of your colleagues at the Tribune?  and if one has to call you from one
> of *their* friends houses are they really out of luck??), or else you
> DO.  And if you're being harrassed, it takes a *real* dimwit to do that
> from their home phone (I agree that phone harrassment is a dimwit
> activity, but to presume that such a person would be careful to use
> their home phone seems REALLY naive, no?).

I've had people made life threatening phone calls, long distance,
from their home phone, onto an answering machine tape.  The world
is full of dimwits.  (Several of them seem to have formed the ACLU).

--
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Anyone who wants to be a politician bad enough to get elected, shouldn't be.

Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 89 05:33:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy of telephone calling records

Steve Bellovin's comment about the need for better laws concerning the privacy
of telephone calling records is well taken.  Laws already on the books make
your bank records private -- i.e. a bank can't say that you gave up all
rights to privacy of your bank records when you asked them to make a
payment for you when you wrote a check.  It takes a court order to get
at your bank records.  A similar law should be on the books concerning
telephone call records.  Just because you gave the phone company a callee's
number in order to complete a call doesn't mean they should be able to
give out your call records without a warrent.

Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 89 13:05:09 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do you need a court order to trace a phone?
Organization: Segue Software, Inc.

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>The law says that if the person whose phone is being traced
>gives permission for the line to be traced, a court order
>is not necessary.
>
>From this argument, automatic calling party identification
>is completely legal. ...

Don't you have it backward?  The calling party is giving permission, not
the callee.  Caller ID is requested by the callee, not the other way around.

I have to second Bob Frankston's concerns about privacy issues, and to wish
a thousand junk phone calls from stock brokers, mail-order places, and
pizza delivery outfits upon anyone who thinks that caller ID blocking is
only for crooks.  Per call ID blocking is technically simple and provides
reasonable safeguards, and, of course, you've always been able to hang up
on callers who won't identify themselves.

Some people have suggested that facilities to call back whoever just called
you, and to ask the telco to record the number of the last (presumably
annoying) caller would be helpful.  I believe that in the Orlando trials both
of these were already available.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #97
****************************

From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Mon Mar 20 01:29:20 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA00427; Mon, 20 Mar 89 01:29:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20890; 20 Mar 89 0:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20873; 20 Mar 89 0:15 CST
Date:     Mon, 20 Mar 89 0:15:15 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #98
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Mar 89 00:03:23 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some notes on the UK phone system (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Re: Calling party ID (Dave Levenson)
    Privacy of telephone account records (John R. Covert)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update (Scott Barman)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Peggy Shambo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 18 Mar 89 12:09:50-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some notes on the UK phone system

I used to live in the UK about 5 years ago and here are some notes
on phones, wiring etc, based upon memory and recent observations.
Apologies for any inaccuracies, but I think most of this is close
to being pretty much true.

First of all, UK and US phones are basically compatible and you can
use either on either system (PTT/BOC regulations notwithstanding).
It may be that the pulse make/break ratio and rate is different
on paper, but it really does work in practice. I have a couple of
British phones on my home PBX (yes, I am a phone fanatic) and they
work just fine.

The standard UK rotary phone, which was all that was available up
until about 1980, has 4 wires going into it:

WHITE
RED
GREEN
BLUE

The WHITE and RED are connected directly to the outside world and
corresponds to the US red/green. The GREEN, in simple terms, powers
the bell of the phone. UK phones do not have the "anti-tinkle
circuit" found in most US phones, and to solve this problem the bell
is wired in such a fashion that if you lift the handset of one phone
it disables the bell of the other. This allows dialling without the
other phone(s) going tinga-linga-ling. In residences with only one
phone (very common), the GREEN is simply connected to the WHITE at the
wall socket. The BLUE is, as far as I can tell, only used in PBX
applications for a ground-start switch. Needless to say, only two
wires run from the customer premises to the CO.

