Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss101-150

Text File | 1990-01-14 | 653KB | 15,062 lines

Date:     Wed, 22 Mar 89 2:13:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #101
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 Mar 89 01:48:05 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Philadelphia Inquirer on Caller ID (Scott)
    More CPID (David Lesher)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Roger E. Critchlow, Jr)
    Review of Bulletin Board System (Peresh Dave)

[Moderator's Note: Scott very kindly passed along an editorial comment
from last Sunday's {Philadelphia Inquirer} which discussed CNID. I thought
it was an excellent item. Thanks for typing it all in, Scott!    PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Philadelphia Inquirer on Caller ID
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 12:16:52 -0500
From: [e-mail]

This is an article that appeared in Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer.  I don't
agree with the authors conclusions, but felt that he presented a more
balanced view.

Scott

Caller ID could cut off obscene calls --- but then...
by David R. Boldt, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday March 19, 1989

The whole thing seemed reasonably straightforward.  The phone company---
Bell of Pennsylvania---has proposed to offer customers a new
service that would enable them to know the phone number of the person
calling them.

This service, one of seven to be offered by the phone company under
the collective name of "I.Q. Services," had a couple of advantages,
the most obvious being that if the caller turned out to be obscene or
the caller turned out to be harassing, there would be no need to
helplessly ask plaintive questions like, "What kind of pervert are you?"

Instead, you would have the s.o.b.'s phone number right there on the
screen of this little box next to your phone.  You could turn the
number over to police, who could find out whose phone it was, or, if
it was from a pay phone, where it was located, by using a "reverse directory."

If the call didn't quite make it into a prosecutable form of
harassment, the customer could call the creep back at 2 a.m. the next
night and give him a little taste of his, or her, own medicine.  Or,
using another service that will be offered called "Call Block," calls
from that number could simply be blocked.

So this is a great new breakthrough in solving one of the more
bothersome problems of the modern eras, right?

Wrong, says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is
requesting that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission delay
action on Bell's request pending further hearings.  Caller ID, says
the ACLU, "will result in widespread violation of personal privacy."

So here you have it, summed up right in one neat little package, the
reason why George Bush's campaign strategists knew that the ACLU was a
"hot button" to press in the past campaign, why one writer in The New
Republic could say that these days the ACLU had "about as much to do
with civil liberties as... AT&T has to do with telegraphs."

Now the ACLU had gone beyond defending the rights of the public to
enjoy kiddie pornography in the privacy of their homes.  This time it
had completely slipped its tether and was seeking to secure the
constitutional right {\it to complete an obscene phone call.}

Columnist Mike Royko, along with a host of radio talk show hosts, was
quickly on the case.  "Through a strange twist of logic,"  Royko
recently wrote, "the new service is being called an invasion of the
privacy of those who make the phone calls...  Maybe my logic is
cockeyed, but it seems to me that the person whose phone rings has a
first option on privacy and freedom from jerks."  Royko argues that
the new service is no different from having a peephole in one's front
door to see who's there.  (With Caller ID the number of the caller is
displayed while the phone is ringing.)

That all seemed to make a fairly cut-and-dried case of aggravating
wretched excess of the part of the ACLU.  So I called Barry
Steinhardt, executive director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, to ask why he
had gone out of his way to prove everyone's negative stereotype of his
organization.

At that point the plot began to thin.  First of all, Steinhardt said, he
hadn't gone out of his way to attack Caller ID;  the phone company had
asked him for his opinion.  Secondly, there was a matter of law.
Caller ID, as nearly as Steinhardt could see, was a direct violation
of a new section of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Surveillance Act.

The phone company says this isn't the case, and frankly it's probably
best to let the two sides wrestle this out in court.  Steinhardt
actually has some more compelling arguments to make.

First, he notes, there is the matter of people with unlisted phone
numbers whose number would now suddenly become known to anyone they
called who had Caller ID.

Next there were a whole bunch of special cases in which someone might
not want the person called to know his or her number.  One example
might be a doctor whose calls are screened by an answering service,
and who doesn't want his patients to have the capacity to bother him
at any hour of the day or night.

And how about the case of a battered woman, who for some reason must
get in touch with the man who is battering her, but who would just as
soon not let him know where she is?

Then what about the various "hot lines" whose callers need to count on
confidentiality---numbers to call for information on AIDS, for
example, or to report instances of child abuse?

What's more says Steinhardt, he is certain that a major client of
Caller ID will be companies who will record the numbers for future
use.  A person calling an applicance store to check the price on a
refrigerator could find himself or herself getting a computer-generated
call for every appliance sale that occurs in the area.

There it was---the archetypal ultra-liberal bias---a belief that
anything on which someone can make a profit is, ipso facto,
{\it evil.}  Come on, Barry, what about weighing the aggravation of getting
a few commercial messages over your phone against the advantage of
doing something about the 450,000 reported cases of telephone
harassment that occur each year in the state of Pennsylvania?

Steinhardt's answer is that another of the new services being offered
by the phone company would thwart annoyance calls as effectively as
Caller ID, with no threats to any innocent person's privacy.  It's
called "Call Trace."

With Call Trace, the recipient of a an unwanted call can hang up,
punch in a three-number code and the number of the caller will be
printed out at the annoyance call department of the local telephone
business office, which can pass it along to the police.

Steinhardt concludes that Caller ID is another example of how
"encroaching technology strips away our privacy layer by layer."

Personally, if Caller ID is offered, I plan to get it, for several
reasons.  I'm not afraid to let people have my phone number.  I get a
lot of nut calls (a few of them from people who don't identify
themselves).  Finally, none of the problems that Steinhardt warns
about appear to have become real problems during the market tests of
Caller ID in New Jersey (not yet, anyway).

Just the same, I think the questions Barry Steinhardt and the ACLU have
raised were worth considering.  And I'm even glad they raised them.

{\it David R. Boldt is editor of the Inquirer Editorial Page.}

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

Subject: More CPID
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 22:10:23 EST
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Lesher,Guest)
Organization: guest of Columbia Union College; Takoma Park, MD 20912


I do agree it looks like a quandry with the CPID issue. But I have a few
thoughts...

1) Count on the BOCs soaking everybody involved for this {dis}service. They
have been looking ever since 84 for anything and everything they can charge
extra for. Have you priced a leased line recently?

2) With the US Post Office, you can have a private mail receipt address,
UNLESS you solicit $$$$ from John Q. Public. Then, John Q can demand the
street address of your boiler room. Why not require business class service to
have ANI? Then I least I can trace that damm auto announce machine that
called up all 30 trunks at work one night, one after another.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:08 EST
From: rec@elf115
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID

  The pro's and con's on this issue are both arguing for privacy,
one for the privacy of the callee, and one for the privacy of the
caller.  Telephone subscribers should be able to identify their
callers before answering or even permitting a ring, and telephone
subscribers should be able to identify themselves to the people they
call if the callees require identification, but no one should be
forced to identify his/herself against her/his will.

  The proposed CPID service does not identify the caller, it only
provides the telephone number that originates the call.  Telephone
numbers are not secure identifications - they can be shared, stolen,
borrowed, or wrong numbers altogether.  The CPID service proposes
to sell what little information the phone company already has as if
it answered the need for validating identities over the phone.

  The very name "calling party identification" is fraudulent:  as
any student of detective movies knows, once you trace the call you
have to send some cops down there to try to catch the caller.  The
phone number by itself cannot identify anyone.

-- Roger E. Critchlow, Jr. -- nyit!elf115![e-mail] --


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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 15:11:08 EST
From: Peresh Dave <ll-xn!columbia!dasys1![e-mail]>
Subject: Review of Bulletin Board System

Attention Telecommunication Fanatics

Please accept my invitation to the a Telecommunication Oreinted
Bulletin Board System, located in Flushing NewYork.

Our main objective is to discuss about the various telephony related
concepts, for example, ESS,DMS,COSMOS,Cellular,Mobile,Satelite Communications
Fiber Optic,PBX,Centrexs,Phone Rates,Signalling Systems,World Wide Telephone
Switching Systems,ISDN etc etc etc.

We are trying to get as many knowledgeble users as we possibly can.

Not only does our Bulletin Board Specialize in Telecommunication but
also has a few conferences for Computer Security. We certainly have many
experts on board who would be willing to discuss security related material.

We have a UNIX conference were all the UNIX wizards get together. We has a
special DEC User group. We also a conference for discussions on Viruses and
how it can be written and prevented.

Other conferences are as follows: Radio Hobbies>Hacking News>LockSmithing,
                                  Pyrotechnics>Telco Numbers>TAP>Books>
                                  Surveillance Systems>Pascal>Generic C>
                                  Suggestions>Mac>BBS Numberss>Phrack>Cable>
                                  .....and many other miscellenous

Requirements: We dont have any requirements. Anyone is welcome. Access is
given immediatly. We also allow Alias names if desired. We hope you will enjoy
your stay.

The Telecommunication [H.D.BBS]

[A 2600 Magazine Bulletin Board System]

Data: (718)358/9209

300/1200

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #101
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 22 Mar 89 23:50:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #102
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 Mar 89 23:30:51 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Disabled keypads (ulysses![e-mail])
    Re: Pay phones that disable the keypad (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: International Calling party ID (Peter Desnoyers)
    Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Mike Trout)
    European Bulletin Boards (Richard Marks)
    VoiceMail Liberation (Hector Myerston)
    Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Rahul Dhesi)
    Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! (John B. Nagle)
    European phones, itemised bills. (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Bell Plans To Avert Outage (Daniel Senie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ulysses![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 10:05:51 EST
Subject: Disabled keypads

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that some pay phones disabled
the keypad as a side-effect.  The intent was a polarity reversal
on the line, as I recall; that in turn will have the effect of disabling
the keypad on older phones.  I don't think there's any attempt to keep
you from further dialing (the COCOTs being a notable exception, of course).

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <ucla-an!denwa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay phones that disable the keypad
Date: 21 Mar 89 16:55:40 GMT
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank
Prindle) writes:
> Naturally, you-guessed-it, the 800 call
> went through, then the keypad went dead.  The call could not be placed.

My business partner has just reported that this behavior is standard
practice on AT&T-operated COCOTS.  When he called to complain, they
explained that this was to prevent him from using other carriers.

Well, isn't that nice.  And so thanks to AT&T, he was unable to check
his voice mail or make any other calls that require the caller to enter
tones.
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

[Moderator's Note: AT&T's voice-mail version of AT&T Mail has noted this
problem in the instruction manual, and advises placing calls through the
operator -- even though its an 800 number -- when calling their service. PT]

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Calling party ID
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:21:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
>B. Nagle) writes:
>>
>> ...   What about international calls?

Well, you can assume that no matter what happens, you're not going to
get calling party id from a German phone unless both the calling party
and the Bundepost agree that they don't mind telling you. They take
their privacy quite seriously.

                Peter Desnoyers

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Date: 21 Mar 89 18:14:55 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY



I recently had a discussion with a major electronics guru for a local
television station.  We were talking about microwave transmitters (radar
speed guns, garage door openers, that sort of thing), when he made a dramatic
statement that shocked me:  he claimed that cellular phones were extremely
hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic.

This is completely outside my area of expertise, so I can only repeat what he
said.  He claimed that the frequency wavelengths used for cellular phone radio
transmissions were just about equal to the diameter of the human brain cavity.
This, he claimed, accelerated by the fact that the receiver is always held up
against the human skull, sets up highly dangerous conditions within the human
brain.  He said that ten years or so from now we're going to see an explosive
increase in brain tumors among cellular phone users.  He also claimed that some
cellular units were far more hazardous than others, but that ALL of them are
carcinogenic.  He said he won't even work on them, and wouldn't wish a cellular
phone on his worst enemy.  This guy is rather eccentric at times, but his
knowledge of electronics is legendary.  His co-workers seemed to share his
opinions; one of their technicians was severely injured some years back by
climbing on a transmission tower during a high-intensity transmission.
Whether this guy knows anything about human physiology is another question.
Is this nonsense, an urban myth, or is this actually a matter of risk?

--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  [phone]
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

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

From: Richard Marks <[e-mail]>
Subject: European Bulletin Boards
Date: 21 Mar 89 18:57:01 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corp. Knowledge Systems Projects


A friend of mine who runs a networking firm wants to let his European
customers download files.

This firm currently has a US bulletin board, when a customer has a problem,
the support people usually tell the customer to dial up their BBS and
download some code.  They can of course have the European customer dial
the US and download, but costs are high.

Does anyone know of a commercial European BBS system to accomodate my
friend's firm?  (Surface mail is a poor solution because the time to
get thru customs is one week minimum.)

Idealy he would dial up every so often and upload new code.  But he could
also ship diskettes to Europe for the BBS people to post for him.

Thanks,
Richard Marks
[e-mail]

or

Robert Trout
Device Network Associates
215-296-7420

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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 11:14:04 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: VoiceMail Liberation

John Murray <[e-mail]> writes:

>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.

Gee John, thanks for raising my consciousness!!.  Here I had foolishly
and selfishly programmed my voicemail "for my own convenience".
I have taken immediate action to reprogram my greeting in Urdu, Persian
and Lithuanian.  Since I am unable to handle all the world's languages,
I will choose three "politically correct" languages every week from
now on.
-------

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

From: Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ole J.
Jacobsen) writes:
>My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard.
>...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).

This seems to be of dubious value.  What is the difference between
buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a
telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone
directly?  This just seems to add an extra step.

The only advantage I see is that you can user paper money to buy the
phone card, while telephones will only take coins.  A little advance
preparedness eliminates this advantage too, and you don't have to hunt
for a place to buy the phone card before you use the telephone.
--
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  [e-mail]

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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire!
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:42:05 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University

      NO WAY can you make wires glow red with any power level normally
applied to a phone line; not even with ringing power is there enough
energy to make that happen.  Somehow, power line voltage is getting into
your phone wiring.  This is serious and needs to be tracked down. It
may be necessary to examine all relevant punch blocks with a voltmeter.
If you have wiring maintenance from your telco, have them do it; if not,
it's probably better to have a licenced electrician with telephone
expertise do it.  You have a major fire and electric shock hazard.

                    John Nagle

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

From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo![e-mail]
Subject: European phones, itemised bills.
Date: 21 Mar 89 11:55:03 PST (Tue)

Re just say no to caller ID.

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

         Fascism alas has little to do with it. Ancient technology is the
problem.  Euro-phones are some decades behind the US, that is why they have
ancient pulse counters in the CO to figure the bills. And boy is it hard to
dispute the bills. But the good news is that British Telecom is introducing
itemised billing and Touch-Tone is now available there - if you ask for it.
The Hull telephone company (a small private telco in the UK does have
itemised billing)

Yours

--
Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio)  n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

[Moderator's Note: In the next issue of the Digest, number 103, we have
another, very exhaustive rebuttal to David Gast's original message, "Just
Say No To Caller ID", written by Mr. Higdon.   PT]

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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Plans To Avert Outage
Date: 20 Mar 89 18:26:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA



It's good to hear that Illinois Bell is setting up alternate routing and such,
they still seem to not want to spend the money on sprinklers and Halon... Have
they changed their position on this?

--
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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #102
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 23 Mar 89 0:40:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #103
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:05:33 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (John Higdon)
    Calling Party ID of dubious value? (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Roy A. Crabtree)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Gary Delong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D.
Date: 19 Mar 89 06:51:56 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


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

> 1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order.

Not true in California. The local telco can trace upon the assent of
the subscriber who is being called.

> 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?

Calls can now easily be traced. If it got out that help organization
were indeed using Caller ID, they would lose their callers; hence it
would be to their advantage to not use it. BTW, all 911 calls show the
caller ID anyway.

> 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.

If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife
went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her?
Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing?

> 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares,
>    for example, without disclosing his telephone number?  Risks
[a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to
get back at YOU, deleted]

If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more
expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to
them.

> 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?

Frankly, it makes good sense to put return addresses on mail.
Furthermore, any envelope in my mailbox without a return address on it
is considered junk mail and is dicarded unopened. Besides, it's a
little easier to determine the origin of a piece of mail, even sans
return address than to assess the origin of a ringing telephone.

> 7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering
>    machine.
[Low-tech work-around--too silly to comment upon]

> 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?

Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you
might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it
was driving you crazy....

> 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.

And at the end of the month in Japan, they just deduct the amount from
your bank account. It's a great little system. You have no idea why
your bill is so high (when you even find out what it was), the phone
company makes, nor can they make, any explanations, and you simply pay
without question or lose your phone. It has nothing to do with memories
of fascism, it's a matter of technology or lack thereof.

> 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?

Caller ID is a byproduct of equipment that would have been installed
anyway. The newer signaling standards, along with digital switches (and
adjuncts for older analog switches) will be implemented in an effort to
bring DOWN the cost of telephone service. The equipment used to provide
these services costs a lot less to operate than the old switching
equipment it replaced.

Actually, the cost of providing these enhanced services will be well
below what will be charged to those that want them. It's like custom
calling. Custom calling features are inherent in the current switching
technology used by telcos. Enabling one or a group of features on a
subscriber line costs the telco nothing, but it provides enhanced
service and convenience for the subscriber and extra revenue for the
telco and would theoretically keep the general cost of service lower
than otherwise.

> 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?

See above.

> 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).

Not significant. Unless a call attempt is actually blocking revenue
generating calls due to underdesign of the network, there is no cost to
the telco.

> 3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a
[discussion of signal calls, similar to bogus person to person and
collect calls]

It's already being done. If they used Caller ID for this purpose, it
would be cheaper than the present methods of involving an operator.

> 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.

No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short
business call. This is really reaching.

> 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?

Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from
getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this
society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to
preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't
care.

> 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 has the Fifth Amendment got to do with Caller ID? That
constitutional guarantee refers to giving testimony that would tend to
incriminate the person giving it. It has nothing to do with evidence
that may be used against someone who is accused of committing a crime.
If you break in to a store and steal merchandise and happen to leave
your wallet behind, the police have every right to use that as evidence
against you. If you make harrassment calls in violation of state and
federal laws, the appropriate agencies have every right to use any
appropriate technology to track you down. Or perhaps you would
consider any clues left at the scene of the crime
"self-incrimination".

There are actually some minor valid reasons to have certain controls on
Caller ID, but the voice of reason is sometimes hard to hear through
the din of silliness.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID of dubious value?
Date: 22 Mar 89 19:24:35 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 99, message 3 of 7
>
>If you call me and your number is not displayed I won't
>be answering the phone.

I personally don't think anyone can really afford to take this
attitude:  Imagine your [husband|wife|son|daughter|whatever] tries to
call you from the house of a friend who has CPID turned off.  Do you
choose you friends by whether or not they have CPID?  Or what if the
person calling you has been in an accident and is using the phone of
someone near the accident, who may have CPID turned off.

I think if I called AmEx and found them calling me by name I would be
a bit disconcerted too, but then I make most such calls from my
office, as, it would seem, do a fair portion of others.  The moral
here is that if you are calling anyone - business or personal - from a
phone which is not your home phone, CPID becomes just about useless.

Furthermore, even if you have CPID, I'm not sure how much good it
does:  Would you recognize the phone numbers of everyone who might
have a "legitimate" reason to call you and not answer the others?
CPID doesn't help you distinguish a "junk" call from a real call, so
its not much good for screening you calls.  About the only marginally
useful thing it does is give you advance warning on who is calling
from those (relatively few) numbers you do know.  The people whose
numbers *I* would recoginze are generally also the people who's voices I
would recognize right away anyway!

It just doesn't sound that wonderful to me.
--
David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

From: mtdca![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 22 Mar 89 23:56:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T


My earlier posting had a typographical error in it; as bad as the scene of
my divorce is, I do not want to inaccurately blind side someone
who cannot talk back:

In article <[e-mail]>, att!mtdca![e-mail]
writes:
[elided]
> 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
[elided]

The figure I wanted was 2.5 hours:  from 96th Street in Manhattan to
the Homdel region of NJ, plus return, by car.  Minimum of 2.5 hours
(maybe 2:15 if you push the speed limit).


roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc 201-957-6033

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

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 15:17:55 EST
From: Gary Delong <cvman![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
> 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.
>

I think I can see the moderator's point.  It is interesting to note
that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of
the criminals than those of the victims.  I too have often thought
that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions.

Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become
the accused.

I also find it interesting that the terms "ad hominum", "racist",
"sexist", and "discrimination" seem most often used today by those
who offer no arguments capable of standing on their own merits.

PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU?

---
  _____
 /  \    /  Gary A. Delong, N1BIP   "I am the NRA."  [e-mail]
 |   \  /   COMPUTERVISION Division                  {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong
 \____\/    Prime Computer, Inc.                     [phone] x 261


[Moderator's Note:  I love it! But in fairness to the list, and the folks
who read comp.dcom.telecom  for telephone talk, followups to Mr. Delong's
message should go direct to Mr. Delong or perhaps talk.politics.misc. *Not
here*. The print media I've seen to date (Royko, Sun-Times, others) have
taken the ACLU to task for its position on Caller ID. Lest Delong go completely
unchallenged in his heresy however, in the next digest, number 104, a
scathing attack on your moderator for his original posting.    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #103
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 23 Mar 89 1:35:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #104
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:56:26 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Brian Cuthie)
    Cell Rates in New England (Douglass Scott Reuben)
    Re: Residential Hunting (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Dimwit (The Root)
    Re: Cellular Service (Brian Cuthie)
    Yet Another Method For Handling ANI (Fred Blonder)
    If Your Phone Stayed Offhook In The Old Days (D. Pickett)

[Moderator's Note: We have a huge backlog of mail. This is our third
Digest in 24 hours. In his reply to my posting, Mr. Cuthie gets me
confused with one of my competitors, the NYT.  Read on...... PT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 21 Mar 89 22:40:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046


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.

I *do* consider it to be an invasion of my privacy for many reasons.
Example: You place an ad in the paper.  I call about the ad.  Do you then
have the right to know who I am and where I am calling from.  No, I think
not.  My call to you was a result of a solicitation to invade your privacy.
Not for you to invade mine.

>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).

Learn something about the legal system.  They are protecting this right
because, while rediculous on it's face, their claim is technically correct.
Allowing this seamingly reasonable violation of a fundamental right may
constitute pecedent in some later issue, where the violation of a similar
right would otherwise seem less reasonable.

>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.

No this is childish pantering.  The service (mentioned incompletely here)
usually includes a feature whereby a user may 'trap' the number of the
most recent caller.  This information is then available to the local
authorities but *not* the user.  Thus, the privacy of the calling party is
preserved in all but those cases where the authorities become involved.
This seems fair to me.  If your calls constitute harassment then you will
lose this privacy.

>What truely makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by

Is this *REALLY* necessary?  C'om I mean you're supposed to be the
moderator, no less.

>this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge
>-- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity

That's ok, what he doesn't know about phones, you more than make up for in
your lack of legal knowledge.

>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

No, because you, as the caller, have the option to not answer the question.
That's all the ACLU is asking for to begin with.

>an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what
>is your call about?'

Not if you can't decline.

>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.

Protect these rights now.  You will need them someday.  It is easy to be
willing to throw away the rights of others (alleged criminals or not) but
when you do so you are throwing away your own rights also.

>Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed.

I'll be suprised if this one is.

--
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Suprised?? What do you think this is, the {New York Times}??
Unlike my competitor, not only do I print all the news that fits my (fill
in the blank); I don't even charge fifty cents to read my daily heresies.
Thank you for your input in the discussion.   PT]
------------------------------

Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:23:57.97
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Rates in New England


In Connecticut, we have Metro Mobile as well, and they do not
bill for busys, no-answers, or calls which were terminated before
completion.

The same goes for the Wireline Carrier (Southern New England Tel),
as well as for New England Tel in Rhode Island and Mass, and the
non-wireline in Boston (Cellular One?)

Metro One (non-wireline) in New York and Northern Jersey doesn't
charge for incompletes, and neither does New York Tel/New Jersey
Bell's "NYNEX-Bell Atlantic Partnership Service".

(Since I am a non-wireline, I'm sure about Metro Mobile and
 Metro One, and the info about NYNEX/Jersey Bell/SNET was
 what I was told in Dec, although that COULD have changed.)

All this talk about rates makes me interested in what sort
of service people get. With Metro Mobile, I get coverage from
New Bedford, Mass, down I-95 all the way to Greenwhich, CT
(about 150 miles) and from Springfield/Pittsfield, Mass down
to the Connecituct Shore. (110 miles?) Metro Mobile is also
"DMXed" with Metro One in New York, so callers can reach me
while I am in New York, WITHOUT a Roam port, simply by
dialing my CT number. So effectively, my coverage is from
Central New Jersey to just south of Boston, which to me is
pretty impressive! One added bonus of the DMX agreement is
that my Call-Forwarding works in the New York/New Jersey area
also, which is very useful.

(Metro One in New York and New Jersey advertises that a customer
 of their system can make an UNINTERRUPTED call from Wilmington, DE,
 to Hartford, CT (and probably Springfield, Mass)! That's one thing
 I'd like to have that Metro Mobile doesn't, as I keep getting cut
 off at the New York-Connecticut border.)

Finally, I've heard from some of the staff and Metro Mobile that
they are trying for a DMX agreement with Cell One (?) in Boston.
Anyone hear about this? It would really be great if this took place!
One number and no Roam ports from New Jersey to Maine!

Happy motoring!

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]



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

From: Syd Weinstein <harvard!pacbell.pacbell.com!dsinc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Residential Hunting
Date: 22 Mar 89 01:51:39 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] (Clive Dawson)
writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 100, message 1 of 7
>Does anybody have an experience with hunting tariffs in other parts
>of the country which would help in this battle?

I have had hunting, both on residence and business in several parts
of the country.  Bell of PA doesn't charge a recurring charge
for hunting for residence or business.  Note, hunting is only
available in older exchanges if you have adjacent numbers, or on
modern exchanges anywhere in the exchange.  I have never been
charged anywhere for hunting, other than a one time setup charge.
--
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                Voice: [phone]
{allegra,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd                    FAX:   [phone]

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

From: the  root <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dimwit
Date: 22 Mar 89 03:58:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department, Colorado State University


A local resident named Pat Kelly was receiving harassing phone calls.
The caller didn't know that his intended victim had an unlisted number
and that the Pat Kelly he was calling was a Lt. in the city's Police Dept.
The caller was being held in the County Jail on other charges at the time.
Needless to say he was caught. That's a dimwit.


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

Subject: Re: Cellular service
Date: 21 Mar 89 21:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046


In article <[e-mail]> decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john
@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 85, message 3 of 7
>With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its
>installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be
>...
>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,

>...
>Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy?
>John Higdon

Actually, I was pretty sure that the Cellular One Service in the
Baltimore/Washington are (my home area) was the only system that *did not*
charge from the second you pressed the send key.  Since the system here was
the Motorola test and development system (and the first non-wireline system
ever) I was sure they were the only ones lucky enough to get answer
supervision.

As it is, the BAMS (Bell Atlantic Mobil Systems) service is just as you
described in this area.  That is, you get charged for everytime you hit
send.

One interesting note, Cell One charges $0.10 per call as a "Land line access
charge" whereas BAMS does not.  Cell One claims thay are only passing this
charge along from the phone company (Bell Atlantic).  BAMS says they just
don't charge it because they *are* the phone company.  Sounds a little
fishy to me...


-brian

--
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    [e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 17:53:41 est
From: Blonder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yet another opinion on how to handle ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Blonder)

Regarding the brouhaha over the privacy issuse of ANI: I suggest that,
rather than displaying the caller's phone number, the system display a
caller-selectable id. Perhaps the encoding scheme and display units
could be expanded to include alphabetic text, and these ids would be
used the same way as .signature files are.

That way the caller could include whatever information they consider
relevant, wherether it be their phone number, P.O. Box number, or shoe
size, complete with a snappy quote. Most likely you would want to have
a half-dozen or so to select from, with varying amounts of information,
depending on who you were calling. (If you like to order merchandise
from 800-numbers in late-night TV ads, you might be insane enough to
include your credit card number.) When you call the local Pizza-by-phone
joint, you might want to give your street address, but not your phone
number. You could display your business number when calling from home,
and vice-versa.

The exact content of the messages would be up to the discretion of the
person in whose name the phone is listed, with the only restriction
being that the local phone comany wouldn't permit a message that is
criminally fraudulent.

Regarding the argument: "Suppose I miss an emergency call because it
came from a 'strange' phone: Currently, if you are willing to declare
an emergency you can have an operator cut in on a call-in-progress;
why couldn't an operator put a call through with some appropriate
status ("911"?) as the originating code, if the caller is willing
to declare an emergency, and with the usual penalties for abusing
this service?
-----
                    Fred Blonder <[e-mail]>
                    David Taylor Research Center
                    [phone]

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

Date:  Tue, 21 Mar 89 17:58 MST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  If Your Phone Stayed Offhook In The Old Days

It seems to me, in the old days, they put a reed in the contacts of your
relay if the phone stayed offhook, and the reed was shaped such that a
jiggle would dislodge it and allow you into the dialer again, if you
pumped your switchhook.  Or am I just dreaming it?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #104
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 23 Mar 89 2:33:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #105
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Mar 89 01:47:50 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Help please - acronyms and resources (Chip Rosenthal)
    TENCON `89 (IEEE REgion 10 Conference) (Kandaswamy)
    Name-Place / Rate & Route (Douglas Scott Rewuben)
    Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Octothorpe - the subject which wouldn't die (Chip Rosenthal)
    Urban Legend: Grounded In Truth (Julian Mmacassey)
    Operator Assist Calling Card Calls (Douglas Scott Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: help please - acronyms and resources
Date: 22 Mar 89 06:30:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


I would like to compile a list of acronyms and resources for TELECOM
readers, and I solicit your help.  For those who don't know me, I administer
the gateway between [TELECOM Digest] and the USENET comp.dcom.telecom
newsgroup.  I have received a few requests for this sort of list, and it
does seem like a good idea.  I wouldn't be surprised if Patrick has seen
similar requests too.

Anyway here is the plan:

- resources    Please take a moment to note any books or periodicals which
        you think TELECOM readers should be aware of.  If you
        can, please include (as appropriate) title, author,
        publisher, cost, subscription info.  Also, a few words
        on why the thing is so great (or useless) would help.

- acronyms    I do not plan on publishing a comprehensive list, but
                rather a glossary of the lingo thrown around in this
                digest/newsgroup.  Descriptions should be very brief.

I *really* need help on the resources part.  My professional focus is in
an extremely narrow part of telecommunications, so there is much out there
I am not aware of.

So, please, hit that reply key now and mail me your comments.  Please
send them to me rather than the entire list -- I will distribute the final
version to everybody.  Also, Internet folks can reach me as
"[e-mail]" if your mailer prefers that to "[e-mail]".
USENET readers can't until the new uucp maps are published.
--
Chip Rosenthal     [e-mail]    | -------- watch this space --------
Dallas Semiconductor   214-450-5337    | - real domain address coming soon -

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

From: Kandaswamy <[e-mail]>
Subject: TENCON `89 (IEEE REgion 10 Conference)
Date: 22 Mar 89 14:47:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois


Under the auspices of IEEE, the session organizers invite submission
of papers for a session on "Traffic Measurements and Switch
Administration."   This session will focus upon the role and
importance of traffic measurements in switch administration.

Some recommended areas of interest are listed below, but the authors
are not limited to these topics.

     * Basic concepts in traffic measurement and their use

     * Developmental process/history for new traffic measurements
       (Delineation of every critical stage involved in the process of
       developing useful measurements)

     * Quantitative methods for analyzing traffic data

Depending upon the number of qualified proposals, this session may be
split into two sessions, with the first part focusing on concepts of
traffic measurements and the second part focussing on analytical
procedures that facilitate various decisions made by switch
administrators.

Prospective authors should submit two copies of an extended abstract
(not exceeding 5 pages, double spaced) to the organizers by April 15,
1989.  Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by May 15,
1989.  Photo-ready copy of the complete paper (not exceeding 25 pages
double-spaced) must be received by July 15,1989 for inclusion in the
proceedings which will be published by the IEEE and distributed at
the symposium.

Session Organizers

Dr.P.Patankar/Dr.S.Kandaswamy
5ESS OA&M Planning Department
AT&T Bell Laboratories
200 Park Plaza
Room 1Y-418 or Room 1F-412
Naperville, IL 60566-7050

Telephone Numbers
Office: 312 416-7046   312-416-4867
FAX Number:            312-416-4833
Electronic Address: ihuxv!patankar ihlpa!kanda

Good Luck!


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

Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:14:14.94
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Name-Place / Rate & Route


A few Telecoms back (sorry, I deleted it so I have no ref. #),
P. Townson (the moderator), mentioned that in order to get the name
of the place where an exchange is located, the AT&T operator had to
dial 815+181 (?) to get an operator who could provide the info.

Not that I'm disputing this, (as they frequently do this), yet
increasingly I find that when I ask for a "Name-Place" they don't
seem to connect me with Rate & Route anymore, rather, they type the
area code and exachange directly into their console, and in a few
seconds get a name. They don't go off-line (I can hear them typing),
and they don't talk to any Rate & Route operator.

Not all operators do this - at times, they call Rate&Route, at
other times, they seem to just type it in. Moreover,in some areas, like
Connecticut, they seem to always have to call Rate & Route, while in
other areas, like New England Tel or New York Tel territory, they seem
to be able to get the place-name directly.

Is this some new feature that operators have at their disposal, or
are they contacting a Rate & Route operator and I just don't hear it?

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT

P.S. If +181 is the number for R&R, then what is +141? I know +121 is for
     and "inward" op, but I was under the impression that 141 was R&R...
     Is +141 Directory Ast? If so, what is "Universal Rate & Route", which
     I was told is 800+141+1212?  (I thought +181 was the number for a
     Toll-Station, which is what I used to call the Bishop Toll, at
     619+058+181, for ring-downs and the like...)


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

From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number?
Date: 23 Mar 89 02:10:22 GMT
Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" <sierra![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a
quite commercially interesting word.  During the 15-plus years I've
had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting
to take it over, paying me something for giving it up.  A recent one
seems serious.

Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number?  Rumor
has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got


[Moderator's note: And that is all I received. An attempt to send mail
to the author also bounced. The rest of the mesage never did arrive.
Perhaos the author will see this reference and mail me a complete message
once again. The messate was badly mangled  when it got here to Chicago.
PT]
------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Octothorpe - the subject which wouldn't die
Date: 22 Mar 89 00:21:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


Going back to a subject we are all sick of...  Happened to be thumbing
through "Notes on the Network" when I stumbled across the following:

    [...] it is becoming important that the proper terminology be known
    and used when referring to them.  The "#" and "*" should be called
    number sign and star, respectively.  Use of the term asterisk for "*"
    and pound sign for "#" should not be used in documentation dealing
    with dialing procedures.  The terms number sign and star have been
    agreed upon as international terminology.  The term square for the
    "#" is also recognized internationally.

So I guess the term "octothorpe" is only suitable for use in Trivial
Pursuit questions.

By the way...this book is a really good reference.  The latest version,
which unfortunately I do not have, is called "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA
Network - 1986".  It's available from Bellcore as document TR-NPL-000275
for $150.00 (based on the 1988 Bellcore catalog).
--
Chip Rosenthal     [e-mail]    | -------- watch this space --------
Dallas Semiconductor   214-450-5337    | - real domain address coming soon -

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

From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo![e-mail]
Subject: Urban Legend
Date: 21 Mar 89 12:02:47 PST (Tue)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Can this possibly be true?  (I don't know its source.)
>
> ******************************************************
>

>
> This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual
> telephone service call he handled while living in England.

(There follows the usual story, deleted here for brevity, of how dog is
chained up, gets electric shock from phone ringing, urinates, sends ground
to the phone line, etc....)

This tale is waht is known today as "Urban Legend", such stories used to
be called "Old Wives Tales". I have heard this story from telco people all
over the world.

Also it must be some years since grounded ringing was used in the UK and
USA. But then this is an old story that has been around probably longer than
I have.

Can we finally lay it to rest with the microwaved poodle story?

Yours

--
Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio)  n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:15:28.05
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls

Hello!

A few days ago, I was making a calling card call from a rotary (Bell)
payphone, and when I asked the operator for the lower rate since I
couldn't Touch-Tone the calling card number in myself, she said she
allready knew and was billing me at the lower rate.

This makes me wonder: How do the operators (Bell and AT&T) know that
it's a rotary phone? Does the equipment detect a rotary call and
signal the operator? Or is there just a large database of payphones
that tell the operator that it's a rotary?

The reason I'm asking is that at a Touch-Tone phone they seem to
know that I can dial it in myself, and ask me if there is any
problem as they will have to charge me the higher rate if there isn't
a problem.

Thanks,

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #105
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 24 Mar 89 1:29:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #106
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Mar 89 01:11:28 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Jonathan Haruni)
    British phone cards (Laura Halliday)
    Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (D. S. Wise)
    Pulse Dialing (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Ron Natalie)
    Highest German (FRG) court strikes down a telecom law  (Werner Uhrig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Date: 23 Mar 89 15:32:48 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


The advantage to the phone cards is that you don't have to waddle around
with a pocket full of coins on the off-chance that you might decide to
make a public call today.  You don't have to sit there and push them
into the slot.  We've got the same thing here at the University for the
photocopiers in the library.  If I go there and find an article that I
want to copy, I just pop this card into the machine and it just debits
the copies as I go.  Several mass transit systems here have the same
thing (Washington and San Francisco amongh others).  Rather than having
to carry change, or find an open token booth, you just zip the card into
the turnstile.  For the person who makes frequent use of these things,
the cards are an incredible convenience over coins or tokens.  For those
who don't, you can always revert to the hard money (except on the subways
where they force you to buy the card anyway).

-Ron

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

Date:    Thu, 23 Mar 89 11:10:19 EST
From:    Jonathan Haruni <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Organization: University of Toronto

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>This [phonecards] seems to be of dubious value.
>What is the difference between
>buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a
>telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone
>directly?  This just seems to add an extra step.

In Britain, you pay by time for even local calls, so you tend to go
through alot of coins.  And the coins are bigger and heavier as well.
The phonecards save you the frustration of running out of coins during
a call, the frustration of having your calls interrupted every minute
by "more coins please" noises, and the frustration of
sewing up holes in your pockets.

>The only advantage I see is that you can user paper money to buy the
>phone card, while telephones will only take coins.  A little advance
>preparedness eliminates this advantage too, and you don't have to hunt
>for a place to buy the phone card before you use the telephone.

The cards come in denominations ranging from the equivalent of $3 to about
$100.  So you buy one which you know will last you a reasonable amount
of time.   They are particularly useful for long distance calls, because
you get the customer-dialled rate without feeding a continuous stream of
coins into the phone.

>--
>Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
>                    ARPA:  [e-mail]

Jonathan Haruni
[e-mail]


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

Date: 23 Mar 89  8:50 -0800
From: laura halliday <[e-mail]>
Subject: British phone cards

While in London a couple of years ago the locals told me
that the rationale for phone cards (other than byuing a
20 pound phone card with paper money rather than coins)
was that card phones have no money in them, and are thus
much less likely to be vandalized.

- Laura

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

Date: 24 Mar 89 04:00:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington


I was introduced to the British Telecom debit card only recently,
and I am surprised at the pollution that the system generates:
depleted green cards littering the floors of call-boxes.
'Course, Telecom is not answerable to environmental interests. :-)

Instead of purchasing new green cards all the time, why can't one
go to one of a few secure coin-operated stations where
one's depleted card can be recharged (or replaced if defective.)
(Put them in post offices and the corner Boot's.)
In order to use these machines you *must* return your old card.
Viola: no litter.

The Washington, DC, Metro has a system like this that recovers
residual value from fare cards too depleted to buy any fare---but
it recovers the cards in the process!  Result is also reduction in litter.