The above applies to the "old" system. The more "modern" UK phone
system, uses a modular plug (different from its US counterpart),
electronic phones, and more and more Touch-Tone (in which case the
anti-tinkle circuit is unecessary).

It is interesting to note how the new British Telecom regulates
what you can and cannot do to their system. All phones have to
be "BT Approved" which is not that different from FCC sub 68
approved when you think about it. The difference lies in what
the consumer is allowed to do. You can purchase an "Add-your-own-
modular-extension" kit from any BT store, but you cannot buy
a tool to "modularize" an existing phone by putting on the
little white connector at the end of your line cord. Such tools
as well as open-ended cables can be purchased elsewhere, but
your aren't strictly supposed to use them.

The availability of different phones is pretty good, and in stores
you'll see familiar brands such as Panasonic. Once again there is a
peculiar difference: UK handset cords are NOT replaceable, at least
not by the consumer without special tools. On phones with modular
handset cords, the "release clip" is broken off such that you need a
screwdriver or similar object of just the right size in order to get
the cord loose. Why they did this is completely beyond me. (I have
also never seen "extra long handset cords" for sale which makes sense
if you can't easily replace them).

As mentioned earlier, many COs or "exchanges" as they are known over
there, accept touch-tone dialling, and processing seems even faster
than in the US. Calling the US from the UK seems alot faster than the
other way around. This may have to do with the fact that there are
more hierarchies of switches/LD interfaces through which the call has
to be processed over here. Also, I was told by someone who supposedly
knows, that WITHIN the UK the ringing the caller hears is generated by
the CALLERS CO rather (as is the case in the US) than by the CALLEES
CO. This is probably because they use CCITT Signalling System #7 or
their own variant where no voice path is opened until the call is
answered.

My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard.
It is a green credit card-sized card which comes in different values
(20 units, 100 units, etc.). Put one in the special PhoneCard phones
and dial away *anywhere*. There is no minimum charge, and you can
talk until the "money" runs out (1 unit = 10p). Of course, if you
call international, the units tick down pretty fast (as displayed
on the phone), but the system does have advantages over 0+ dialling
and other schemes which require surcharges and minimum deposits.
The only drawback is that you need to find the magic green PhoneCard
phones and keep a supply of cards, but many stores sell the cards
and the phones are becoming more and more common. Another reason
to travel to the UK!

Ole
-------

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling party ID
Date: 19 Mar 89 16:02:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
B. Nagle) writes:
> Questions:

> 1.    What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension?  Is
>       the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk?  Even
>       assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
>       outward, is there a defined interface for this?  What happens when the
>       outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
>       is not that unusual?

Yes, such an interface is defined.  State-of-the-art PBX equipment
compatible with CCIS is capable of sending and receiving caller-id
information.  These PBX's typically display caller-id information on
their special display-equipped telephone sets, and transmit the
calling station number on outgoing calls.


> 2.    What about inter-LATA calls?  Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
>       or plan to?  Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
>       long distance carriers?

In NJ, only intra-lata calls report caller id, as of today.  On many
calls from out-of-state, we get a caller-id display showing some
number with a Newark exchange prefix.  It turns out that this is the
number of the local outgoing trunk used by the inter-lata carrier
who handled the call!  Not helpful, but understandable.  When CCIS
connectivity exists between the inter-lata carriers and the local
exchange carriers, perhaps we'll see universal caller-id, but I
think it may be a few years before that happens.

> 3.    What about international calls?

see my thoughts on 2


> 4.    Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
>       not known"?

The information sent to the called subscriber by the CO does
distinguish between "caller ID suppressed" and "not known".  Whether
this difference is displayed depends upon which brand of caller-id
display is used.  Some do, and some always display ??? when no
number is received, and ignore the reason code.

> 5.    Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?

Colonial Data Technologies, of New Milford, CT, [phone],
currently markets a caller-id display for residential use.  They
tell me that they are developing a PC expansion card that receives
the caller-id info and makes if available to the PC software.  I
have no information on the projected availability of this product,
or the capabilities of the software with which it will probably be
bundled.