Incentive:  Such machines might recharge to 100% of value for only 95% fee.
Like deposits on beverage containers, except no human handling is required.
I suspect that the 5% would be a good long-term investment.

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

Subject: Pulse Dialing
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 18:29:33 EST
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>

A year or three ago, the local phone co. switched from stepper relays
to electronic switching.  At the same time, they "cleverly" chhecked
phone lines for equipment which could tone dial, and quietly added
the $1/mo charge on such lines.  One item so detected was a plain old
telephone set (with pulse dial) at home.

After I made the proper noises, the charges were removed.  It might
be interesting to know how these "tests" are done: do they just add
the charge and hope no one notices?  The "test" is that if you yell,
then you don't get charged?

This, of course, is not the interesting issue.  The real issue here
is that we have 4 modems which could tone dial if I wished.  They
can also pulse dial, and for $1/month (each) that is exactly what
they do.  How much is the phone co. having to invest in equipment
to deal with pulses, and how much more does it cost them to have
my modems tying up whatever device interprets phone numbers?  Are
they saving money because I have the modems pulse dial, or would
they be better off paying me $1/month (each) to tone dial?


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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Date: 23 Mar 89 15:24:45 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Carcinogenic?  Not quite.  There are serious problems that result from
microwave exposure.  The most widely known fo these is the increased risk of
cataracts.  There was quite a scare on this subject in the ham radio
community, more so than in the cellular field, since hams were frequently
using walkie talkies.  When you hold the thing up to talk into it the antenna
is sitting right there at your forehead.  The frequencies and powers are
approximately the same.  Nothing conclusive was established about the effects
of these relatively low power levels (3 watts for cellular, 1-5 watts for ham
radios), but the ARRL (the largest association of ham radio operators in the
US) suggests that you try to keep the antenna away from your head.  Notice
that this would only correspond to hand held portable cellular telephones.
Most mobile units have the antennas (and for that matter the radio transmitter
itself) mounted away from the car occupants.

My personal opinion is that there is more of threat from people being
inattentive to their driving while operating their telephones than there are
from microwave radiation.

-Ron

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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1989 16:55:15 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Highest German (FRG) court strikes down a telecommunications law

    the following msg posted to the German-branch of USEnet might be
    of interest to this group as questions about legality and feasabi-
    lity of modem use in Europe crop up repeatedly.

    the law in question reads:

Paragraph 15 section II of the law regulating telecommunication equipment:
    Person who install, change or use motifiable equipment
    in violation of the lending conditions will be punished with
    2 years imprisonment or fines.

    the (overjoyed) author of the article informs us that the German
    Supreme Court has declared this law unconstitutional and null-and-void
    in a decision of June 22, 1988.  He states that this has as a conse-
    quence that imported modems can no longer be confiscated (according
    to the guidelines of the Code of Criminal Procedures).

    the legislature has been called upon to pass a new law.
    However (the author believes that) because there exists such strong
    interest (and influence, presumably) of industry, users, and the
    European market-community against such a new prohibitive law, the
    author believes that there is reason for optimism (that no such
    prohibitive law will be passed).

I've been away from Germany for a while now, but my estimate of German
tele-buraucrats and their actions and motivations in the past do not have
me share Joern's optimism.  I hope I'm wrong ...

            Cheers,        ---Werner


Article 608 of dnet.general:
Path: iraun1!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!joern
From: [e-mail] (Joern Busch)
Newsgroups: dnet.general
Subject: BVG vs Gilb
Keywords: dfue, Import-Modems, Endgeraetemonopol, dnet-general
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Mar 89 03:42:28 GMT
Distribution: dnet
Organization: netmbx Public Access Unix, Berlin, West Germany
Lines: 22
Posted: Mon Mar  6 04:42:28 1989

Falls jemand die frohe Botschaft noch nicht vernommen hat:

Paragraph 15 II a Fernmeldeanlagengesetz
     (mit Freiheitsstrafe von 2 Jahren oder Geldstrafe wird bestraft,
      "wer genehmigungspflichtige Fernmeldeanlagen unter Verletzung
       von Verleihungsbedingungen errichtet, aendert oder betreibt".)

ist laut (erst jetzt veroeffentlichtem) Beschluss des zweiten Senats
des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVG != Berliner Verkehrs...   :-)    )
vom 22.6.88 fuer verfassungswidrig und somit nichtig erklaert worden.

Das heisst insbesondere auch, dass Import-Modems nicht mehr (nach den
Vorschriften der Strafprozessordnung) beschlagtnahmt werden koennen.

Der Gesetzgeber ist nun aufgerufen eine Neuregelung zu treffen.
Da die Interressenslage (Industrie, Anwender, europ. Binnenmarkt) aber
eindeutig gegen ein erneutes Verbot spricht duerfen wir optimistisch sein.

      Es gruesst Euch ein jubelnder
                  Joern.


[[ Definition: Gilb: 'Gilb' bezeichnet das gelb-werden (vergilben) von
   Papier, das einen hohen (oder auch niedrigen?) Holz-Anteil bezitzt.
   Die Bundespost (gelbe Fahrzeuge, Telefonzellen, Briefkaesten etc.)
   wird in Szene-Kreisen 'Gilb' genannt.                        -- Elmar ]]
==============================================================================



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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #106
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 24 Mar 89 2:09:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #107
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Mar 89 01:41:15 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    C.O.C.O.T.'S (B. Churchfield)
    The dreaded AOS:Just when you thought it was safe (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! (Jonathan Haruni)
    CLID for 911 - who pays? (David E. Bernholdt)
    European Bulletin Boards (Doug Mosher)
    Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? (Jonathan Haruni)

[Moderator's Note: What? Two digests in a row with no messages about
Caller ID? Yah...I thought you deserve a break today. There are several
more waiting in my inbox, but I thought they could wait awhile. There is
probably very little more to say on the subject anyway. Tomorrow we
will have another batch of them.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 89 08:23:00 EST
From: B CHURCHFIELD <[e-mail]>
Subject: C.O.C.O.T.'S

In the past couple of months I have seen a lot of people complaining
about what a rip COCOTs are. I think maybe not every one knows what a
COCOT is, especially based on some of the descriptions I have seen given.
A COCOT is a Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone, I have seen some
complaints of ATT operated COCOTs which to me sounds like a conflict
of interest. Yesterday I couldn't spell COCOT, today I is one. When I
purchased my phone I was told I needed to go through an AOS (alternate
operator service) in order to get call supervision. Some people that
I have talked to since say this is not so, but the point is it is
the AOS that is overcharging on calls. In most states the AOSs are not
regulated therefore that can charge what they want or at least what ever
the traffic will bear. Most people get into COCOTs to make money but,
other than AOS I don't think one can get rich. I went into this blindly
based on articles I had read in trade publications, if anyone knows of
any good reading on COCOTs I would appreciate the info .



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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 09:38:13 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <@ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@ll-micro>
Subject: The dreaded AOS:Just when you thought it was safe....
Reply-To: @ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@micro
Organization: None discernable

In my regular monthly New England Telephone bill, received yesterday, was a
small nondescript insert entitled: "To our customers who use NE Tel coin phones
to make long distance calls". I'm not gonna type it in, but in effect, it says,
starting in April, the LD carrier pertaining to a given NE Tel payphone will
not necessarily be AT&T.  It will be determined by the owner of the premises
where the phone is installed.  Thus the last safe haven of COCOT/AOS haters
has fallen.  It really makes me barf, the lawyers win again.

They note in the flyer that you can get any carrier you wish on a NE Tel
payphone by dialing the appropriate 10XXX (10288 for ATT, 10777 for Sprint,
etc.), but I'll bet 98% of the phone-using public never heard of the 10XXX
codes for home, business, or coin-phone use.  I would guess that the guano will
hit the proverbial fan when the bills start arriving in a few months, with
those lovely AOS rates! "Thank you for using BumStench Communications!"

Oh, well, it takes your attention away from the CPID/ACLU cacophony!

Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173
Phone [phone]     Fax [phone]  black@[e-mail]


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

Date:    Thu, 23 Mar 89 11:18:41 EST
From:    Jonathan Haruni <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire!
Organization: University of Toronto

In article <[e-mail]> "John B. Nagle" <glacier!jbn
@labrea.stanford.edu> writes:
>      NO WAY can you make wires glow red with any power level normally
>applied to a phone line; not even with ringing power is there enough
>energy to make that happen.  Somehow, power line voltage is getting into...
>[etc.]
>                    John Nagle

Any amount of power will make a thin enough wire glow red.  And the
tinsel-wrapped-around-nylon wires they're using in phone wires these days
are about as thin as practically possible.  However, it seems unlikely that
the problem would be with too-thin wires.

In all likeliness, you are right, and as you say, an electrician should
look into it.  (This problem was occuring at someone's workplace, right ?)

Jon Haruni.


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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID for 911 - who pays?
Date: 23 Mar 89 23:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project



I've noted many mentions in the discussions of calling line ID that
911 get the number anyway.  Of course that's only true if the 911
equipment can handle CLID.

Here in Alachua County, Florida, they've recently upgraded their 911
equipment so that it can handle CLID -- and every subscriber in the
county gets an item like "E911 Upgrade" on their local service billing
to pay for it (at $0.50/month).

We're all familiar with the local BOC acting as a billing agent for
the long-distance carriers and the like, but is there any limit to
what (whom) a BOC can collect for?  Just out of curiousity, does
anyone know of other cases where the BOC is collecting "taxes" for a
local government?
--
David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 16:15:50 PST
From: Doug Mosher
Subject: European Bulletin Boards

[e-mail] (Richard Marks) asks:
 >A friend of mine who runs a networking firm wants to let his European
 >customers download files......
 >download some code.  They can of course have the European customer dial
 >the US and download, but costs are high.

 >Does anyone know of a commercial European BBS system to accomodate my
 >friend's firm?  (Surface mail is a poor solution because the time to
 >get thru customs is one week minimum.)

 France has the Mintel system, which is a super system that includes functions
 similar to telenet, tymnet, bulletin boards, Compuserve, and 976 calls,
 plus more! It also allows hundreds of entrepreneurs to offer sub-services of
 all sorts.

 If a specific contact is needed, write me because I have a friend who does
 Minitel services in France.

 (                                                            )
 (          Doug Mosher <[e-mail]>            )
 (                      ...!ucbvax!cmsa!spgdcm                )
 ( 257 Evans, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, 415/642-5823 )
      European Bulletin Boards

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

Date:    Thu, 23 Mar 89 21:16:57 EST
From:    Jonathan Haruni <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number?
Organization: University of Toronto

In article <[e-mail]> "Anthony E. Siegman" <sierra!
[e-mail]> writes:
>My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a
>quite commercially interesting word.  During the 15-plus years I've
>had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting
>to take it over, paying me something for giving it up.  A recent one
>seems serious.

>Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number?  Rumor

If you're selling your phone number for the money and for no other reason,
(ie, I assume that you have not been eager for a career in phone number
 sales since the age of 12) then it is worth as much as the offering company
is willing to pay.  You'll have to figure it out yourself.  How much money
do they have ?  How much more would your phone number get them ?  How
good a bargainer are you, and how good is the guy who is your contact with
the company ?  Expect to get ALOT of money if it is a phone order company
with high profits and much competition.   That would be the ideal situation.

Jon.

[Moderator's Note: The Dominos Pizza people are trying to grab up all the
xxx-3030 and xxx-0030 combinations they can find around Chicago. Paying
off with pizza coupons and some money, I understand.  PT]
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #107
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 25 Mar 89 0:32:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #108
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:14:02 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    SNET Cellular Road Info Numbers (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    British PhoneCard question (Will Martin)
    Re: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Dave Horsfall)
    Customer Name and Address Service (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Caller ID and crank calls (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    "Compromise" for calling party identification (John L. Shelton)
    911 CLID (Steve Bellovin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24-MAR-1989 03:31:50.93
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET Cellular Road Info Numbers

I picked up this list of SNET Cellular special code numbers which
an SNET customer can (supposedly) use to get specific traffic
information. It was on a video-information booth in Norwalk, CT,
operated by (you guessed it) SNET!

Construction Delays and Route Info:

*02 - Route  CT-2 (Hartford to Norwhich)
*07 - Route  US-7 (Norwalk to Danburry (or New Milford?))
*08 - Route  CT-8 (Bridgeport to Torrington (or Mass line?))
*09 - Route  CT-9 (Middletown/Cromwell to Old Saybrook)
*15 - Route  CT-15(Meritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways, (Berlin T'Pke?))
*84 - Route   I-84(NY State Line - Waterburry - Hartford - Mass Line)
*91 - Route   I-91(New Haven to Enfield)
*95 - Route   I-95(NY State Line - New Haven - RI State Line)
*395- Route   I-395(Old CT Turnpike Rt CT-52, New London - Mass Line)

General Info:

*JAM (526) - Up to the minute emergency reports and alternate routing
             routing considerations during the hours of 8:30AM to 4:30PM.

*DOT (368) - Dial this number for a recording to report highway problems
             (potholes, etc.)

             [How do you report to a recording????]

Anyhow, this is sponsored by the nice people at ConnDOT and SNET Cellular.

I don't use SNET Cellular (Metro Mobile instead), so I've never tried
these. Metro Mobile has one code, *22, which you dial to receive a
recording from Shadow Traffic of all major traffic problems in the
area you are in. (Metro Mobile is devided into 3 systems, so
*22 in each one of the systems gives you local traffic for that
general area, or so it seems.)

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Fri, 24 Mar 89 14:22:47 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  British PhoneCard question

What happens when the PhoneCard you are using runs out of credit in the midst
of a call? Are you given a "grace period" to let you pull out the old card
(and drop it on the floor of the booth! :-) and stick in a new one? Or is
your call summarily terminated? Could you continue by feeding in coins if
you don't have another charged-up PhoneCard?

Is this just magstripe encoding? I would think there would be a brisk trade
in underground magstripe card writers and illicitly-credited PhoneCards if
that is the case. Or is this a special, non-standard magstripe encoding or
format, so that magstripe equipment on the surplus or commercial market
won't write or read it?

Regards, Will Martin

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls
Date: 25 Mar 89 02:42:59 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail])
(DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes:

> A few days ago, I was making a calling card call from a rotary (Bell)
> payphone, and when I asked the operator for the lower rate since I
> couldn't Touch-Tone the calling card number in myself, she said she
> allready knew and was billing me at the lower rate.
>
> This makes me wonder: How do the operators (Bell and AT&T) know that
> it's a rotary phone? ...

The CCIS database has information provided by the local operating
company indicating which directory numbers are supposed to have
touch tone service.  While the information is not entirely
up-to-date, the intent is that if you dial a 0+ call from a rotary
phone, your call should be routed directly to the operator.  If the
same call is dialed from a line which is on record as having touch
tone service, you'll get the MCCS Logo (Bong!) tone first.

This same database is supposed to indicate the existence of a
calling-card for every authorized user, to provide card-number
validation.

It also contains the translation of 800 numbers into their POTS
equivalent numbers for routing toll-free calls.  It indicates which
numbers are coin telephones (which are invalid destinations for
collect calls).

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


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Date: 25 Mar 89 02:29:10 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike
Trout) writes:
>...he claimed that cellular phones were extremely
> hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic.

> He claimed that the frequency wavelengths used for cellular phone radio
> transmissions were just about equal to the diameter of the human brain cavity

> This, he claimed, accelerated by the fact that the receiver is always held up
> against the human skull, sets up highly dangerous conditions within the human
> brain...


I certainly hope, if this be true, that the broadcast industry
immediately shuts down all UHF TV transmitters.  They, also, operate
in the 800 MHz band where Cellular Telephony hangs out.  They may
not be as close to the user's skull as a telephone handset
(isn't the RF section usually installed in the vehicle's trunk?)
but they output hundreds of thousands of watts of RF power, while
the typical mobile phone only uses a few watts.

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


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

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 23 Mar 89 03:21:05 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
|
| 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.

A slightly contrived, but nonetheless valid example:

You've just unwittingly witnessed a crime, a murder perhaps.  They
are MOST interested in eliminating you, and they probably have a mole
in the police department.  The result?  Concrete shoes for you, m'boy...

The trouble with being a law-abiding citizen is that not everyone else is.

And a LOT of people just "don't want to get involved", but will come
forward upon a guarantee of anonymity.  A regular event in Australia is
Project Noah, where you are invited to ring a special number if you have
any information whatsoever, no matter how vacuous, on drug deals.  It has
resulted in successful prosecutions, but naturally some of the callers
may not wish to identify themselves.  Heck, some of them could be the
drug-dealer's competition :-)

Another example (which I certainly admit to doing):  I want information
on a competitor's product, so I play dumb and ring them up, asking them.
Or I invite myself to their product seminars.  I don't really want them
to recognise my number (if Australia had caller ID, which we don't), yet
it's not illegal.  I'm not impersonating anyone after all, I'm just not
volunteering my affiliations.

In short, there are many legitimate reasons why a caller should not have
to identify him/herself.  You should have the right to refuse such calls,
but those organisations that expect them will no doubt be tolerant.

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
            Self-regulation is no regulation

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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:43:42 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Customer Name and Address Service

Roger Critchow writes: "The phone number by itself cannot identify anyone"

That is, of course, unless you live in Illinois or several other states
which provide public CN/A (Customer Name and Address) services, much
like a reverse directory bureau.  If I live in Chicago and someone
calls my line with CPID, I can know who they are in a matter of minutes
by dialing 769-9600 (I think that's right.. it's something like that).

And, at any rate, the telephone number identifies someone insofar as it
doesn't identify anyone else; being unique, there is always a way to find
it out.  The wife-beater who gets a call from his wife-in-hiding can
narrow her location down by the area code and prefix, then look through
the phone book for a few likely establishments (shelters, etc.) and pin
her down pretty quickly.

MC

[Moderator's Note: The number for CNA in Chicago is 312-796-9600. Locally
it is a fifty cent call. They cover all of area code 312, and will give
you the name and address of listed numbers, or nothing if the number is
non-pub.   PT]

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

Date: 23-MAR-1989 05:20:38.10
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: Caller ID and crank calls


I've been reading the postings about Caller ID, and find that the main
argument FOR implementing caller ID and/or not having caller ID blocking
is to prevent crank calls.

Now while I think caller ID may stop SOME annoying calls, it will
not in any way affect the majority of them. The phone company itself
(SNET, NYTel, N.E. Tel, etc.) states in their literature that most
crank calls are made by people who know you, and generally they
did not just pick your number out of the book. Crank callers usually
call for a reason, thus may not be very readily deterred, and may even
be MORE motivated to call if discovered. Hence, once a crank caller
discovers that you have caller ID (either you tell them or the Telco
contacts the crank and asks them to stop or whatever they do) they
will move to another phone.

Thus, while being discovered may make some crank callers hesitate
from calling back again, I am afraid many will simply go to a
payphone, put in a dime (or whatever) and call you from there. And
if you block that specific payphone, well, there are plenty of other
coin phones around. Of course a crank caller can also call collect from
another LATA (this happend a few times to me, but I was never billed for it
even though people at my number accepted the call - I guess the
operator realized it was a crank call). Or, as was mentioned previously,
the caller could use a non-Bell Calling Card (Sprint, MCI, etc) and
make the call that way (although that will, with some effort, give
the crank caller away if someone pursued it far enough).

Hence, the only way to prevent annoying calls that I know of is to
get an unlisted number. Having Caller ID may be cute for a while,
and may deter some annoying solicitation calls, etc., but as
a practical way to get rid of crank calls, very doubtful.

Anyhow, that's my opinion...

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 09:12:32 PST
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Compromise" for calling party identification


May I suggest a compromise patterned after the post office:

The phone company should ALWAYS (where possible) send the
area code and exchange with every call.  This is comparable
to a postmark, and can provide some meaningful information
to the receiver of the call.

The calling party could then optionally send or block the
transmission of the unique four digits identifying the call.
This corresponds, more or less, to a full return address.

=John=

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 16:53:19 EST
Subject: 911 CLID

In fact, when 911 was deployed in New York City a number of years ago,
CLID was *not* installed on the 911 lines, precisely because of
concerns about privacy.  It had nothing to do with cost.  That may have
changed; I was out of the area for a number of years, and couldn't
track that sort of issue closely.


        --Steve Bellovin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #108
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 25 Mar 89 1:00:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #109
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:46:34 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Caller ID (David Ofsevit)
    Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (A. R. White)
    Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (Mike Trout)

[Moderator's Note: At this point, I believe the discussion on CPID has
become more a political one than one related to telecom issues; and as
such better suited for one of the talk.groups or private mail. Unless
there is something significant to add of a technical nature to the
subject, maybe it could be closed to further messages. I *still* have
a few backlogged, which will be used tomorrow. Please, no more replies. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ofsevit <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Mar 89 16:14
Subject: re: Caller ID

    In response to some of John Higdon's statements in Telecom 9:103:

> If the husband [of a battered wife in a shelter] had an IQ of more than 50,
> he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to
> bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent
> that sort of thing?

    He might assume that his wife went to a shelter, but he might not
    know which shelter.  Yes, he just might try to break in and do
    violence.  Even if the shelter provided effective protection, it would
    not provide protection if the wife wished to leave; knowing where the
    wife was, the husband could effectively (not necessarily physically,
    but certainly psychologically) imprison her in the shelter.

> > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares,
> >    for example, without disclosing his telephone number?  Risks
> [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to
> get back at YOU, deleted]
>
> If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more
> expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to
> them.

    More power to them?  Is the almighty buck more important than
    people's rights?  RISKS is not hypothetical; almost every day it
    describes real-world cases of how people can be harmed by mindless
    dependence on automation.

> > 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?
>
> Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you
> might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it
> was driving you crazy....

    I can hardly wait for the lawsuits to begin:

    "I lost a lot of money on that deal!  Why didn't you call me?"

    "I did call you.  I was at a pay phone, and you wouldn't answer."

    "Oh yeah, sorry..."

    "SORRY MY $#&%@#$!!!  You'll hear from my lawyer!"

> > 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.
>
> No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short
> business call. This is really reaching.

    This is not "reaching."  This is real-world economics.  Companies
    could program their switchboards to make this happen automatically.

> > 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?
>
> Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from
> getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this
> society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to
> preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't
> care.

    You can protect everybody's privacy at no cost at all--don't
    implement Caller ID!

    -----

        And in response to Gary Delong:

> I think I can see the moderator's point.  It is interesting to note
> that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of
> the criminals than those of the victims.  I too have often thought
> that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions.
>
> Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become
> the accused.
> ...
> PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU?

        The ACLU has stood up for such fine liberal types as the Skokie
    Nazis and Oliver North.  The ACLU believes in the Bill of Rights, even
    for those like Ollie and the Nazis who don't believe in it.  The ACLU
    believes that as you begin to tear down individual rights, you set the
    stage for knocking over many other rights.

    -----

                David Ofsevit
                Digital Equipment Corporation (which, I hope,
                    does not know, care, or associate with
                    my opinions)

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

Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D.
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 17:19:59 PST
From: [e-mail]


In vol. 9 no. 102 John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail].
edu writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Gast)
> writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from
> getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this
> society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to
> preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't
> care.

   1)  An advertiser pays for a 30-second spot during "LA Law", which I tape
on my VCR; by the argument above advertisers should be allowed to curtail
provision of VCRs' fast-forward keys because my use of the FF key to skip
over commercials deprives advertisers of services they paid for.  Poppycock.

   2)  Europeans in general, and Scandinavians in particular, go to greater
lengths to protect the individual's privacy.  "It costs governments and
corporations a little extra and takes them a little more effort to preserve
privacy.  We may not like it, but the universe doesn't care."

   3)  In the 1988 SF novel "David's Sling"[1] the author, Marc Stiegler,
presents a taxonomy of decisions and decision making:

      "... three broad classes of decisions, and three broad methods
   of decision making:  Engineering decisions, political decisions,
   and unresolvable decisions.  Engineering decisions were made by finding
   the correct, or best, answer.  ...  Political decisions were made
   by building an answer of consensus.  ...  Because political decision
   systems could generate decisions in more situations than engineering
   decision systems, political systems typically gained preeminence
   over engineering.  For the most part, this arrangement worked well --
   except that too often, the politicians made political decisions in
   situations where engineering applied ...  The key question was, how do
   you decide whether to use engineering or politics to decide?"

   In this framework it seems to me that all questions concerning calling-
party ID and privacy are political.  I don't believe any engineer can say
there is any "best" answer.  Assuming SS#7 or equivalent from end to end,
the caller's number is always available; bits are reserved in a packet
for that number, or bits go down a subscriber line to the display unit
between the first and second rings; and a program in some #<n> ESS decides
what to stuff in those bits.

   Clearly there's a cost to implementing a packet-based protocol and its
communication infrastructure, as well as to providing new subscriber-line
interface cards; just as clearly at this hardware and protocol level there's
no cost associated with the bits' values.  At the ESS-program level I would
expect the (software) engineering judgement to be that there's virtually no
cost differential between always passing on the caller's number and checking
whether the caller wants his/her number kept private, either as the norm
or for this call only.  I believe the program logic of this section of ESS
code should be determined by our society as a whole:  What do we want,
what consensus can we reach?

   Mr. Higdon's opinion and mine differ.  His position can be inferred
from the excerpt above.  I vote to protect and maximize both the caller's
and callee's privacy, and to have the telephone system do so as a default
when possible.  I'll pay for Calling-Line ID and accept any reconnection
to another exchange, but I also want the supplementary service of Calling-Line
ID Restriction mentioned by Fred Goldstein in Vol. 9 no. 93. AT NO CHARGE
and without requiring any prefatory dialling if I so choose.  I also want
the ability to choose to reject calls whose originating number has been
withheld.


A. R. White
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina Del Rey, California
90292-6695
[phone], x162
[phone]  facsimile

ARPA:  nomdenet @ ISI.edu

[1]     David's Sling, by Marc Stiegler; 1988; Baen Books, distributed
    by Simon & Schuster; New York. ISBN 0-671-65369-5

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D.
Date: 24 Mar 89 16:34:35 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john
@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:

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

> > 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.

> If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife
> went to a shelter.

Even if his IQ is 150 or more, in his highly-charged emotional state his
behavior will probably exhibit the intelligence of a sea slug.  People don't
act rationally when they're in an irrational situation.  There have been some
recent nasty incidents involving college professors and high-level corporate
executives attacking their wives and children when they discovered they were
in shelters.

> Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her?
> Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing?

One of my best friends worked in a shelter for many years, and this is a
SERIOUS problem.  It is not at all unusual for husbands to somehow track down
the shelter's location and show up at the front door with guns, axes, knives,
clubs, etc.  The local police are VERY familiar with the shelter's location as
they spend a lot of time there arresting husbands who are trying to smash down
the door and get at their wives.  There are normally one or two injuries or
deaths per year when husbands successfully get at their wives inside or
right outside the shelter.  And this is a shelter in a small city in a
medium-sized urban area with a well below-average crime rate.  At any given
moment, several enraged husbands are cruising the city streets trying to find
the shelter so that they can attack their wives and children.  I shudder to
think of the problems caller ID will present for shelters.  I suppose they can
initiate a policy of "NO outgoing calls to your husband," but the wives are
just as upset as the husbands and they won't act rationally either.  Often the
irate husband will scream at them over the phone "what's the shelter's
address?", and the wife, trained by years of unthinking subservience, will
blurt out the address before she realizes the awful thing she has done.
--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  [phone]
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #109
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 25 Mar 89 13:24:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special Edition: Vote!
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Mar 89 12:42:27 CST    Special Edition: Vote!

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Important Vote Re: Moderator Guidelines (TELECOM Moderator)
    The Ballot: Call For Votes - Moderator Guidelines (Karl Denninger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 25 Mar 89 12:25:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Important Vote Re: Moderator Guidelines

My apologies for shifting from the normal subject, but a proposal has been
made in news.groups that is critical to the future of moderated newsgroups.
I am sending this as a special mailing so that you can file it in a more
appropriate place than your archives for telecom.

In <[e-mail]>, Karl Denninger has posted a proposal for a
vote with the subject line: "CALL FOR VOTES - MODERATOR GUIDELINES
(was: rec.humor.funny)". He is asking for people to vote on some basic
changes in the requirements of moderators and how they deal with the
outside world.  Specifically, he says:

>The question being voted upon is:

>o Should a moderator collect the majority or all his or her material
>  from the Usenet, whether from net-email, postings which are redirected by
>  the news software, or by culling from other newsgroups be restricted from:
>    1) Compilation copyrighting that collection, effectively permitting
>       the restriction of it's distribution.  (ie: does a moderator
>       have claim to the material that is reposted in the group by
>       that person).
>    2) Selling, whether in print or electronically by gateway with
>       commercial services, the collection obtained through the Usenet
>       for personal or commercial profit or renumeration.

>If you vote YES to this proposal, you are asking moderators who are
>currently violating this proposed standard to cease and desist from doing
>so.

This proposal would affect TELECOM Digest, as about half of what appears
in the Digest is from submissions by readers of USENET's comp.dcom.telecom
group. Thus, the outcome of this proposal affects the relationship between
USENET and TELECOM Digest (as well as all other moderated groups/lists which
are distributed to some extent on USENET). Although I do not copyright and/or
sell messages from readers at this time, the Digest would be subject to
the rules, like all other moderated groups.

I'm encouraging all readers of comp.dcom.telecom/TELECOM Digest to vote
on the proposal. I recommend a "YES" vote, but I want everyone to
make up their own minds on the matter.

I have said a lot more on this in news.groups. It was necessary to post
this message in the various moderated groups in order that readers of
those groups who do not usually read news.groups would be aware of the
controversy and the significant changes which could potentially occur in
some groups.

To date, over the past eight years, the moderators of TELECOM Digest,
first Jon Solomon and now myself, have seen no need to formally
copyright the material we post on a day to day basis submitted by
readers. We have thought it unethical to re-publish your submissions
in a non-Usenet/Internet media at a potential profit to ourselves. The
vote being conducted now, if it fails to pass, would permit moderators of
groups to disseminate submissions by thier readers as they desired, short of
an explicit denial of that permission by the writer. By voting YES on the
ballot, you are instructing the moderator to not do these things.

For more information, please see the ongoing discussion in news.groups
under the title 'Expansion of r.h.f. to other networks'. In the next
message, a ballot is printed for you. PLEASE follow the instructions of
the ballot EXACTLY as given. You must REPLY (not followup) to the address
given in the ballot message. You must insert the word YES or NO in the
header of your reply.

Do not follow up or reply to TELECOM Digest or comp.dcom.telecom, as this
is purely an administrative matter of USENET and discussion on it is being
held in the appropriate forum. Do not copy replies to my attention; no
messages on the subject will be printed (for the time being at least) in
the Digest.

Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator

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

From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Date: 24 Mar 89 18:10:55 GMT
Date-Received: 25 Mar 89 00:16:07 GMT
Subject: CALL FOR VOTES - MODERATOR GUIDELINES (was: rec.humor.funny)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: None
Path: nucsrl!accuvax.nwu.edu!shadooby!mailrus!ames!ucsd!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.humor.d
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Voting booth)
Followup-to: news.groups
Keywords: VOTE, Rec.humor.funny, Brad Templeton, Gateways
Lines: 156


Fri Mar 24 12:07:36 CST 1989

CALL FOR VOTES REGARDING MODERATOR'S GUIDELINES
PLEASE READ IN ENTIRETY FOR VOTING INSTRUCTIONS AND "THE QUESTION"

NOTE: This posting is being made to news.groups and rec.humor.d by myself.
      Brad Templeton has been asked to repost this article verbatim in
      rec.humor.funny as well; I have sent it to him via electronic mail.

The two week discussion period on rec.humor.funny has expired, and it is now
time for a call for votes.

As was pointed out during the discussion period, this vote is not really
about rec.humor.funny or Brad Templeton.  It is about the policies and
procedures that the net wishes to permit and sanction in moderation of
newsgroups.

Since the discussion period is for the purpose of "refining the question"
that is to be asked for the vote, I have modified the question that is to be
put to a vote to some degree.

The question being voted upon is:

o Should a moderator collect the majority or all his or her material
  from the Usenet, whether from net-email, postings which are redirected by
  the news software, or by culling from other newsgroups be restricted from:
    1) Compilation copyrighting that collection, effectively permitting
       the restriction of it's distribution.  (ie: does a moderator
       have claim to the material that is reposted in the group by
       that person).
    2) Selling, whether in print or electronically by gateway with
       commercial services, the collection obtained through the Usenet
       for personal or commercial profit or renumeration.

Some of the arguments which have been put forth on each side during the
discussion period have been:

PRO-proposal (ie: proposed YES voters):
    . Moderators are not the owner of a newsgroup or any other aspect of
      the namespace.  Moderators are in effect a "trustee" of the group
      appointed by the network at large.
    . Moderators derive the ability to compile their material from the
      collective resources and goodwill of the network.  Most sites
      view the Usenet as a non-commercial network, and thus may feel
      "exploited" if commercial use or resale is permitted.
    . Newsgroups flow over the Internet, and by some points of view
      commercial exploitation of material that passes through the Internet
      may jeopardize the continued existance of those links for the
      purpose of feeding Usenet news.  Note that this issue has NOT
      been decided at this point; NSF is currently evaluating their
      position with regards to the Internet and commercial use.  It
      is _prohibited_ to send commercial material over Arpanet links.
    . Moderators, while they may be within their legal rights to claim a
      compilation copyright (this is untested in court) should not claim
      such a copyright on ethical grounds, as it violates the "free
      spirit of Usenet".

ANTI-Proposal (ie: proposed NO voters):
    . Moderators own the namespace and the compilation of the contents in
      a newsgroup, due to the effort put in when weeding through
      submissions and reposting material.
    . Moderators have the sole right to restrict the distribution of the
      material in the moderated newsgroup.  Specifically, only the
      moderator has the right to gateway material to other commercial
      networks, restrict or permit the distribution on Usenet if desired,
      and reproduce the material in print for any purpose.
    . Moderators have the right to be compensated monetarily for the
      material that appears in their newsgroups by virtue of moderating
      that group, notwithstanding the fact that most or all of the
      material is not originated by the moderator and was carried to
      that moderator over links that are funded by third parties
      (ie: Usenet sites via email).

If you vote YES to this proposal, you are asking moderators who are
currently violating this proposed standard to cease and desist from doing
so.  Should a moderator refuse to comply with the requests of the network as
stated in this proposal, he/she would then be replaced by another moderator
(assuming someone else can be found who is willing to moderate the group), or
the backbone will be petitioned to globally "rmgroup" the group in question.

If you vote NO to this proposal, you are explicitly sanctioning moderators
profit-making activities and restrictive capabilities over the compilations
in moderated groups that are distributed through the medium known as "Usenet".

Please note that this proposed restriction or sanction is to be applied
equally to all moderators who compile material submitted in whole or
primarialy through channels known as "Usenet" or "email" hosted on Usenet
machines.

This standard would not be applied to moderators who solicit material from
other sources, such as Chuq's "rec.mag.otherrealms", as Chuq's material
(from my understanding) is taken from sources other than the Usenet.  It
would also not apply to individual sites who resell access or feed services,
as that is a free and competitive market (ie: anyone who doesn't like the
price can simply find another feed/access point, and providers who don't
like their downstream sites and/or users reselling are free to take action
or not as they deem appropriate).

If the vote should pass, we will petition Brad Templeton (who is the
moderator currently operating outside these guidelines) to cease working
outside these parameters.

Should the vote fail, the network will have spoken.  Moderators should then
feel free to operate in any manner they feel warranted, including selling
material to commercial networks, compiling compilations in print and selling
those, or selling electronic compilations.  In addition, the "Compilation
Copyright" that Brad is claiming will be officially sanctioned by the network,
with all of it's possible implications for future change in the Usenet and
it's topology.

TO VOTE (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY TO INSURE YOUR BALLOT IS NOT SPOILED!):

    REPLY to this posting.  EDIT the subject header of the posting, such
    that exactly ONE of the words "YES" or "NO" (choose your case, upper,
    lower, or mixed) is contained in the subject line.

    Then submit your email vote to:
        [e-mail]            (Internet mailer sites)
            or
        <well-connected-site>!ddsw1!vote    ("dumb mailer" sites)

    Replies to this posting are being redirected to this mailbox.

    Only one ballot per user will be counted.  Spoiled ballots and
    duplicates will, in most cases, be discarded silently.  Ballots
    containing neither or both of the keywords in the subject line,
    ballots sent to improper addresses, or ballots posted will be
    considered spoiled and discarded.

    Weekly summaries of the persons who have voted (but NOT interim
    results) will be posted to news.groups as the voting progresses.

    At the close of voting the results will be sorted, examined for
    duplicates, tallied and presented to the network for consideration.

    This vote is being run through automated software.  You may include
    comments in your ballot if you wish, but it is doubtful that a human
    will read them during the voting process.  Only the "Subject:" line
    will be examined to determine a ballot's vote.

The vote will commence on 3-24-1989, and run until 4-23-1989.  The postmark
present on _reception_ at ddsw1.MCS.COM will be considered the date of receipt.
Votes cast after the voting period expires will be bounced.

Those who wish to confirm the results may request a copy of the vote stream
as received.  Send email to [e-mail] for details on how to obtain a
copy.  We will archive it here for a minimum of two months after completion
of the voting.

We'll see everyone at the polls.

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [[phone]], Voice: [[phone]]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special Edition
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 27 Mar 89 8:07:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #110
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

{
TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Mar 89 07:45:57 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Connected Line ID (A worse idea) (David Gast)
    Cellular Radio Hazards (Robert Horvitz)
    California PUC pulls plug on egregious AOS gougers (Geoff Goodfellow)
    Pac*Bell, AT&T in cahoots? (Jeff Woolsey)
    Re: Urban Legend (Danny Wilson)
    Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? (Anthony E. Siegma)

[Moderator's Note: I am still getting in messages pro and con on Caller
ID. When I have time in the next day or two, I will put these together in
a file somewhere where they can be read as desired.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 01:56:10 PST
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connected Line ID (A worse idea)

In a recent issue of the digest
"Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]> writes:
> Subject: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) writes:

> (BTW, the CCITT but not ANSI is working on Connected Line ID,
> which tells you where you call was actually answered, if forwarded.)

This idea is a complete invasion of privacy.  The only exception would
be if the called party requests that the calling party obtain it.  I
think that most people on both sides of the Calling Line ID controversy
will agree that Connected Line ID is a bad idea.

Everyone probably agrees that we have the right to answer the phone
anywhere we damn well please without having the calling party know
where we are unless we explicitly choose to provide that information.
Giving our location to a random caller seems like a major invasion of
privacy to me.

For example, a would be burgler calls your home, you have set call
forwarding, and now the burgler knows that you are not at home.  Very
convenient for him.

 /* Sarcasm mode on */
If Connected Line ID is a good idea, why not take Connected Line ID,
one step further?  Why not identify the room in your house where you
are?  Then the calling party could begin ``Mrs. Jones, I am sorry to
bother you while you are in the john, but I have an exciting new
product that ..."  Why not identify who you are?  (The phone could
match your finger print on the handle with a national data base
maintained and sold by the phone company to anyone who wants to buy
it.)
 /* Sarcasm mode off */

Unfortunately, that is the direction we are going.  We somehow believe
that if it is technologically feasible, then we should do it.  Does
anyone see any reasonable need for this Connected Line ID?  (Except
where the callee specifically wants the caller to know where he is
calling.)

To get the definitive answer to this problem, however, we will have to wait
and see what the world's authority on telecom policy, Mike Royko, has to
say. :-)

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

Note:  Mr Goldstein did not endorse the idea.  He reported on it from his
role as a member of the ANSI subcommittee on CLID and CLIR.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Mar 89 22:13:18 PST
From: Robert Horvitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Radio Hazards


Mike Trout asks if there is any truth to the assertion
that "cellular phones [are] extremely hazardous and probably highly
carcinogenic."