I expect that there will be a database of sorts where the user can
enter the information he wants displayed on his PC screen for each
calling number listed.  It is probably not practical to store the
entire North Jersey white pages in a PC-XT!

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


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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Mar 89 16:06
Subject: Privacy of telephone account records

>It takes a court order to get at your bank records.  A similar law should be
>on the books concerning telephone call records.  Just because you gave the
>phone company a callee's number in order to complete a call doesn't mean they
>should be able to give out your call records without a warrant.

Well, Marvin, I wish you were still here in Massachusetts to do battle with
N.E.T.  As one might suspect, CLID is only the tip of the iceberg.  Imagine
calling a number in an ad to find out more about a product, (or worse yet,
accidentally dialling a wrong number) and being greeted with a recording that
simply says "Your new fuzzy dice are on their way!"  A few days later they
arrive, along with a bill.  The laws pertaining to unsolicited merchandise
won't apply, because the phone company will have records of your call.

Yesterday I received the following notice from the Massachusetts Department
of Public Utilities:

    New England Telephone and Telegraph Company ("NET") is proposing
    to offer a Billing Information Service ("BIS") to Information
    Providers, entities who offer recorded or interactive services.

    The service will provide an end user's name, address, and calling
    number, as well as the called number, date, time, and duration of
    the call.

    The DPU will conduct a public hearing on the above matter at its
    hearing room, #1210 Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge
    Street, Boston, Massachusetts on Tuesday, 18 April 1989 at 11:00.

/john

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 18 Mar 89 16:34:33 GMT
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


In article <[e-mail]> Amanda Walker <lts!amanda@uunet.
uu.net> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>    [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

>>       As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner
>>   guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I
>>   paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience, not theirs."

>This is basically my opinion;  I don't have a phone as a service to anyone
>who feels they want to call me;  I installed it for my own convenience.
>I pay for it, after all.  I should be able to decide how and when I use it.

and as Walter Mathau said in the movie (title escapes me... about a female
justice of the Supreme Court): "the telephone has no constitutional right to
be answered."

When I first heard of caller-ID, I suggested to a large E-mail company that
they provide end-to-end ID over their net so that BBS operators could verify
users... and tag uploaded messages with the originator... so that SYSOPS could
pass the responsibility for content back to the source.

If you go to another country, you will discover that there is no 'right' to
even HAVE a phone, much less make anonymous calls with one.  As for using
mechanical counters for toll purposes... I suspect that is due more to ease
of implementation (in relay days) than to any real privacy related issue.

If you don't want to disclose who you are, send your questions via mail in an
envelope with no return address.    :-)

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update
Date: 16 Mar 89 23:55:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Judy Scheltema)
writes:
> . . . explanation of the war with SouthWest Bell and Oklahoma City BBS
>    users deleted...
>The latest news I heard from one of the leaders of this new user group was
>that some major big-wig of SWB and AT&T just flew into OKC in an uproar
>about the actions taken by SWB here so far.  Apparently, they do not like
>what the local executives are doing.  More to be seen on this soon.
>In addition, he told me that the lawyers who have agreed to help us are
>investigating an incident out in California about this.  Right now, that
>is all I know.

I am just curious in one point (I do support the BBS users/sysops/etc.
even though I do not call/use/run them):

    How can AT&T get involved?  Since the breakup I assume SWB is
on its own (governed by Public Service Commissions and their Regional Bell
Operating Co.) and I do not understand where AT&T fits in?