I am not a scientist, but research on the bio-effects of radio-frequency
emissions is something I follow closely.  In general, if you want the
lastest news, pointers to new published evidence of bio-effects (beneficial
or harmful), announcements of regulatory action, and pro/con debates among
experts, consult MICROWAVE NEWS, edited/published by Dr. Louis Slesin
(6 bimonthly issues for $250 in the US, $285 to Canada & elsewhere;  order
from P.O. Box 1799, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163;  phone
212-517-2800).  My only connection to this publication is as an avid reader
for 7 years.  (BTW, the title is misleading:  it doesn't just cover the
microwave part of the spectrum.  Increasingly, attention is focussing on
the magnetic fields surrounding powerlines and video display terminals as a
health issue.)

To make a long, unfinished story short, there's no definite evidence yet
that radio emissions from cellular phones cause cancer, but there is reason
to fear that over the long term there COULD be harmful effects of SOME sort.
Different parts of the human body resonant at different electromagnetic
frequencies.  When radio waves pass through the body, some of the energy
is absorbed - very little, usually, since we are highly "transparent"
to the waves.  In theory, the more closely resonant a body is with the
radio waves, the more energy is transferred to the body.  The human head
and neck are pretty close to resonance with the frequencies emitted by
cellular phones.  ("Hots-spots" in the body for radio absorption are
generally the narrowings - ankles, neck - and places with sharp angles -
armpits, groin.)

If the cellular transmitter and antenna are in the headset, and you hold it
right against your skull, your brain is probably going to absorb quite a bit
of RF energy - probably more than the safety limits set by organizations
like ANSI.  But most cellular phones DON'T have the transmitter and antenna
in the headset.  The little pig-tail on the roof or window is the radiator.
Depending how far away it is, and how much shielding is provided by the car
roof, frame and seat, your exposure will be less.  (Because the interior of a
car is a complex reflective cavity for radio waves, there may be invisible
"hot-spots" where energy of specific frequencies is concentrated.  It's hard
to generalize about particular ambient fields.  Direct measurement is the
best way to determine the field strength at specific points.)

Beyond that, little is yet known about the bio-effects of radio waves that
are below the threshold where living tissue is measurably heated by energy
absorption.  What your source was probably picking up on was a finding that
living DNA can absorb enough energy from pulsed microwaves to fracture.  Dr.
Bill Guy (University of Washington) demonstrated in 1985 that rats exposed to
pulsed microwaves had a significant number of tumors induced in their
endocrine systems.  Other researchers have confirmed this, and still others
have found pulsed microwaves can cause mutations (chromosome damage) in chick
and rat embryos.

But it is a very long reach from pulsed microwaves to frequency-modulated
UHF radio waves - that's what cellular emits - and from rats to humans
- the resonant frequencies and absorption/dissipation rates are different.
Intuition suggests that pulsing may be more stressful on tissue than FM,
and the longer wavelengths of VHF mean less resonance with the tiny
structures in membranes and cells.

To complicate things further, bio-effects have only been found in certain
COMBINATIONS of power-density, frequency and duration.  Unlike exposure to
toxic chemicals, say, exposure to a more intense radio field might actually be
LESS harmful than a less intense field of the same frequency.  Same goes for
the duration of exposure:  it may be that intermittent exposure is more
- or less! - harmful than continuous exposure.  We just don't know.

We live in a sea of man-made radio energy containing all sorts of frequencies
and modulations that we can't see or feel, and we know very little about the
long-term effects.  For that reason, it's a shame - willful negligence? -
that the Environmental Protection Agency disbanded its radio effects
laboratory (thank you Ronald Reagan!) and gave up trying to set safety
standards for human exposure (thank you Gramm-Rudman-Hollings!).

I wouldn't hold a walkie-talkie up to my head - or wear a rubber-ducky
antenna on my headband, as some hams do - until we understand more about
the effects.  As for cellular, there's much more certain harm being
caused to your privacy (as others have noted, cellular systems BROADCAST
your words over very large areas), and also to your wallet.  For those
reasons alone you're better off stopping to use a pay-phone.

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

Subject: California PUC pulls plug on egregious AOS gougers.
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 19:58:43 PST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>

According to a story in Friday's San Francisco Examiner, Business Section,
the Public Utilities Commission directed TPC (Pacific Bell) to disconnect
54 privately owned pay phones in its first enforcement action against
"price gouging by some operator services".

"Privately owned pay phones can charge no more than 10 cents above Pacific
Bell and AT&T rates for local calls or calls in California".

The 54 privately owned pay phones belonged to 12 owners, and their charges
were found to be at least 90% higher than the authorized rates, and
sometimes were up to three times as high.  All owners had been warned of
the overcharging in November.  Under the PUC orders, Pacific Bell has sent
letters to the owners notifying them that their plug will be pulled in
seven days.

The article also mentioned the FCC last month imposed some restrictions on
five AOS firms accused of egregious gouging that require the companies "to
identify themselves to each caller and disclose rates if computers asked."


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

From: Jeff Woolsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell, AT&T in cahoots?
Date: 26 Mar 89 00:57:41 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Woolsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation


I walked up to a genuine Pacific*Bell coin phone in 408-738 this
afternoon.  It had a placard on it that proclaimed that 10XXX calls
could be placed from the phone, and that AT&T was the long distance
carrier for that phone.  I found out that they weren't kidding:   I
dialed 10333-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording saying that I had
reached the AT&T long distance network.  I dialed 10222-1-700-555-4141
and got the same announcement.   Evidently the CO routes any
10XXX-1-NXX-NXX-XXXX call to AT&T for coin collection (unless XXX is
not a valid carrier).  Seems mighty strange to me since the days of
free calls via this method are long gone, and most such calls got an
operator of some kind at the carrier of your choice, exactly like
10XXX-0-NXX-NXX-XXXX calls.

It seems you can't trust ANYBODY these days.
--
--
Qualify nearly everything.

Jeff Woolsey  [e-mail]  -or-  [e-mail]

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

From: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend
Date: 27 Mar 89 02:56:49 GMT
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.


In article <[e-mail]>, ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian@seas.
ucla.edu (julian macassey) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, GUYDOSRM%SNYPLABA.BITNET
@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes:

> (There follows the usual story, deleted here for brevity, of how dog is
> chained up, gets electric shock from phone ringing, urinates, sends ground
> to the phone line, etc....)

> This tale is waht is known today as "Urban Legend", such stories used to
> be called "Old Wives Tales". I have heard this story from telco people all
> over the world.


For what its worth, these urban legends have been studied for some
time now by the academic community. I heard a radio interview
with an author that searched the origins of such stories.

Although I can't remember that authors name, a while back another
newsgroup furnished the following reference to urban legends:

    "The Vanishing Hitchhiker" by Brunvand

Although I would really like to read this book, I haven't actually
gone out and bought it yet. Has anyone read it?


Danny Wilson            [e-mail]
IDACOM Electronics
Edmonton, Alberta
C A N A D A

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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 15:59:49 PST
From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number?
Organization: Stanford University


My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a
quite commercially interesting word.  During the 15-plus years I've
had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting
to take it over, paying me something for giving it up.  A recent one
seems serious.

Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number?  Rumor
has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got
$1000 for turning over this number during the Centennial".

My "commercially interesting" number, by the way, is 326-6669 =
ECONOMY.  Wasn't certain whether I wanted to publish it or not.

Sorry for the mailer foulups -- not certain if it's the system here,
my novice skills (just learning rn and Unix), or what.

A. E. Siegman  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This is a repeat of the message which was lost in transit
a couple days ago. The author saw my request and resent it to us.   PT]
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #110
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 28 Mar 89 1:57:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #111
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Mar 89 01:34:14 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller*ID(tm) and Repeat*Call(tm) in New Jersey (Mark Robert Smith)
    Shady operations (John Higdon)
    CompuServe adds monthly user fee (Bruce Nelson)
    How Much Is A Phone Number Worth? (Scott Statton)
    Perfect solution to caller privacy (Rahul Dhesi)
    Alternative to CPID ([e-mail])
    Announcements (TELECOM Moderator)

[Moderator's Note: The Vote discussed in the special issue of the Digest
over the weekend has been CANCELLED. *DO NOT* send votes! See final message
in this issue for details.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 22:01:25 EST
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID(tm) and Repeat*Call(tm) in New Jersey

I've just returned from Spring Break, and my dorm number has finally had
Caller*ID and Repeat*Call turned on.  I picked up the Caller ID box from my
PO Box here, and here are a few first impressions:

Repeat*Call works well.  I have used it both for local calls and intra-LATA
long distance calls.  One feature that is not documented is that when you
get the Repeat Call signal that the line is free (two short, one long), the
Caller ID box displays the number that you are attempting to call.  This is
useful because you can have several Repeat Calls running at the same time.  My
only complaint (other than the large one below) is that the confirmation tape
you hear upon activating Repeat Call is very worn and of poor quality.  Repeat
Call is activated by dialing *66 after the busy signal.  All current Repeat
Calls will be disabled by dialing *86 (you can't disable one, you have to
disable all).

Caller ID works well also.  After purchasing the 9-volt battery the box
requires (that was never mentioned before...), I hooked it up.  After the
wrangling with NJ Bell (see below), it finally worked.  The number appears
quite quickly, almost immediately after the first ring ends.  It only
displays the last seven digits, but then I haven't gotten a call from out of
state yet.  I haven't seen it yet, but according to the documentation, it
displays three question marks:
                  _   _   _
                  _|  _|  _|
                 |   |   |

when the number does not support Caller ID.  When a call comes in, the unit
displays a NEW in the top right corner, and the number, preceded by an L
(it looks like it was supposed to show L for long distance, and nothing for
local, but that info was replaced by a page-size sticker in the docs).  After
30 seconds, whether the phone was answered or not, the number disappears and
is replaced by the word CALL.  The box has three buttons, Remove, Time of Call,
and Review.  To review the calls (it stores up to 20, and then bounces the
least recent), you hit the review button, and the most recent call will be
displayed, then the next most recent...  When you hit Time of Day, you see
DATE in the mid-upper left, the 2 digit day on the left, the 2 digit hour
(1-12) on the right, and AM or PM to the right of the hour.  This time/date
comes over the line with the number, not from the box.  If the same number
calls back, the upper right will show REPEATED CALL for that number,
and the Time/Date will be for the most recent call from that number.

To delete a number, you hit the Remove button twice, and the digits of
the number disappear one at a time from the right to left (a "dissolve").
There is also a low battery indicator BATT on the far left.  Under the gray
square surrounding the LCD screen, there are two buttons in the bottom right
and left corners that are not marked, which when pressed simultaneously will
reset the unit and clear the numbers.

If there are no calls in memory when Review is pressed, nine's are shown.  The
unit is 6" long, 4 3/4" wide, and slopes from 2.5" tall in the back to 2" tall
in the front.  The phone cord plugs in the back, and there is a barrel socket
(like those used for DC adaptors) that is marked unused in the manual, and
unmarked on the unit.


I had to call NJ Bell repair today to get the service turned on (3/27).  The
person who I called to establish the service said that the service would be
turned on on 3/20.  I was locked out of the dorm for Break last week, so I
was not around on 3/20.  I called the Business Office to see if the service was
actually on, as reccommended in the Caller ID box manual, and the person said
that it showed completed on 3/20.  I then called the Manufacturer of the box,
and they said that they had been having trouble with NJ Bell saying that the
service was on when it wasn't.  The service call was placed around noon, and
the service was on when I returned at 8pm tonight.  When I called the Business
Office, I asked for a credit for the time that the service was not really on,
and the rep told me that I asked to have the service turned on on 3/20, and
that I should have checked then to see if it worked.  I said that I was TOLD
when the service would start, with no choice in the matter, and that I was
locked out of my dorm last week and couldn't check on 3/20.  She said that she
didn't want to argue and credited me for the week that the service was
supposedly on but really wasn't.  Is this some kind of extra money-making plot,
or just ineptitude on the part of NJ Bell?

This is my first report.  If anything exciting develops, I'll let you know.
Please feel free to direct questions about the rudiments of the service to me,
at an address shown below:

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    rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?)
[e-mail]    Copyright 1989, Mark Smith.  All Rights Reserved.

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Shady operations
Date: 27 Mar 89 06:19:50 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team



A few weeks ago I brought up some of the slimy practices of PacTel
Cellular in Los Angeles. Here is what has got to be the flip side of
those practices.

Here in the Bay Area we have to cellular providers: GTE Mobilnet
(wireline) and Cellular One (non-wireline), which is owned in part by
Pacific Telesis, the holding company for PacTel and Pacific Bell. GTE
Mobilnet is the larger of the two systems with over 90 cell sites
compared to Cellular One with only 60.

Cellular One has a great arrangement with Pacific Bell. No matter where
you are in the Bay Area, if you call any Cellular One mobile prefix you
are charged only as a local call. This even works from utility-provided
pay phones: any call to a Cellular One mobile phone is twenty cents.

On the other hand, if you try to call a GTE mobile prefix you get a
recording that says, "There are long distance charges associated with
this call. Please redial your call, preceded by the digit '1'." You get
this recording even if you are calling a GTE mobile prefix that shows
in the directory as being local to the telephone you are using. I have
yet to find a Pacific Bell pay phone anywhere in the Bay Area that does
not do this.

When you follow instructions and dial the '1', you get a reorder. This
is to be expected in 408 since a '1' is not used for long distance. If
you precede the number with '0', you get the Pacific Bell ka-bong where
you can enter your calling card (and be charged ????). If you call the
Pacific Bell operator, your call will be placed and twenty cents will
be collected.

I used to think this was an honest programming error in a particular
central office until 1) I reported it four times and nothing was done,
and 2) I found out that it is widespread. Another thing is that this
recording that you hear is heard under no other circumstances. If you
actually dial a long distance call you get asked for money. If you are
in 415 and forget to dial a '1', you are simply told that you must dial
a '1' and there is no mention of "long distance *charges*".

Do you suppose little things like this might nudge potential cellular
customers over to Cellular One? From non-coin phones, things seem to
work properly. I'm not quite sure where to start my campaign, but it
seems that a call to GTE Mobilnet might be in order. I'm sure they will
be interested to know how the operating company is thwarting their
business. The next call will be to the Pacific Bell pay phone division,
and that will be followed by a strong letter to the CPUC.

Any other suggestions?
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: Bruce Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: CompuServe adds monthly user fee
Date: 27 Mar 89 20:14:50 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce Nelson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY


CompuServe just announced that they will begin charging a $1.50 per month
user fee over and above whatever usage is charged. The fee will be waived
during the first three months of a new account.

They will, however, make some services free - like looking up your charges,
looking up access numbers, etc.

I thought you all would like to know.

Bruce D. Nelson           | UUCP: ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!hawkeye!nelson
Eastman Kodak Company     | Voice: 716-726-7890
901 Elmgrove Road         | Company Mail: Dept 5177 Distributed Systems Service
Rochester, NY 14653-5219  | Standard disclaimers apply

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

Date:  Tue, 28 Mar 89 00:12:16 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How Much Is A Phone Number Worth?

In a TELECOM Digets #110, Anthony Siegman
([e-mail]), asks the value of his residential phone
number.  My employer recently bought NXX-1000 for $1,500.  This is
being used as the FG-A number for a long-distance reseller, where
easily memorized numbers are important to have.  (We're also getting
NXX-9595 wherever possible throughout the rest of the state, to make
memorizing the numbers easier.)

  Scott Statton -- N1GAK ... aka [e-mail]

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

From: Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perfect solution to caller privacy
Date: 24 Mar 89 20:24:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


I just discovered the perfect solution to the caller privacy issue.

Suppose you make a telephone call and the callee is automatically
refusing calls unless the caller is willing to identify himself.

You hear a tone and a voice that says:

"*Blip* *Bleep* *Blurp*  This call cannot be completed as dialed
unless you enable caller identification.  You can do this by flashing
the switchook once, or by dialing *7 on your touch tone telephone,
*NOW*."

There is now a five-second wait.  If you enable caller id as
instructed, your call goes through immediately and you don't even have
to redial.
--
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 19:58:29 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Alternative to CPID

As several contributors have pointed out, CPID isn't really going to do the
average person much good.  The problem of finding catching obscene callers
is better solved by a code that reports the last/current callers number to
the nuisance bureau.  The problem of finding who hung up before you got to the
phone is better solved by a "call back the last caller" code.

Proponents of CPID say that it would allow them to screen incoming calls.
Various contributors have also noted that this is a bad idea since relatives
calling from pay phones, or other types of emergency calls would be missed.
(Anyone who can remember all their friends' phone numbers has either a superb
memory, or few enough friends that they should welcome calls from
strangers. :-)

Rather than provide us all with CPID, what the phone company should do is give
us a way of posting "no solicitations" on our line.  Then require junk callers
to dial with a prefix that would bounce the call if we've chosen that option.
Solicitation calls that get through should be reported to the nuisance bureau.

If we played our cards right, we could probably get the junk callers pay for
the service of not completing calls to people who don't want to receive them.
The junk callers would presumably save money in the long run.  On the other
hand, I'd be willing to pay a small fee to know I won't receive junk calls.

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

Date:     Tue, 28 Mar 89 1:32:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Announcements

Over the weekend, you were mailed a special edition of the Digest suggesting
that you participate in a Usenet vote on the subject of 'Guidelines For
Usenet Moderators'.

The topic was of some controversy in news.groups, and the passage of the
proposed vote would have affected the relationship of all moderators of
news groups/lists.

The person who proposed the vote, and set up the apparatus for the vote
decided, for reasons not known to me, to cancel the voting. The address
set up to accept the votes was removed, and all mail sent after sometime
late Saturday was refused, and returned to the sender.

My first knowledge of this came when I was reading news.groups earlier this
evening. My second notice came when a couple readers here reported that
their mail had bounced.

Apparently you should NOT submit a vote. I apologize for the confusion,
but at the time the vote was announced I did think it was important to let
everyone know.

On another issue: mail regarding caller ID is still coming in. I know at
one time I said we would use it all, but I never really expected to get
quite the volume. As the days go on, the responses become more rancorous
and hateful. Yes, I started the discussion, but at the same time I did
devote not one, but several issues to printing replies, from every possible
angle, and expressing every possible opinion.

If I keep on running those messages, we would have digest after digest of
them; none of them saying anything new, and many of them simply stirring
up more hate and discontent than exists already. In today's issue, we at
least have a message from someone who is actually using it, describing how
it works, and I have printed a couple of FINAL replies from the several
received in recent days. Let's *please* move on to different topics. Any
further messages on Caller ID should preferably be from persons who have
subscribed or who have technical commentaries about the offering.

Thank you!

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #111
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 28 Mar 89 2:37:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #112
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Mar 89 02:09:27 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    The Strange Territory That Will Be Area 708 (David Tamkin)
    Directory Assistance by Modem? (Frank G Kienast)
    Yes! Directory Assistance Records via Modem (Daniel Senie)
    Telcos Charging For Handling Nasty Callers (Ron Natalie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 10:47 CST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Strange Territory That Will Be Area 708

[Moderator's Note: This is a letter I received from David Tamkin, a fellow
Chicagoan. We were discussing other things, and got into a discussion about
the odd-ball prefixes here which straddle the city/suburban boundary lines.
I asked David where they would be placed: 708 or 312. Here is his reply.  PT]

Patrick:

I already knew about those numbers.  I'd spoken to a live operator on one of
them, who admitted, when I brought up the mess in the Newcastle CO, that it
wouldn't really be possible to make it through without changing any phone
numbers.  (Had IBT not gotten sloppy they could have.)

The following twelve prefixes are, per the recording, to "be served by both
area code 312 and area code 708:"

200 340 411 555 611 796 911 950 958 959 970 976

These thirty-seven prefixes are invalid.  I imagine that 414 and 219 (which
match area codes in the LATA) and 217, 309, 312, 618, 708, and 805 (matching
area codes in Illinois) will remain invalid:

203 211 212 217 219 270 290 300 309 311 312 313 319 320 370 400 414 415 494
500 511 600 610 616 618 700 708 710 711 800 809 811 813 815 900 912 999

494 I'll get back to below.

All the dedicated mobile prefixes I knew of are, per the recording, to
remain in 312.  So are the dedicated FX prefixes such as BRoadway 3,
BIshop 2, and 569.  The ten prefixes serving the city from suburban CO's:

229 380 399 58(LUdlow)6 589 62(NAtional)5 693 694 714 992

will remain in 312.

The prefixes serving the suburbs from city CO's [well, only one city CO, now
that 494 has been dissolved: 45(GLadstone)7, 64(NIles)7, and 86(UNderhill)7]
will be switched to 708, meaning that 708 will cover three discontiguous
geographical areas.  UNderhill 7 has always been listed in the Chicago
directories (and the Jefferson Park local) and handled from the same city
business office as Chicago's parts of the Newcastle CO district, so that
will likely change when it goes into area code 708: Harwood Heights listings
will appear in the River Grove local and Near West Suburban regional books
instead and be served from the west suburban business office.

(The other two holes in the city are no problem: one is a small plot of land
with no phones, belonging to the state and condemned for highway purposes.
The other is filled by Mt. Greenwood Cemetery, where mail is addressed "Blue
Island, Illinois" but which has a city phone number.)

Unincorporated Norwood Park Township will be a mess.  If it had been up to
me, I'd have kept Elmwood Park, Harwood Heights, Norridge, and River Grove
in 312 so that 708 could be in one piece and there would be only one
boundary line, but it wasn't up to me.  UNPT is laid out like this: Sections
1 and 12 have 867 prefixes, section 11 has 457 prefixes, and section 2 has a
mosaic of suburban Park Ridge prefixes (692, 698, 823, 825, and maybe a 696
or two, but no 318's or 518's) and Chicago-service Park Ridge prefixes (380,
399, 693, and 714).  You see, up until 1976 Centel treated it as suburbia
and assigned suburban prefixes, charged at suburban rates; then, since it
had been surrounded by Chicago for fifteen years, they started assigning
Chicago numbers charged at Chicago rates but didn't make anyone who was
already there change numbers.  If the rest of UNPT were to have stayed in
312, Centel could have gone on as they have and eventually the remaining
suburban phone numbers would have been replaced with Chicago numbers as
people sold their homes or changed their numbers, but since the IBT parts of
UNPT are going to 708 it's a whole new story.

IBT was cleaning up its act in the Newcastle area but just assigned a 775-
prefix to a new store in Harwood Heights (Cosmetic Center in Holiday Plaza).
I wish I had a way to the ear of someone who'll listen.

Do you think that a discontiguous NPA is a bad idea?  I know I do, and I'm
sure that people in Harwood Heights, Norridge, and UNPT have a lot more
telephone conversations with Chicago locations than they do with locations
in suburbs that are outside the perimeter of the city.  Heck, that's
probably true of Elmwood Park as well, if not also River Grove!

Now, about what you were saying regarding the Cicero-Chicago border: I'm not
sure if you were talking about 24(BIshop)2 or 494.  Each is a separate story.

BIshop 2 is a dedicated Foreign Exchange prefix, used solely to provide city
numbers to west suburban businesses.  Until 1987 it was located in the
Cicero CO, but then it was moved to Chicago-Austin.  However, it is part of
the Chicago-Lafayette exchange and Chicago Zone 6 for when a call is charged
by exchanges or zones (such as calls from coin phones or from Centel
service) rather than by CO's.  It will remain in 312.

494 was in the Chicago-Lawndale CO.  It was part of the Cicero exchange.  I
couldn't figure out where it served, and every number I tried dialing on
that prefix got an intercept that the number was not in service or that the
number had been disconnected with no further information available.  The
recorded service for the area code change says 494 is an invalid prefix now;
if I try to dial 494-XXXX, the call is intercepted after only three digits.
It's been dissolved.

And I think IBT are once again out of their minds.  494 was the only
suburban prefix that was within an A call of Lake Shore, Illinois Dearborn,
or Superior (Franklin, Wabash, and the Canals are in the A zone from the
Cicero CO's three exchanges and ten prefixes; Lakeview is in the A zone from
Oak Park, Evanston, and Skokie).  They could have offered lower rates for a
708-494- number to downtown locations than for any other 708 prefix and
accordingly had much more of such traffic in Remote Call Forwarding from
business customers who won't pop for full-fledged Foreign Exchange service,
but they blew it by having it dissolved.

If I were in charge of this, I'd be aggressively promoting the 494 prefix
for Remote Call Forwarding, telling downtown businesses that they don't have
to make their suburban customers feel alienated by needing to dial eleven
digits.

David

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

From: Frank G Kienast <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Assistance by Modem?
Date: 28 Mar 89 02:02:07 GMT


I am curious as to why the phone companies do not offer directory assistance
by modem.  Seems like it would cut down on the cost of providing this
service, especially when the directory assistance operator punches your
request into a computer anyway.  I realize that many people who call
directory assistance may not even know what a modem is, but wouldn't it
be worthwhile even if only a relatively small percentage of people used it?

What would be even better would be a single modem number that would provide
directory assistance for any city in the US.  This would save time, in that
you would only have to make one call to get all the numbers you need.  I
wonder why some private information company hasn't thought of this.  Seems
to me that people would be willing to pay for a service like this.  Or are
there major legal, etc. problems that would be encountered?

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


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has tariffed this service, known locally
as 'Directory Express' for about three years. They sell Directory Assistance
by the hour rather than by the call. The last I heard, they only had about
four or five customers using it: a couple of collection agencies and credit
services. They call via modem and get the same data base DA uses.  PT]

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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem
Date: 24 Mar 89 05:46:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA



Several people have made the argument that CPID does not reveal the caller's
name or other such information and therefore does not really provide
information which would violate privacy. I beg to differ:

A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on
CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single
disc. While this information would not necessarily be indexed by phone number,
building such an index is not difficult.

So, a person or company with CPID interfaced to a PC or minicomputer could
display the caller's name and address while the phone is still ringing.

Dan
=================================
Personally I wish NET would just get around to providing touch-tone in this
town! All of these services are just a pip dream in this area. NYNEX doesn't
seem to feel that it is important to provide advanced services outside the
cities.

--
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: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telcos Charging For Handling Nasty Callers
Date: 23 Mar 89 15:15:46 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


> 1) Count on the BOCs soaking everybody involved for this {dis}service. They
> have been looking ever since 84 for anything and everything they can charge
> extra for. Have you priced a leased line recently?

Well certainly some features of the NJ Bell Class service are a bit annoying.
One of which is the additional charge for reporting to the police the identity
the source of obscene or harrassing phone calls.  They used to do this for free
(although it wasn't just a matter of pushing touchtone keys as it is now).

I'm not sure of your leased line statement.  The rates for a 3002 dedicated
circuit are still cheaper than leaving a line dialed up if you're a business
and hence have message unit service.

-Ron

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #112
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 29 Mar 89 0:50:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #113
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:42:45 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular prefixes in Chicagoland (John R. Covert)
    0+NPA+7D refused?! (Carl Moore)
    Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Piet van Oostrum)
    COCOTs as an investment (Marc T. Kaufman)
    900 service providers--who? (John Boteler)
    Re: Directory Assistance by Modem? (John Murray)
    Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem (Ben Sharpe)
    Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem (Nicholas J. Simicich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Mar 89 05:25
Subject: Cellular prefixes in Chicagoland

>All the dedicated mobile prefixes I knew of are, per the recording, to
>remain in 312.

How about 550 (Ameritech) and 659 (Southwestern Bell/Cellular One)?

As far as I can tell, these are dedicated -- in fact they are the "main"
prefixes for each company, containing the Chicago roamer access numbers.
Yet I would expect both of them to move, since they are currently listed
outside the city.  This will put both "Chicago" roamer numbers in 708.

It seems that 867 is the only exception to the rule that if the "name place"
for the prefix is "Chicago" it stays in 312, otherwise it moves to 708.  This
makes one suspicious about 867 -- will its "name place" change along with its
NPA?

/john

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

Date:     Tue, 28 Mar 89 9:52:28 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  0+NPA+7D refused?!

Last night, I went to a Diamond State pay phone on 302-366-9xxx (Newark, Del.)
and tried to place a 0+ call to a Va. suburb of DC on 703-893 prefix.  It turns
out I would have to dial 10288+0+703-893-xxxx to get AT&T routing.  My attempt
to use 0+703-893-xxxx got a recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed"
as did my attempt to use areacode 202 instead of 703.
Mind you, this is not a COCOT.

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Date: 28 Mar 89 11:09:34 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht, Holland


In article <[e-mail]>, dhesi@bsu-cs (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
 `In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ole J.
  Jacobsen) writes:
 `>My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard.
 `>...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).

 `This seems to be of dubious value.  What is the difference between
 `buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a
 `telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone
 `directly?  This just seems to add an extra step.

It makes sense if you dial an international call. With coins you will
not do much more than pushing coins. Moreover, the British pay phones have
the terrible habit of disabling the voice channel momentarily while you
insert a coin (maybe they have better ones now?).

I think the major advantage is for the phone company. They don't have to
collect the coins and there is no chance of theft of the money from the phone.
--
Piet van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Telephone: [phone]. [e-mail] (mcvax!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet)

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOTs as an investment
Date: 28 Mar 89 16:29:04 GMT
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


A boiler-room investment group called to offer my wife a sure-fire
investment, with 35% annual return -- GUARANTEED!

...in the form of secured corporate notes in U.S. Fiber-Line, who are
supposed to be in the AOS and COCOT business.

---I knew a guy once, who was so ticked off that a door-to-door salesman
sold him a set of encyclopedias, that he went to work for the company and
sold encyclopedias himself until he had recouped his losses.---

If you can't lick 'em, join 'em?

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


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

Subject: 900 service providers--who?
Date: Mon Mar 27 14:42:26 1989
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>
Organization: Bote Communications, McLean VA

HELP!!! I'm lost in telecom.hell!!!

It is truly amazing that some carriers are still in business after
the rigamarole I just went through with AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Allnet,
et al.

All I wanted to know was whether or not they currently provide
900-xxx-xxxx service. Part of the problem was that I don't know
what name to call this service, which does present some problems
when the people I called don't know either! After describing what
I wanted in detail, then they checked to find out if they
offered the service. Five to eight departmental transfers/phone
calls later, the answer was: they don't know!

Do you? I have already retrieved the list posted to this newsgroup
listing three letter codes translating to 900 service providers. However,
I do not have any contact information for many of them.

I need, and would appreciate greatly, a list delineating:
1. The carrier's 900 offering name (so I can ask for it intelligently)
2. The carrier's phone number
3. Any additional info (rates, service quality, etc)

At this point, the query time spent per carrier has become prohibitive;
that is why I am counting on the renowned expertise of this
forum for guidance. Of course, thank you in advance!

email to:

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


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

From: John Murray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance by Modem?
Date: 28 Mar 89 21:41:22 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <[e-mail]>, well![e-mail] (Frank
G Kienast) writes:
> I am curious as to why the phone companies do not offer directory assistance
> by modem.

Isn't this what the French Minitel system was initially established for?
- J. Murray, Amdahl Corp.

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

From: ben sharpe <goofy!applelink.apple.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem
Date: 28 Mar 89 17:43:14 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Daniel Senie) writes:
> A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on
> CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single
> disc.

So what happened?  I would be very interested in finding out any
information about Yellow or White pages on CD.



*** Generald Disclaimer ***
"My employer is not responsible for what I have to say."
If you can't say something nice... say something surrealistic.  -- Zippy
** Please put my name in the subject
** as my mailbox is a group account on AppleLink.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 23:29:45 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <bywater!scifi![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Simicich)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Senie) writes:
 (.....)
>A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on
>CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single
>disc. While this information would not necessarily be indexed by phone number,
>building such an index is not difficult.

>So, a person or company with CPID interfaced to a PC or minicomputer could
>display the caller's name and address while the phone is still ringing.
 (.....)

Yep.  I've seen it running at a Long Island communication show last
year.  It allowed you to do lookups by region and name, or by phone
number.  It would probably take a ring or two to do a lookup.

Licensing policies didn't allow you to make wholesale copies of the
directory, or use it as a basis for sales calls.  The AT+T people
claimed that they had put "ringers" (as it were) into the database,
and that if they found a correlation between cold calls arriving at
those numbers and people who were getting this service, they would cut
off subscriptions.

They weren't telling you the format of the database, although figuring
it out and using it on a LAN as a server didn't violate their license,
according to the person I talked to, as long as you didn't copy data
from the database wholesale.  They also claimed that someone had done
it.

You got a new CD-ROM every month, as an update.  I seem to remember a
number of around $10,000/year for the service, plus the setup (AT
class machine and CD ROM drive, supplied by NYNEX).  As NYNEX sold it,
this was for a single station.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #113
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 29 Mar 89 1:15:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #114
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:56:36 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    USTS Class Action Lawsuit (TELECOM Moderator)
    The real use of caller ID services (John B. Nagle)
    Re: Possible Cancer Risk From Cellular Phones? (Richard Snider)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 29 Mar 89 0:34:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO CERTAIN CURRENT AND FORMER
CUSTOMERS OF UNITED STATES TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS ITT
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.)

By order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of certain former and current
customers against United States Transmission Systems, Inc., now known as
ITT Communications Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'USTS'. The
Court has preliminarily approved a settlement of this lawsuit.

YOU ARE URGED TO READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT AFFECTS YOUR
RIGHTS AND WILL BE BINDING ON YOU IN THE FUTURE.

I. NOTICE OF A PENDING CLASS ACTION
A. Description of the Lawsuit
   Plaintiffs have sued USTS, alleging that USTS charged customers for certain
unanswered phone calls, holding time, busy signals, and central office recorded
messages, hereinafter referred to as 'unanswered calls', without adequately
disclosing such charges to their customers or the public. Plaintiffs
seek to present their own claims for charges for unanswered calls, as
well as the claims of other current and former USTS customers for similar
charges.

   USTS denies the violations alleged by plaintiffs, and contends that
at all times, USTS has charged its subscribers fairly and properly and has
disclosed fully and fairly the basis for its long distance charges.
USTS has agreed to settle plaintiff's suit solely to avoid the
expense, inconvenience and disruption of further litigation.

   This notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court of the
merits of this litigation or of the Settlement Agreement. The Complaint,
the Settlement Agreement and other pleadings in this case may be inspected
during normal business hours at the office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 231 West
Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226.

B. The Settlement Class
   Plaintiffs and USTS have entered into a Settlement Agreement, which has
been preliminarily approved by the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the parties have agreed, for purposes of settlement only,
that this suit has been brought on behalf of the following class of persons
similarly situated to Plaintiffs, hereinafter known as 'the Class':

   All persons and entities that subscribed to and utilitzed the long distance
telephone service of USTS or its predecessor ITT Corporate Communication
Services, Inc., referred to collectively hereinafter as 'USTS', at any time
during the period January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1985.

C. How to Remain a Class Member
   If you were a subscriber to and utilized USTS' long distance service
at any time during this period, you are a member of the Class. You
need do nothing to remain a member of the Class and participate in the
benefits this settlement will provide. If you remain in the Class, you
will be bound by the results of the settlement and/or the lawsuit.

D. How to Exclude Yourself From the Class
   You are not required to be a member of the Class. Should you decide that
you do not want to me a member of the Class, you must send an Exclusion
Notice that states your name, your current address, and your desire to be
excluded from the Class to the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at the address given at the
end of this Notice, postmarked no later than April 20, 1989. If you choose
to be excluded from the Class, you may not participate in the settlement.
You will not, however, be bound by any judgment dismissing this action and
you will be free to pursue on your own behalf any legal rights you may have.

II. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
    The Settlement Agreeent requires USTS to provide to Class members
up to 750,000 minutes of long distance telephone credits having a maximum
value, at 30 cents per minute, of $225,000, hereinafter known as the
"Settlement Credits", and cash refunds up to a maximum of $50,000. These
benefits are available to Class membes who file a proof of claim in a timely
manner as described in Section III below. Class members may choose one benefit
from the following options:

    A. A *standardized credit* toward USTS long distance telephone service
       of $1.50 for each year from 1979 through 1985 in which the Class
       member (i) was a USTS customer, and (ii) claims that s/he was charged
       by USTS for unanswered calls; or

    B. A *standardized cash refund* of 90 cents for each year from
       1979 through 1985 in which the Class member was (i) was a USTS customer
       and (ii) claims that s/he was charged by USTS for unanswered
       calls; or,

    C. An *itemized credit* toward USTS long distance service of 30 cents
       for each minute of unanswered calls for which the Class member was
       charged during the Class period (January 1, 1979 through
       December 31, 1985) and for which the Class member has not been
       previously reimbursed or credited; or,

    D. An *itemized cash refund* of 30 cents for each minute of unanswered
       calls for which the Class member charged during the Class period
       (January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1985) and for which the Class
       member has not been previously reimbursed or credited.

    To obtain an *itemized* credit or cash refund, the Class member must
itemize and attest to each unanswered call for for which a refund or credit
is claimed. If the total credits claimed by Class members exceed 750,000
credit minutes, each Class member claiming Settlement Credits will receive
his/her/its pro rata share of the total Settlement Credits available.

Class members need not be current USTS customers to claim the standardized
and itemized credits. USTS will automatically open an account for any Class
member who requests credits and executes an authorization to open such an
account. If a Class member incurs a local telephone company service charge
in connection with the opening of a USTS account, USTS will issue a credit
to the Class member's account for the full amount of such service charge
upon receipt of the local telephone company's bill for the service charge.
USTS is not responsible for any other service charge that a local telephone
company may impose for ordering, using or terminating USTS service.

The Settlement Agreement requires USTS to pay the costs of giving this Notice
(up to a maximum of $120,000) and of administering the settlement described
above.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that upon final approval of the
settlement, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing with prejudice all
claims of plaintiffs and members of the Class that have been or might have
been asserted in this action and that relate to USTS' billing
practices and disclosure practices for unanswered calls.

Counsel for the Class have investigated the facts and circumstances regarding
the claims against USTS and their defenses. In view of those circumstances,
counsel for the Class have concluded that this Settlement Agreement is fair
and reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class.

III. HOW TO FILE A CLAIM
    To receive Settlement Credits or a Cash Refund, you must first
obtain a Proof of Claim Notice; then provide all the information requested
and return it to the Clerk of the Court postmarked no later than June
30, 1989.

To obtain claim forms:                      To file completed claim form:

USTS Class Action Claim Administrator       Clerk of the United States Court
ITT Communication Services, Inc.            ATTN: USTS Settlement
100 Plaza Drive                             231 W. Lafayette Blvd. Room 740
Secaucus, NJ 07096                          Detroit, MI 48226

If you have any further questions about this Notice, or the filing of
Proof of Claim, *write* to the USTS Action Claim Administrator at the
above address. If you have any questions about this lawsuit or your
participation therein as a member of the Class, *write* to lead
counsel for plaintiffs --

Sachnoff Weaver & Rubenstein, Ltd.
ATTN: USTS Settlement
30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60606

Always consult your own attorney for legal advice and questions which
concern you about your rights in any class action matter.

DO NOT telephone the Court. DO NOT telephone the attornies for plaintiff.
DO NOT telephone the Claims Administrator; any office of USTS or any of
its employees. DO NOT telephone any Telephone Company asking for information
on this matter. Only *written correspondence filed in a timely manner will
be considered by the Court.*

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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The real use of caller ID services
Date: 28 Mar 89 19:07:15 GMT
Organization: Stanford University



       "Forbes" for April 3 contains an article, "Relationship marketing",
which indicates what caller ID services are really for.  A combination of
home-shopping TV shows, automatic caller ID, telco-provided billing, and
relational databases promises to be the biggest thing in marketing since
computer-targeted direct mail.