--
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott


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

From: Peggy Shambo <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri Mar 17 21:15:24 1989
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peggy Shambo)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM, Mundelein, IL


Interesting scenario:

Hubby:  Hi, hon.. sorry, but I gotta work late at the office.. again.
Wife:   (after noting # on display is that of her best friend, who
    is all alone while *her* hubby is out of town [his boss?]
        Fine, honey.  You can now call your favorite divorce lawyer.  :-)


--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Peg Shambo           | Sophisticated Lady, I know.          |  Ellington/
[e-mail]  | You miss the Love you had long ago   |  Mills/Parish
             | And when nobody is nigh, you cry.    |


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #98
****************************


From [e-mail]@bu-cs.BU.EDU  Tue Mar 21 01:56:31 1989
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA15352; Tue, 21 Mar 89 01:56:31 EST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28231; 21 Mar 89 0:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28226; 21 Mar 89 0:37 CST
Date:     Tue, 21 Mar 89 0:37:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #99
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:10:35 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID on Inbound-WATS (Marvin Sirbu)
    Calling Party ID: the economics (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Calling party ID (Erik Dufek)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Leslie Mikesell)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (ulysses![e-mail])
    Re: Number privacy for fee? (Randal L. Schwartz)
    International Calling party ID (John Murray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:20:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID on Inbound-WATS

Readers of Telecom Digest should know that AT&T already provides calling number
ID to in-bound WATS customers.  Part of their emerging ISDN service
capabilities, the inbound WATS caller ID is provided over a D channel
in conjunction with an ISDN primary rate interface to a PBX.  American
Express is already using it for their customer service operators.

Since the IECs automatically receive caller identity on every long distance
call (this is part of what equal access means-- the IEC gets caller ID
for billing purposes so that you don't have to dial a PIN code with
MCI anymore), the IECs already have this information and can pass it
on to the callee.

My understanding is that in the experience of American Express -- and
others who have subscribed to this service -- the caller's number is
only useful about 65% of the time.  That is, American Express would
like to use the caller ID to automatically call up on the customer
service rep's screen your account records before she picks up.
However, 35% of the time, the caller is coming from behind a PBX, or
is not calling from his or her usual number, and thus the customer
service rep must ask for the customer's name or account number and
call up the record manually.

At one point customer reps were answering the phone with "Hello Mr.
Smith" or whatever the customer's name was; customers found this so
disconcerting that the service reps stopped doing it.  Thus, if the
service rep asks for your name, she may already have your record in
front of her and is just checking....

See for example, the article in Communications Week for October 10, 1988,
"American Express briefs users on ISDN primary rate trial".  See also
article in Communications Week for Dec 5, 1988 on the accelerated
roleout of this capability which AT&T markets under the trade name
"Info-2" service.

Since most in-bound WATS would be governed by the FCC as an interstate
service, the FCC would have to rule on the privacy issue.  As far as I
know, the FCC has never considered it.

Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:20:49 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <@ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@ll-micro>
Subject: Calling Party ID: the economics
Reply-To: @ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@micro
Organization: None discernable

In the midst of all the interesting and spirited debating of the last week on
this subject, I think one issue has been slighted: the potential imbalance of
those subscribers getting this service.  I think the charge is on the order of
7 bucks/month, plus an $80 box which sits next to one phone in your house.
This would more than double the basic monthly rate for residential customers in
my state,  and I really think few would sign up for the CLASS service.  So you
have a situation where the majority of home users are *forced* to dial in the
'anonymity code' every time they wish to call a business or other place that
shouldn't get their number so easily.  I hope they have 'anonymity default'
settings for 'the rest of us' who will not be buying the service.

The local companies overcharge for all these 'value added' services: recently
they really made me guffaw when the local company itself telemarketed these
useless services, especially "speed-calling", where they want $4.12 per month
to do what any $20 cheapo phone can do: store 10 numbers.  They also charge 58
cents/month for touch-tone (but in most exchanges in this area, TT phones work
even for those who don't pay: not worth the bother of policing, I guess).

Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173
Phone [phone]     Fax [phone]  black@[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling party ID
Date: Sun, 19-Mar-89 05:39:29 PST

To those with non-published numbers who are complaining that they
will lose their anonymity when CPID is instituted I'd like to say
so what!  If you call me and your number is not displayed I won't
be answering the phone.  What is the reason for having a non-published
number?  Is it to make harrassment calls?  Is it so that you can make
calls at your convenience but I can't call you at mine?  I was
always under the impression that unlisted numbers were to prevent
harrassment from people who pulled your name from a phone book.
If you call me I'd assume I'd already have your number to return
the call.  So why won't you display it when you call me?  Who will
you call that you don't want to call you back?