       Some of the people and organizations involved:

    Merv Griffin (interactive game show in the works)
    MGM/UA ("Hotline": "I'm Jim Peck, and this is HOTLINE.  To play
         our game, just pick up your phone and call the 900 number
         flashing on the TV ncreen.  Answer today's questions and
         you could become an instant winner... Vanna, tell the folks
         about our terrific prizes...")
    Capital Cities/ABC (900 numbers used to improve ratings)
    General Foods
    RJR/Nabisco ("New, detailed databases that will track buying habits")
    Ronald Katz (inventor of mag-stripe credit cards, online credit
             verification, and and head of First Data Resources
             Interactive Technologies.  "By the end of this year,
             [our] system will be able to take up to 300,000 calls an
             hour".  Enough for something plugged on the Cosby Show.)
    United Airlines (Mileage Plus customer service)
    Telecredit, Inc. (bought Katz's first company)
    American Express (owns part of Katz's new company)
    Telesphere (an AOS?)
    AT&T, MCI, Sprint (the usual suspects)

                        John Nagle

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

From: xrtll![e-mail]
Date:     Tue, 28 Mar 89 13:00:29 EST
Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard Snider)
Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike
Trout) writes:
>I recently had a discussion with a major electronics guru for a local
>television station.  We were talking about microwave transmitters (radar
>speed guns, garage door openers, that sort of thing), when he made a dramatic
>statement that shocked me:  he claimed that cellular phones were extremely
>hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic.

>He claimed that the frequency wavelengths used for cellular phone radio
>transmissions were just about equal to the diameter of the human brain cavity.
>This, he claimed, accelerated by the fact that the receiver is always held up
>against the human skull, sets up highly dangerous conditions within the human
>brain.

(Stuff deleted)

>His co-workers seemed to share his
>opinions; one of their technicians was severely injured some years back by
>climbing on a transmission tower during a high-intensity transmission.

>Is this nonsense, an urban myth, or is this actually a matter of risk?

Getting out my handy dandy $2 calculator, I plug in the speed of light
and divide it by the frequency emmited by cellular phones (Approx 800-
900 Mhz) and get the wavelegth of about 30 to 38 cm (about a foot).
Now assuming that we set up some kind of reflector to set up standing waves
we get about 6 inches.  How close this is to the size of the brain cavity
is unknown to me, but what I do know is that the bone in the skull is NOT
a very good reflector of Electromagnetic waves in that part of the spectrum.
If it was, then microwave ovens would have a difficult time cooking
meats with bones in them since everything within 1/2 wavelength of the bones
would be un-cooked.  I have taken a few liberties here with my example
as far as the frequency of microwaves compared to UHF waves, but for this
example I think it is close enough.

Now, as for getting injured by climbing a transmission tower. Well,
personally I would never get too close to a light source being powered
in the 70,000 watt (or greater) range and the same goes for Electromagnetic
Transmission equipment.  Most cellular phones operate in the 4-20 watt
range, the low end being the very portable hand-held units.

As for being frightened of Cellular Phones.  Not me.

                                        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!"


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #114
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 30 Mar 89 0:39:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #115
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:22:37 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Bob Toxen)
    Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Cellular Radio Hazards (John Higdon)
    Cellular Power (John R. Covert)
    How Big Can A Local Dialing Area Be? (Wayne Folta)
    Yes! Directory Assistance Via Modem (Brian D. Cuthie)
    Re: 911 CLID (Joel M. Snyder)
    Telecomm Distributors List Wanted (Steve Diamond)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Toxen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Date: 30 Mar 89 00:58:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


Cellular phones DON'T cause cancer!  In order for electromagnetic
radiation to cause cancer and almost all other problems to the human
body it must be of a high enough energy (frequency) to ionize one's
atoms.

This is what is meant by the term "ionizing radiation", which you might
have heard.  The minimum frequency is that of ultraviolet.  These,
X-rays, and Gamma rays are the cancer danger.  Even these are not a
significant risk to the average person.

The main danger from lower frequencies is if the intensity is so high
that the heating from the absorbed radiation is excessive.  This is the
cooking effect of a microwave oven.  Another danger is induced electric
currents in older unshielded heart pacemakers since it takes only minute
currents flowing directly through the heart for problems.

The public cannot get close enough to radio towers to be at risk without
ignoring signs, climbing fences, and trespassing.  I have been within
600 feet of television antennas without harm without harm without harm :^)

Regarding the quoted "expert" claiming danger from them, many people have
irrational fears and being an technical expert does not protect someone
(from the fear.) People who are afraid to fly airplanes even though airlines
are 100 times safer per mile per person than automobiles and even "small"
planes are as safe as automobiles are an example.

Nikola Tesla, who invented radio and worked within a few dozen feet of
equipment producing millions of volts of electricity, was deathly afraid
of germs even though the chances of his being electrocuted were far
higher.  (He died of old age.)  [To avoid flames, Marconi did NOT invent
radio but he did infringe on Tesla's patents as determined by the U. S.
Supreme Court.  References available on request.]
--

Bob Toxen    {ucbvax!harvard,cloud9!es}!anvil!cavu!bob
Stratus Computer, Marlboro, MA

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

From: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Date: 30 Mar 89 04:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad![e-mail]>
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA


In article <[e-mail]> Ron Natalie writes:
+---------------
| of these relatively low power levels (3 watts for cellular, 1-5 watts for ham
+---------------

Note that all of the portable (handheld) cellulars I have seen are 600 mw max.
[It's the transportables (luggables) that are 3 watts.] Is this to keep down
the human exposure? ...or just to keep down battery drain?  ;-}

Also note that unlike ham and police radios, with handheld cellular the
antenna tends to be held not in front of your face but off to the back/side
of your head. [Given 1/R^2, a *lot* farther from your eyes...]


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

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


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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Radio Hazards
Date: 29 Mar 89 20:35:09 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Horvitz)
writes:
> As for cellular, there's much more certain harm being
> caused to your privacy (as others have noted, cellular systems BROADCAST
> your words over very large areas), and also to your wallet.  For those
> reasons alone you're better off stopping to use a pay-phone.

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately we now live in the era of
COCOTs (or COPTs, as Pacific Bell refers to them), and it is quite
literally cheaper in many cases to use a cellular telephone. Putting
the inconvenience of trying to locate a pay phone aside, I know that I
can always send DTMF to my voice mail with my handheld. Also, I know
that long distance will be reasonably priced, that my party and I can
hear each other, that I can call anywhere from Napa to Monterey for the
same 45 cent charge.

I'm afraid, sir, that pay phones are cellular's greatest selling tool.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Mar 89 08:01
Subject: Cellular Power

>Most cellular phones operate in the 4-20 watt range, the low end being the
>very portable hand-held units.

The maximum allowable power for cellular in the U.S. and Canada is 3 watts.

Hand-held portables are not permitted to radiate more than 600 milliwatts.

/john

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

Date: 29 Mar 89 18:28:32 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Folta)
Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wayne Folta)
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, gs

Since childhood, I have been amazed at the size of our local dialing area.
Being in the Washington DC suburbs, I (roughly) calculate that I can make
a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area.  If you count DC as
a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC).

But is this really a very large area?  How large might a local call area be
in LA or NY?  Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might
there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes
thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people?

(It would be interesting to hear about maximal sizes in terms of: area,
number of people, and number of exchanges.)


Wayne Folta          ([e-mail]  128.8.128.42)

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 09:51:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Senie) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 112, message 3 of 4

>Several people have made the argument that CPID does not reveal the caller's
>name or other such information and therefore does not really provide
>information which would violate privacy. I beg to differ:

>A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on
>CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single
>disc. While this information would not necessarily be indexed by phone number,
>building such an index is not difficult.

[other stuff deleted]

Actually, US-WEST has already done this for the 14 mid west states that are
in their territory.  I personally played with this at FOSE (Federal Office
Systems Expo) last month.  They can key on *any* field quite rapidly.  They
were showing me how easy it was to find someone, then, if they've moved for
instance, find the people who lived next door to them!  The salesmen at the
booth suggested that you would then call the neighbors to find a forwarding
address.

I know this info is available through other means, but this was truely
scary.  *ANYONE* who has $14,500/year can purchase the service which
includes the software and a CD per month update.

I have to wonder if your name, etc.,  would be provided on the disc if you have
requested that it not be sold as part of a mailing list.  It's
amazing to me how much the Telco here sells names and numbers.   I have a
friend who is a dentist and he can get the names and addresses of all those
people who have gotten service recently so as to attract people new to the
area as clients.  YECH!

-brian
--
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    [e-mail]


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

From: jms <@arizona.edu ([e-mail]):[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 CLID
Date: 29 Mar 89 19:00:59 GMT
Reply-To: jms <@arizona.edu (Joel M. Snyder):[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't


Well, in Tucson, they neither charged us $.50 a month or told
us, but 911 got CLID---if you call 911 and hang up before
they answer, they call you right back and ask if everything
is OK.

jms


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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 10:22:07 PST
From: Steve Diamond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecomm Distributors List Wanted

Patrick--

Please excuse the message if I've sent it to the wrong person,
but do you maintain a list of telecomm product distributors,
or can you direct me to someone who might?

Thanks in advance.

Steve Diamond
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Mountain View, CA  94043
415-336-4190


[Moderator's Note: Will someone please supply Mr. Diamond with the
list he is requesting, if such is available. I got this in the mail but
have no answer for him. Post your source for the list here if you have
one; others may be interested.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #115
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 30 Mar 89 1:07:46 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #116
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:47:47 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Payphone Booths as Confessionals (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) (Ron Heiby)
    Leased Line Costs Versus Dial Up (Brian D. Cuthrie)
    CPID Privacy Considerations (Joe Konstan)
    Re: ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments (Courtney Brown)

[Moderator's Note: Yes, I know I said no more caller ID messages; but
the ones printed today were dispatched before the authors saw the
message saying the topic was wearing thin.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 30 Mar 89 0:01:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Payphone Booths as Confessionals

Confession, they say, is good for the soul. It is also good for your financial
bottom line, if you market the concept of using the phone to make confession
to the world, while other callers pay to listen to you 'spill your guts',
as the introduction to the outbound version of "I Confess" describes the
messages being played out.

Patrick Kane, president of Telephone Entertainment, Inc. conceived the idea
of using the phone to make confessions while profiting from those
folks who want to hear the lurid thoughts of others. He set up his service
in New York City and allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- anyone and everyone
to call in at no charge. A soothing woman's voice, described in some of
his advertising as 'Priestess' urges, "I want to hear about what you have
done; about your secret thoughts, and the things that have been done to
you..."  And the caller is then given a minute to let it all hang out, no
names required or desired.

The profit for Kane comes in playing back the confessions to callers to his
800/900 incoming lines. He uses both types of lines. The 900 number is local
to the New York City 212/718/914 metro area, where the going rate is $1.50
for the first minute, and 50 cents for each additional confession, or minute
of listening time. From outside the New York City area, confessions can be
monitored in many cities by dialing 1-800-999-6666. On the 800 lines, callers
must use a touch tone phone to enter their VISA/MC number, and they are
billed 99 cents per confession/minute.

Kane's advertising has been cute, regardless of what you might think about
the nature of his business venture otherwise. Maybe its just that New York
Telephone has no sense of humor. A recent full-page ad in the papers described
the service in some detail, but inadvertently or otherwise gave the impression
that New York Telephone was sponsoring the activity.

The advertisement showed a man kneeling in a pay phone booth, with the
caption, "I Confess". The name of Kane's company, Telephone Entertainment
Company, was not shown anywhere in the message, but the picture clearly
showed a payphone with a 'New York Telephone' insignia on it.

Incensed phone company officials cut his outgoing phone lines off the same
day, and they are still muttering about suing Kane. A statement issued by
New York Telephone last week said, "Anyone reading this ad would think that
New York Telephone sanctions and provides this activity. We do not sponsor
such activities or provide a service for our customers to make confessions.
We will do everything possible to protect our customers from advertising
which even suggests that we offer such services or activities."

"The people making those confessions are sick. The confessions are mostly
unbelievable. They are lewd and crude. You cannot advertise such a service
and claim that it is an activity of the New York Telephone Company."

Mr. Kane is meeting with phone company officials to negotiate the restoration
of his outgoing phone lines. For whatever reason, the telco did not cut
service to his incoming lines, and the nice lady is still cooing and telling
the fellows she is there to listen to them....but until his outgoing service
is restored, there is no one to eavesdrop on the confessions, which are
simply building up in the reserve of messages waiting for playback to the
curiosity seekers.

Kane said he would revise his ads to eliminate references to New York Telephone
in the future, or payphone booths and the resulting implication. But he said
in an interview, "Frankly, I am not too impressed with their complaint.
I find their behavior questionable at best."

"Anyway," said Kane, "what are they griping about? My deal with them was
they *get a forty percent cut of the revenue*; why are they acting so
hypocritical?"

Very good question, Mr. Kane. Very good question. Theodore Vail would turn
over in his grave if he saw what had become of Ma Bell's children in the
past few years since the old lady was sent to her reward and final rest.

I must confess though, some of the confessions I heard did give me a good
belly laugh. Some were ridiculous, and some were tragically believable and
real. You don't use Caller ID on the incoming line, do you?


Patrick Townson

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR)
Date: 28 Mar 89 23:42:58 GMT
Reply-To: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL


I've been trying to stay out of this whole thing, but can't any longer.

Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388 ([e-mail]) writes:
[much interesting things about CLID/CLIR]
> There's also
> provision for a User-Provided Number as well as the Network-Provided
> Number.

If I infer correctly, "User-Provided Number" would let me ID as a different
number than that from which I was *really* calling.  If so, this would be
perfect for my situation.  I have two phone numbers in my home.  Line A
is an unlisted number and the one my wife and I use "all the time" for
placing calls and for receiving calls from friends and relatives.  Line B
is a listed number that rings in my "office" downstairs.  During the day,
an answering machine picks up.  At night, my computer picks up.  (It's not
a BBS, BTW.)  When we are asked to put our phone number on checks or
(of all things) credit card slips, we put the Line B number on.  Likewise,
any sales people, contests, etc.  I see the default mode for Line B as
"send normal ID" and the default mode for Line A as "ID as Line B".  Basically,
I care little whether some sales type has the Line B number, as my answering
machine allows me to screen calls there.  Plus, anyone I really want to talk
with knows the real Line A number, anyway.

> BTW, there are reasons why you definitely might want a business to
> know your number.  [example]

It's fairly obvious that this approach would satisfy such needs.

I believe I saw one message whose author believed that just having
someone's phone number would not get you name/address information.  This
(of course) is wrong.  "Reverse" directories have been around for quite
a while.

I *am* concerned about the potential others have stated for combining
the ID information with various demographic or history information.
Getting back to basics, it seems to me that the ID feature is being
touted as being of use to private citizens to allow them to know who
is calling them.  It is also clear to me that the greatest potential
for abuse of the feature comes from individuals calling businesses who
may make "undesired" use of the ID information.  The simplest way to
avoid this whole potential for abuse is to not make caller ID available
to business lines.  Residence customers could still get the ID, but
when they call a business, they have their privacy.  (Of course, it might
all be a scam and the *real* reason for all this *is* to provide better
service to business customers.)

There is still potential for abuse by people with "residence" service,
but this can easily be handled by the options that Fred outlines.

One that hasn't been mentioned (as far as I know) involves unlisted
phone numbers.  Right now, if I pick up a phone (maybe my own, in my
own home) and call the operator and ask to be told the phone number
from which I'm calling, I will be told that the information cannot be
given out.  This is to protect the owner of the line from someone
(repair person (e.g. appliance), baby-sitter, etc) from being able to
find out my unlisted phone number from the operator.  It's important
to some people to be able to prevent someone from being able to pick
up the phone and easily determine its number (like by calling a friend
and having friend read off the ID).

Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that large areas of
the country, served by old switches are not likely to be *able* to report
an ID.  Can we assume that all "no ID" calls are not from such areas?

If I call XX, it should be my choice whether to ID or not.  When XX's
phone rings, it should be his choice whether to answer or not.  Whether
XX chooses to use my choice as part of the basis for his is his business.
Either or both of us my have important reasons for choosing as we do.
--
Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod
"Life is indeed an inexplicable sequence of imponderable surprises."

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Subject: Leased Line Costs Versus Dial Up Line
Date: 29 Mar 89 15:49:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
writes:
[other stuff deleted]
>I'm not sure of your leased line statement.  The rates for a 3002 dedicated
>circuit are still cheaper than leaving a line dialed up if you're a business
>and hence have message unit service.
>
>-Ron

This depends entirely on whether the local telco has untimed business
service.  In the Balto/Wash area, business service is untimed.  Therefore it
is usually cheaper to leave a line dialed up than to pay the 3002 rate.


-brian

--
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 11:18:12 -0800
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject:  CPID Privacy Considerations


It seems that a common critique of CPID is that emergency calls will be missed
(coming from an unfamiliar number) and that people call from different numbers
at different times.  It seems that there is an easy solution to this:

Give anyone who requests it a calling card with a (real or faked) phone number
and PIN (current calling cards could be used).  Anyone who wishes to
identify themselves as the calling party could dial a prefix, their number and
PIN, and then the number they wish to call (this could be handled automatically
for calling card calls, so that friend's houses and pay phone numbers would
not get sent by default).

Now, when I get a call, I may not know what PHONE I am being called from, but
I have an identifier of the PERSON calling or the phone called from, as
selected by the caller.  The shelter problem, and the emergency call problem
are solved this way.

An additional hitch might be that using the PIN of the called phone would
override the request for CPID, so calling me (123-456-7890) and giving my
PIN would get you through whether or not I requested CPID before accepting a
call.

The only problems remaining could be solved by allowing both default and
one-time override of sending the CPID.

Joe Konstan
[e-mail]

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

From: Courtney Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments
Date: 27 Mar 89 14:34:00 GMT
Organization: United Parallel Lines Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, optilink![e-mail].
gov (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 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
>
> 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.

> Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer

I pay the phone company good money to remain unlisted, simply because I
want to make the choice as to who gets my phone number -- essentially
who I allow to call me.  When I call to request a service, or merchandise,
I have to identify my self. ANI reveals more information than I would like
without giving me a choice.

If the Telco insists of making ANI standard, will they cancel the charges
for an unlisted number, or will they charge an additional fee so that
my number does not show up via ANI.  I think the latter.  It seems to be
something similar to (gasp!) extortion...  How much is your privacy really
worth to you.


--
          -CAB-
   _____/ _ || _\___
 lNYCl_  ______   __|) Standard disclaimer.
   ==  (0)     (0)


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #116
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 31 Mar 89 1:25:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #117
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 Mar 89 01:09:37 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: British PhoneCard question (Peter Thurston)
    Re: British PhoneCard question (Bruce Oberg)
    Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Ron Natalie)
    Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Possible Cancer Risk From Cellular Phones (Brian G. Cuthie)
    Re: Cellular Radio Hazards (Rob Warnock)
    Re: 900 service providers--who? (Ron Natalie)
    Re: 0+NPA+7D refused?! (Ron Natalie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 11:53:31 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: British PhoneCard question

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In Britain, you pay by time for even local calls, so you tend to go
>through alot of coins.  And the coins are bigger and heavier as well.
>The phonecards save you the frustration of running out of coins during
>a call, the frustration of having your calls interrupted every minute
>by "more coins please" noises, and the frustration of sewing up holes in
>your pockets.

Almost all new BT coin-op phones are of the modern type that allow one
to accumulate a credit prior to and at any time time during a call thus
no longer are you prompted for coins every minute (as did the older
Pay-On-Answer types).

These phones take most British coins, including 50p and One Pound coins,
useful for long and international calls. Incidently, BT has recently
introduced a direct dial calling card service available from most payphones
and any touch tone compatable phone.

>The cards come in denominations ranging from the equivalent of $3 to about
>$100.  So you buy one which you know will last you a reasonable amount
>of time.   They are particularly useful for long distance calls, because
>you get the customer-dialled rate without feeding a continuous stream of
>coins into the phone.