As has been discussed previously in this news group, if someone wants
your number there are other places then the phone book to get it.
Public records in the DMV are the common source I've seen mentioned.

Erik Dufek        <[e-mail]>

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

From: Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 20 Mar 89 20:17:27 GMT
Reply-To: Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
writes:

>CPID service with caller suppressible ID and an answering machine
>seems like the ideal combination.  I don't have to tell you my phone
>number if I don't want to and you don't have to answer my call (live
>or at all) if you don't want to.

I hope it will be possible to tell the difference between someone who
intentionally suppreses the ID and someone who doesn't have the
new equipment.  Why would anyone answer a call if you know the caller
didn't want you to be able to call back?

Les Mikesell

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

From: ulysses![e-mail]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 09:40:02 EST
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension

     >From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
     Organization: Stanford University

     As for using mechanical counters for toll purposes... I suspect
     that is due more to ease of implementation (in relay days) than
     to any real privacy related issue.

Sorry, not so.  Or rather, while that may have been the original motive
for installing the pulse meters, the status quo is very loudly defended
on privacy grounds.

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz @ Stonehenge" <mipos3!intelob![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number privacy for fee?
Date: 20 Mar 89 17:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: mipos3!intelob![e-mail]
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via BiiN, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, bnelson@ccb (Barry C. Nelson)
writes:
| What sort of trouble would a company get into with the following scheme? Say
| they opened an inward WATS (1-800) service someplace and then (for a nominal
| fee) forwarded the calls of privacy seekers to their intended destinations,
| whereupon THEIR outWATS number would be displayed, giving the recipient no
| info as to the caller (except that privacy was precious).

I will grant you your wish.  Repeat after me:

   ALDS

Just sign up for an alternate long-distance service travel card (one
of those with an 800-number), and make all your "secret" calls with
the card.  Sheesh.  This one was easy.
--
Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to BiiN (for now :-), Hillsboro, Oregon, USA.
ARPA: <@intel-iwarp.arpa:merlyn@intelob> (fastest!)
MX-Internet: <[e-mail]> UUCP: ...[!uunet]!tektronix!biin!merlyn
Standard disclaimer: I *am* my employer!
Cute quote: "Welcome to Oregon... home of the California Raisins!"


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

From: John Murray <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Calling party ID
Date: 21 Mar 89 01:48:19 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
B. Nagle) writes:
>
> ...   What about international calls?

At last, someone introduces some reason into this dispute! It's too bad
that we Americans are so arrogant as to assume that the rest of the
world has to conform to our need to know the calling party's ID before
we'll answer, or even let our phones ring!

Too many of us already assume that everyone who calls us is using a
tone phone (and speaks English), so we make them use voicemail systems
for our convenience. We screen callers with machines which pretend
we're not at home, and talk about extra super-secret codes which our
friends have to enter to get through to us. An answering machine can
cause a foreign caller to be automatically charged for a 3-minute call
(perhaps $10 or more) from some locations.

Much of this is because of the super-abundance of tele-marketers and
auto-diallers from which we suffer. Isn't it about time we tackled
this problem, rather than devising even more devious ways of hiding from
the outside world (both domestic and foreign)?

- John Murray (My own opinions, etc.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #99
****************************

Date:     Tue, 21 Mar 89 2:00:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #100
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Mar 89 00:49:40 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Residential Hunting (Clive Dawson)
    NYNEX at Kennedy Airport also disables the keypad! (Bill Cattey)
    Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Cellular Service (Geoff Goodfellow)
    Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Steven Gutfreund)
    Re: Calling Party ID (questions answered) (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Locating A Lost Friend (Douglas P. Dionne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 20 Mar 89 11:59:08-CST
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Residential Hunting

A few months ago I posted an item dealing with hunting service
on residential lines.  Southwestern Bell had been offering this
service for years, then discovered that they weren't charging for
it, and finally got a tariff approved with the Texas Public Utility
Commission.  Those of us which used this service received a letter
in which we were told we could either drop hunting or start paying
$.50 per month per line for the service.

I have two lines at home, A and B.  When somebody calls A and A is in
use, the call will come in on line B.  However, if somebody calls B
and B is in use, they will get a busy signal.

Here's the problem:  I elected to keep hunting, and I just received
my first phone bill with the new hunting charges on it.  I was
expecting a $.50 charge, but instead was charged $2.00!  An inquiry
yielded resulted in this dialog:

SWB:    "Yes, we made a mistake by charging you $1. per line, we
     should have charged you only $.50 per line.  We will credit
     your account with $1."

ME:    "The credit should be $1.50.  Only one of my lines has
     hunting.  The other one doesn't."

SWB:    "No, the charge is $.50 per line.  You can't have hunting with
     only one line; that wouldn't make sense."

ME:    "Why should I pay for hunting on my second line when it
    doesn't    have it?  Why are you charging for a service on
    the second line when it doesn't do anything different for
    me that a regular line doesn't?"

SWB:    "I'm sorry, but that's the way hunting works.  Some places
    have 20 or 30 or 50 lines, and they pay $.50 per line."

ME:    "All right, I'd like to cancel hunting on my second line,
    please."

SWB:    [Long pause.] "I'm sorry, sir, we can't do that without
    canceling it for you altogether."

ME:    "Fine.  Then I would like to ADD hunting on my second line,
    please."  I want calls to be sent to my first line if
    the second line is busy.

SWB:    "Oh.  That's called circular hunting.  There are different
    rates for that, but I'm not familiar with them, so I'll have
    to research this and call you back."


That's where things stand now.  I'll be calling the Texas PUC to get
a copy of the actual tariff.  I was upset enough about the fact that
the bean counters decided they had to make money from a service
it was costing them nothing to provide, and which actually enhanced
their revenue since fewer busy signals meant that more long distance
calls get charged.  Now I discover that the $.50 charge is a myth,
since they are claiming that there is no way to get hunting on only
one line, and this is even more infuriating.

Does anybody have an experience with hunting tariffs in other parts
of the country which would help in this battle?

Thanks,

Clive
-------

[Moderator's Note: I've had hunting on my residential lines for years. Illinois
Bell does not charge for hunting, or its close relative, 'jump hunting',
which occurs when the hunted number is in proximity to, but not next in
sequence to the hunting number. They do charge for circular hunting, and
backward hunting, both of which are theoretically only possible on an ESS
exchange. They will hunt off your exchange for an added cost. If you have
hunting, then call-waiting is only available on the last line in the hunt
group since call-waiting relies on a line testing busy, which it will never
truly do as long as it can hunt elsewhere.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 14:40:35 EST
From: Bill Cattey <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX at Kennedy Airport also disables the keypad!

It's not just COCOTS that are getting into the act of disabling
keypads.  This past November (a long time ago, sorry... I hope they
fixed it by now) I was in Kennedy Airport trying to place a calling
card call.  Neither 1-0-288 -0-<my number> nor 0-<my number> would
leave the keypad enabled for me to type my calling card number.

I believe 1-0-288 didn't connect me with ATT.  My traveling companion
said they use a different access scheme.

I was very frustrated.  The posted dialing instructions on the NYNEX
pay phone simply didn't work.  Any suggestions what I should do if
this happens again?

  From the 'desk' of     _   /|
  Bill (the) CATTey...   \'o.O'
                         ~(___)~       THSHVPPPOOO!
                            U                ACH!

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 23:56:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire!

At work today, one of our many phones (which are pretty abused - people
are always tripping over the cords and pulling them off desks) stopped
working.  If you picked it up, you heard nothing.  If you called it,
it rang.  I was busy so I forewent my usual 'telephone repairman' role
at the office.

Then, I was sitting at the desk where this particular phone sat, jotting
down some notes.  I noticed a particularly noxious odor, and followed it
to the phone in question.  Strange, I said to myself.  About to turn the
phone over to take the cover off (this is a perfectly standard touch-tone
desk telephone), I pulled on the cord to get some slack.  It was hot.  Very
hot.  I pulled the clip/plug out of the phone, and the two middle wires
were glowing orange, the tiny plastic divider tooth between them was black
and melted, and the whole thing smelled horribly.  As I watched, the plug
defiantly sent a little spark flying towards me.  Needless to say, I unplugged
the other end from the wall.

Now, I have accidentally shorted phone lines across my body, even through
my face when I didn't have wire clippers and was stripping a live wire
with my teeth.  It tingled, but certainly didn't hurt.

Is there enough power in a phone line to melt plastic and make wires glow?
This struck me as extremely odd.  I plugged in another phone and cord and
they worked perfectly, so I don't think something else was shorted across
the phone line.  Why did this happen?  If it happens again, what if a fire
starts?  Could it be cheap phones/cords?

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Service.
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:11:19 PST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>

In reply to John Higdon's message of 10 Mar 89 on Cellular Service in LA:

Pac*Tel Cellular's charging for non-completed calls finds its way directly
to the bottem line.  Pac*Tel's cellular operation made $16 million in
profit in 1988.  Count your blessings they do not sick you with a
multi-dollar a day roaming fee, yet.  The vast majority of cellular
carriers today are really gouging roamers with multi-dollar-a-day roaming
fee's.  Both Cellular One (majority owned by Pac*Tel) and GTE Mobilnet here
in the Bay area do.  Perhaps the Cellular Industry is trying to position
for a lead spot the Telecom Popularity contest, currently held by the AOS
industry.

I can't believe that Pac*Tel makes sure most calls bomb as you have claimed,
but rather they are suffering from acute success disaster symptoms.  Even
at the high rates they charge, they cannot expand the system fast enough.
Pac*Tel is currently in the process of ripping out all the original AT&T
AutoPlex gear (ESS 1A based -- nice klunks on hand-off) and replacing it
with Motorola RF and a Digital Switch based MTSO.

Cellular is just to popular in spread-out Southern California.  While I
owned a cellular phone, i made it a practice not to patronize systems that
charged for non-completed calls or gouged with daily romaing fee's.  The
best way to vote is with your wallet.  In fact, several colleagues i know
leave their portable phones at home when traveling/romaing these days.

When you look at a multi-dollar a day roaming fee + 50c-85c per minute
air-time + long distance (sometimes 0+ or 950-xxxx, both with their own
roaming stipends tacked on), a two or three minute call home becomes a
$6-$7 affair.  No thanks, think i'll find a pay phone.  If you're still
using you cellular phone at these prices, clearly they aren't charging
enough, yet.  I have watched various markets gradually increase their
roaming rates over the years, while not touching local rates.
Philladelphia A-Carrier (non-wireline) for example, used to be $.45/peak,
$.27/non-peak in the early days with no daily gratuity.  Now they are
$3/day and $.85/min peak-AND-non-peak.  You pay the $3 daily fee whether
your call completed or not.  If you are driving up to NY from Washington DC
and place a call on each system you pass through that'll be a $6-$7 charge
per system for that one call.  Some systems, like Cellular One here in the
Bay Area, won't let you recieve calls as a roamer unless you place one each
day, therefore incuring their $2/day roaming fee (so thought you would
bring your portable along and just use it to recieve important calls).

Be very careful before you press the s(p)end button and where you use your
cellular phone.

Geoff Goodfellow
IMTS Mobile Telephone User

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <bunny![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Date: 20 Mar 89 16:28:54 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ole J.
Jacobsen) writes:
> My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard.
> It is a green credit card-sized card which comes in different values
> (20 units, 100 units, etc.). Put one in the special PhoneCard phones
> and dial away *anywhere*. There is no minimum charge, and you can
> talk until the "money" runs out (1 unit = 10p). Of course, if you
> call international, the units tick down pretty fast (as displayed
> on the phone), but the system does have advantages over 0+ dialling
> and other schemes which require surcharges and minimum deposits.

I'm not so sure that PhoneCards are such a great idea. The Japanese took
this idea and applied it to their entire service sector. Now you have
cards for groceries, restaurants, beauty parlors, etc. In effect you go
from a "type-less" form of money to a stongly typed form of money. I like
my money to be typeless, it allows me to switch retailers and does not force
me to pre-pay.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon (Steven) Gutfreund               [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA                      [e-mail]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 07:03:19 PST
From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID (questions answered)

With regard to the capabilities of ISDN-provided CLID, here are what I
think are answers to John Nagle's questions.

>1.    What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension?  Is
>      the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk?
    In many cases, PBX trunks today all give ANI for the listen DN
    of the PBX, not themselves.
>Even assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
>      outward, is there a defined interface for this?
    Yes.  There is provision for caller-provided ID, so that the PBX
    feeds the extension number into the public network.  The public
    network may or may not screen this to see that it's a number
    belonging to that PBX.  I think unscreened numbers are duly
    noted as such, though.  (I don't recall.)

>What happens when the
>      outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
>      is not that unusual?
    No matter; some number is ANI'd.  Typically the LDN but
    sometimes a different number.

>2.    What about inter-LATA calls?  Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
>      or plan to?  Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
>      long distance carriers?
    I doubt the FCC will mandate anything, but since AT&T already
    provides ANI and the others will have the capability, I'd expect
    it to be common among the facility-based carriers.

>3.    What about international calls?
    Eventually.  Maybe, depending on country.  No inherent reason
    why it's not possible, but regulatory concerns may exist.

>4.    Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
>      not known"?
    I _think_ that's possible, but I'm not sure.  For example, if it
    is suppressed, there might be a notice in place of the number.

>5.    Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?
    I don't know about the current analog form, but in the ISDN
    world, it'll be the norm, since it's just another information
    element in the protocol (DSS1).

                 fred
[disclaimer:  I speak for me.  Sharing requires doctor's note.]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Locating A Lost Friend
Date: Thu, 16-Mar-89 14:18:02 PST

Hi Patrick!

I have a question that you may be able to answer.  Is there any legal/easy way
to get ahold of an "unpublished" phone number in the Memphis TN area?  I have
lost communication with a friend out there, and don't have her new address.
Also, I have since moved as well.

I would even be happy with somehow getting a message to her with my phone
number (without having to find out hers).  Any ideas, besides a $$$ Private
Investigator?

[e-mail]
Douglas P. Dionne

[Moderator's Note: If South Central Bell operates similar to Illinois Bell
in this respect, then they will make an effort to notify your party that
you are attempting to make contact. Most Bell Operating Companies are very
proud, and rightfully so, of the steps they take to preserve the privacy
of each subscriber. If you contact a manager or chief operator at IBT and
state that you have an EMERGENCY need to make contact, then they will attempt
to locate your party and let them know of your inquiry. They will call you
back to let you know if they made contact. It is up to the person receiving
the message to decide whether or not to call you back. In cases that are
not emergencies, they will help, as time permits.

I would suggest you write or telephone the office of Vice President, South
Central Bell Telephone Company, Nashville, TN (area includes Memphis), and
explain your problem. Representatives of the Vice President can be reached
by phone at 1-615-665-6522. Offer to compensate them for time required to
search their non-pub records and for telephone calls they may need to
make to the party or to yourself. (Let them call you back collect.) Needless
to say, don't expect them to hand the number out over the phone. You should
eventually get a reply: I hope it is favorable to you. Good luck!   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #100
*****************************