The phone cards are not magnetic but rely on infra-red holograms printed
on the card. There is one hologram per unit and they are destroyed as the
units are consummed. There is no way a card can be recharged or prevented
from being erased (people have tried, painting the card with nail varnish
being one method used .. doesn't work). Mercury Communications have a range
of payphones in railway stations etc which take standard credit cards and
their own version of the pre-payed card. Their card does not seem to use
holograms or magnetic stripes. It stores credits as pounds and pence and
can resolve values exactly. Anyone know how this card works?

Britain is the world's largest user of holographic phonecards, but Japan
is by far the largest user of any type odf phone card, which are in their
case standard magnetic. I read that in japan they are used as currency,
so much so that the government there is investigating phone cards effect
on the economy!


Peter Thurston


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

From: Bruce Oberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British PhoneCard question
Date: 30 Mar 89 16:53:39 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce Oberg <uw-june![e-mail]>
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle


The British Telecom PhoneCard is an interesting little gizmo. You buy
one for X pounds and the card is then "worth" X/10 ten pence pieces.
You insert it in a special PhoneCard phone and ten pence pieces are
"removed" from the card during your call. A display on the phone keeps
you informed of how much "money" is left. When you hang up, the card
is released by the phone.

As with other british phones, if you run out of money, your talk path
is disconnected then and there until you insert more. Unfortunately,
most PhoneCard phones do not accept coins (and usually don't have
lines waiting for them at the train station); you have to insert a new
card when yours runs out.

The way "money" is kept track of on the card is *not* through a
magstripe.  Special markings on the front of the card specify how much
the card was originally worth, and while you're using it, tiny tick
marks are made in the upper right corner of the front of the card.
I've always wondered how easy counterfeighting the cards would be;
I've never heard of anyone getting caught doing so.

Usually, ten pence lasts a couple of minutes on the phone. One time I
used my card to call back to the U.S. and it was real fun to watch the
ten pence pieces click down about one every five seconds.

bruce oberg

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays?
Date: 30 Mar 89 15:59:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I wouldn't come down too heavily on the BOC's for the Enhanced
911 surcharge.  The phone company and the local Public Utilities
companies participate in a very complicated dance about what
they can and can not charge for and how much.  It's not a free
market.  Since they are forced to hold some services as an
artificially low rate, they have to make up for it on other
things like charging for touch tones and other "software"
options in modern phone switches.

-Ron

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays?
Date: 31 Mar 89 04:23:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David E.
Bernholdt) writes:
> ...  Just out of curiousity, does
> anyone know of other cases where the BOC is collecting "taxes" for a
> local government?

No, but I know a local government who is collecting money for the
telephone company:

In New Jersey, telephones have been exempt from the 6% state sales
tax for as many years as telephones have been for sale retail.  Now,
all of a sudden, the exemption is ended.  If you buy a telephone (or
a key system, a PBX, or whatever) you now pay sales tax, just as you
do for anything else that isn't food or clothing...

The state is using the additional revenue to pay for state-wide
implementation of 911 service, by New Jersey Bell and the several
"independent" telephone companies in the state.  I even had to pay
sales tax when I bought my Caller*Id display unit!

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


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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 10:22:22 EST
From: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones?
Date: 30 Mar 89 15:17:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard
Snider) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>Transmission equipment.  Most cellular phones operate in the 4-20 watt
>range, the low end being the very portable hand-held units.
>
>As for being frightened of Cellular Phones.  Not me.
>
>                                        Richard Snider

Make that .6 watt for handhelds and 3.0 watts for most mobiles and
luggables.


-brian


--
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    [e-mail]


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

From: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Radio Hazards
Date: 31 Mar 89 05:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad![e-mail]>
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA


In article <[e-mail]> (John Higdon) writes:
+---------------
| > For those reasons alone you're better off stopping to use a pay-phone.
| Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately we now live in the era of
| COCOTs (or COPTs, as Pacific Bell refers to them), and it is quite
| literally cheaper in many cases to use a cellular telephone...
+---------------

And your call might even go through! This morning I hit the situation
head on: I was at a breakfast meeting at Coco's in Sunnyvale, when I
wanted to call a later appointment to tell him the meeting was going
to run over and I'd be late. Being new to cellular, and still somewhat
cautious about costs, I dutifully went towards the payphones in the
back. Uh, oh, COCOTs! Well, trying the first phone gave me my party,
but then the channel was only 1/2 open: I could hear them but they
couldn't hear me! I tried the other phone, but it kept spitting back
my coin and saying my number was "invalid" and I had to dial again.

So I went back to my table and picked up the handheld... The relief
from frustration was *worth* the extra 20 cents!


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:      {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3
DDD:      [phone]                <=== *Not* the mobile!  ;-}
USPS:      627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA  94403


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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 service providers--who?
Date: 30 Mar 89 16:10:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


ATT offers the service under the name of Dial-it 900.  I just called up
and asked, and they sent me a brochure.  I believe other companies are
now making it availble.

There is also the local equivelent (976, 540..) that is sold by the
local operating companies.

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 0+NPA+7D refused?!
Date: 30 Mar 89 16:14:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Did you read the instructions on the phone?

I tripped accross this and spent a few minutes before I looked
carefully at the phone.  It's becoming scarcer and scarcer but
there are still areas where operating company pay phones are
not set up for direct dialing of long distance calls.  You
have to go through the operator.

-Ron

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #117
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 31 Mar 89 2:50:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #118
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 Mar 89 01:59:38 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Already Stung by Caller ID (David Tamkin)
    Phone Numbers For Chatting (Peter van Eijk)
    Re: Alternative to CPID (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Selling an Interesting Phone Number? (Roger Preisendefer)
    Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals (Rob Warnock)
    Telephony directory (Barry C. Nelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Already Stung by Caller ID
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 11:31:56 CST


I live in the small corner of the city of Chicago not served by Illinois
Bell.  Our telco here (Central Telephone of Illinois) retains IBT for
directory assistance and operator services.

If I want to know where a prefix not listed in the directory's information
pages is located, the IBT operator I get by dialing 0 tells me to call IBT's
service office for business customers.  Centel can provide some of the
information but not all; IBT can provide the rest (but sometimes not the
part Centel can give me).

Accordingly I did that on Tuesday to find out what areas some new prefixes
serve.  The service representative at Illinois Bell started demanding my
name and my telephone number, and I said, "Nevermind!  This is information
that should be in the phone book coming out this summer, or maybe last year
or two years ago since your list there is so far out of date, and your
office has procedures to treat me like a criminal for asking!  I want to
have an idea of how much a call will cost before I place it, and you put me
through this grilling!"

I hung up and dialed IBT's headquarters to complain.  Someone in the General
Manager's office told me that *because I was calling from a Centel prefix*
it could be that the representatives there are under instructions to find
out what is going on.

So, they have Caller ID, and I'm supposed to *know* that they will treat me
accordingly; they have Caller ID, but they ask for my phone number to see if
I'll lie (not to see if I'm calling from my own number, as I'll explain);
they have Caller ID, and they use it to predetermine how to treat the
caller.  Yes, anyone dialing from a Centel phone gets the third-degree;
does anyone calling from a Chicago-Lawndale prefix get greeted in Spanish?
Does anyone calling from a Chicago-Kedzie or Chicago-Stewart prefix get
greeted in jive?  Does someone calling from a Chicago-Merrimac prefix hear
"Hail Mary, mother of God!  This is Illinois Bell, how may we help you?" on
the presumption that the caller must be Roman Catholic?

Because I was dialing from a Centel phone, the representative treated me
with suspicion.  Of course, everyone there *knows* that no one *ever* calls
from a phone other than his or her own and no one *ever* calls on behalf of
someone else (like an employer who hires the caller to do that very thing).
No, the number from which the call is placed tells all.  You can't fool a
service representative of Illinois Bell.

Friggin' incredible.  Next time I want to reach them I'll perform a feat
they believe impossible: I'll cross the street I live on and enter Illinois
Bell's territory, where I'll call from a pay phone.  Yes, they'll ID it as
such, but maybe I'll get someone with enough brainpower to understand my
protest that I don't spend my entire life at a single outdoor pay phone.

On the other hand, this is one more reason I'm glad to have Centel instead
of IBT.  The service representatives there have always been aware that
people might be away from their own telephones when they call or when they
are to be called back.

David W. Tamkin     Post Office Box 567542    Norridge, Illinois  60656-7542
[e-mail]    Jolnet Public Access Unix     GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
...!killer!jolnet!dattier      Orland Park, Illinois         CIS: 73720,1570
                           /\/\/\/\/\/\/
[Moderator's Note: What about Chicago-Rogers Park? "Oy Vey! This is Illinois
Bell!"  And what about Chicago-Lakeview and Chicago-Edgewater? Would those
calls be automatically routed to one of those nice Young Men who work as
service reps under the assumption that they are of the same pursuasion as
the gentleman caller? Oh, I am getting in the mood for April Fool's Day!  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 12:32:51 -0200
From: infpve@utrcu1 (Peter van Eijk)
Subject: Phone numbers for chatting?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter van Eijk)
Organization: Utwente, Enschede


Who can give me information on telephone numbers around the world
that offer a sort of `chat' service?

Here in the Netherlands we have a so-called `Babbel Box'
also called `party-line' (i think its different from what the Americans
call a party line), dialled through e.g. 06-32033010 (?).
This number is extra priced, 50cts a minute (approx 0.25$).
When you call it you enter a conversation with approximately 10 other
people who did the same.  There are a number of numbers like this,
operated 24 hours a day (the conversation gets a little special after
midnight....).

I believe that in the US this would be something like a 1-900 number.

I'm interested in the names, telephone numbers and charges around the
world.  It is out of curiosity, we have a toy computerized version of it and i
would like to document my presentation of it.

Side remarks:
These pay numbers account for 5% of total telephone charges here, i read
in a news paper. Not surprising since there have been stories of people
getting addicted to it..

--
    Peter van Eijk University of Twente  Dept Informatica / IPS
    P.O. Box 217; 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands
    [phone]    mcvax!utrcu1!infpve
My organisation is so paranoid that I don't even know if these opinions are
mine.


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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternative to CPID
Date: 30 Mar 89 16:04:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


CLID is a gimmick, it is another of the services that
they can offer, and will try to have another billable item.
It's right in there in the package with what I call "residential
centrex" where they provide all sorts of silly items like
the ability to use multiple different numbers in your house
as an intercom.  Not many people would consider installing
a different telephone line in each room to do this (I guess
I might, but I can guarantee that I'm the only one in the
municipal area to have 10 residence lines).

-Ron

[Moderator's Note: I have 'Starline' on the phones in my home. Room-to-room
intercom; putting calls on hold on one line, picking up elsewhere on another
line; answer any incoming call from any other line; transfer incoming or
outgoing call not only within my premise but off-premises; more. I think
it's a great feature for $5.50 per line/month. I have two numbers. PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Phone Number?
Date: Thu, 30-Mar-89 19:03:11 PST

The last four digits of my phone number used to spell EXEC.  One day, someone
from Executive something-or-other called me and offered to buy my phone
number for $100.  I asked him to also pay for the conversion of my number
to a new number, making it a total of $126.50.  He promptly sent me a check
for this amount.

Roger Preisendefer

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

Date:     Fri, 31 Mar 89 0:53:41 CST
From: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad![e-mail]>
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:
+---------------
| Confession, they say, is good for the soul. It's also good for your financial
| bottom line, if you market the concept of using the phone to make confession
| to the world, while other callers pay to listen to you 'spill your guts',
| as the introduction to the outbound version of "I Confess" describes...
+---------------

Shades of John Brunner's novel "Shockwave Rider"! But Brunner's "Hearing Aid"
service ("the ten 9's") was *free*, and no one else but the operator on the
other end would *ever* know what you had said.

(*sigh*) That was fiction; "Confess" is ugly reality...


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 11:57:25 EST
From: "Barry C. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephony directory

Telephony Magazine puts out the Annual Directory and Buyers Guide.  My old copy
has over 700 pages, including advertisements.

Telephony Publishing Corporation     [phone]
55 E.Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604

It includes: Classified Products and Services (270 pages from Absorbers to
Wrenches), Manufacturers and Suppliers, CPE Services and Suppliers, Independent
Telco Operating Companies by State, AT&T, Bell COmpanies, Special Carriers,
etc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #118
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 1 Apr 89 2:55:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #119
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Apr 89 01:47:20 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 119

Today's Heresies:                          Head Bozo: Patrick Townson

    An April Fool's Joke (Head Bozo)
    976-EVIL: A Wrong Number, Indeed (Charles Manson, WWTD&N Film Critic)

[I am pleased to announce that effective with this issue, TELECOM Digest
has merged with the Weekly World News, to bring you the most comprehensive
and enlightened reporting possible. From now on, you will be able to
read the Weekly World Telecom Digest and News while waiting in a long
line at your supermarket for the one remaining pay phone in town still
defaulting to AT&T, without having to actually buy a copy. Each issue
of the WWTD&N will feature stories about peculiar people in far away
lands and the long distance carrier they have chosen. Our advice
column, "Dear Scabby" will provide hints on telephone etiquette, and
the proper way to courteously greet a crackpot anonymous caller at
3 AM whose caller ID shows up as question marks on your readout. I am
sure you will love the all!new!improved! WWTD&N. New heresies daily! PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 1 Apr 89 1:14:26 CST
From:     Head Bozo
Subject:  An April Fool's Joke

Today is the big day. We are celebrating April Fool's Day this year
with one final thumbing of our noses at the public and its use of pay phones
to make long distance calls.

Starting today, persons using pay phones to make long distance calls will
pay up to 250 percent more for the same call than they did on Friday. Instead
of some standardization in the public interest, we have decided the public
can be damned, and each business with a pay phone on its premises will be
allowed to pick and choose from about fifty long distance companies which
have started in the last few years.

The people who will be affected the most, of course, are people without
private phone service; people who cannot afford to have a phone in thier
home for whatever reason; people who live in single room residence hotels
who use the pay phone in the lobby; people who need to make a personal
long distance call during work hours who are honest enough to use the
pay phone in the company lunchroom, etc. They will all be getting burned,
badly, in this latest caper in the continuing saga of why America is so
much better off with AT&T bashed to pieces.

I mean, how could *anyone* question the wise, and wonderful decision to
bust up AT&T?  Federal judges don't have axes to grind, do they? A judge
wouldn't let his own personal animosity interfere with making a decision
which has cost us the finest phone network in the world would he?
Of course not.....of course not.

As a result of the latest outgrowth of the judge's wisdom, from now on
anyone who needs an operator to place a long distance call, such as a
person-to-person, collect, or credit card call gets it stuck to him
royally.  By the very nature of coin operated phones, all calls are at
least semi-operator assisted, if just in the coin collection process.

David Wagenhauser, staff attorney for the Washington-based public interest
group Telecommunications Reasearch and Action Center said in an interview,
"This is probably the worst nightmare for consumers we have ever seen. The
public will suffer greatly from the abuses perpetrated by many of the
long distance carriers, and their choice of operator services."

Wagenhouser pointed out that other long distance companies often fraudulently
impersonate AT&T; and have their operators claim to be AT&T operators when
they are not. He noted that the regulations allowing this latest travesty
did not carry any requirements for the convenience and protection of the
public.

Starting today, your telephone credit card may or may not be accepted at
public telephones. It will depend upon the decision by the 'default' carrier
assigned to that phone if they wish to accept them or not.

They may choose to accept your phone card without telling you that they
are not affiliated with AT&T, and bill you at outrageous rates.

Starting today, the only way you will be able to absolutely insure getting
the quality service of AT&T at the regulated prices AT&T charges is to
dial an extra five digits on the front of *every* long distance call: 10288.

But as Wagenhauser pointed out, even that does not assure that you will
actually reach AT&T: The default long distance carrier is under no
obligation at all to allow connections to 10288, AT&T's long distance network.

The carrier may choose to simply reject calls via 10288, or worse yet, take
the calls and *claim* to be AT&T while charging a mint for their service.
Or, they may choose to allow you to use AT&T if you pay an extra 'connection
charge' for the call.

One group of people who will be in for a real suprise are the folks who
accept collect calls from children away at school or in the military. The
big April Fool's joke on them will occur the first time they get a long
distance bill from Bozo's Alternate Operator Service with out of sight
charges for that half hour call on Sunday afternoon which used to cost three
or four dollars.

Wagenhauser and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) introduced a bill in Congress last
month to force the FCC to regulate long distance carriers who offer
operator services more closely. But this would all be a moot point if you-
know-who had given any unbiased and logical thought to the consequences
of his ruling. At least some of the damage is being undone with the proposed
bill in Congress, and the efforts by David Wagenhauser's group and
{Consumer Action}, A San Fransisco based consumer protection service which
last month also convinced the FCC to raise cain with five operators working
on the west coast.

And I still find it puzzling why so many people, [TELECOM Digest] readers
included, are making such stinks about the pay phone mess, when the same
people were so busy singing hosannahs to the judge back in 1983-84-85. You
wanted divestiture; you got divestiture. You wanted AT&T ripped apart, you
got it ripped apart. Why can't you see that the logical conclusion to your
desires four or five years ago is the deterioration of quality and
the increasingly uneasy-to-use attributes of the public telephone network
in America today?  Why are you so suprised at how difficult it has become
at times to make a simple long distance call? Why are you so suprised at
the increased costs in local service?

I am convinced that had the American public known as much about telephones
and telephone service five years as they know today, divestiture would
*never* have been permitted to occur. The American people would have been
so angry, so stirred up, that even a judge in an ivy tower peering down
on the peasants from time to time would have taken notice of the commotions.

And people are angry: The FCC is receiving about 2000 letters a month from
Americans asking what in the hell has happened to the phone service. Even
'dial-a-porn' did not bring as many letters and phone calls into the offices
of the Commission.

But as one or two [TELECOM Digest] readers have pointed out, '....people
can buy cellular phones, and start using those instead...'   sure they can.
Can't you just picture the several thousand residents of public housing
in Chicago abandoning the pay phone at the corner cut-rate liquor store
in lieu of their new cellular phones? Can't you just picture Mr. and Mrs.
Jones out shopping and using their luggable to call the babysitter? Sure
you can. Maxwell Smart used the phone in his shoe to call his office, but
for most folks on the run, the pay phone at the airport or train
depot, or the phone at the corner convenience mart is where they stop.

And boy, have *they* got a suprise coming, starting today. I really wonder
if the choice of April Fool's Day to start this latest fraud on the
American public was just a coincidence, or deliberatly chosen as part of
the disaster known as divestiture.

As the late Jim Jordan's wife, Mollie used to say, "tain't funny, McGee!"

Head Bozo,

Patrick Townson



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

Date:     Sat, 1 Apr 89 1:45:12 CST
From:     Charles Manson, TELECOM Digest Film and Art Critic
Subject:  976-EVIL: A Wrong Number, Indeed

Speaking of disasters, the latest horror movie to hit the screen has
to take the cake. 976-EVIL has to be one of the dumbest movies I have ever
seen. Of all the 'Friday The Thirteenth' type trash I have seen, this
latest entry would run circles around the rest.

For some fans of occult horror, the fact that Robert Englund directed this
crock would be enough to raise their interest in going to see it. Englund
plays Freddie Krueger -- the poor, misunderstood victim of society in the
'Nightmare on Elm Street' series. By virtue of his ability to deliver
cackling wisecracks from beneath layers of latex, he has aquired a sizeable
following.

In this corner though, the Englund credit did not suggest possibilities
nearly as juicy as did "Sandy Dennis as Aunt Lucy". By joining those faded
actresses who have subjected themselves to gruesome ends in the horror
genre, Dennis finally gets rewarded for all of her irritating performances
elsewhere. I am reminded of Betsy Palmer getting her head whacked off
in 'Friday the Thirteenth'. When it comes time to dispatch Dennis, Englund
does nasty things to her, but nothing as creative as in the Freddie films.

This movie is named for the phone-in 'horrorscope' through which some small
town, bored youngsters in California get marked by the devil, or at least
one of his field reps. Like many of these flicks, 976-EVIL is completely
incoherent. The only thing Englund seems to have learned from his Freddie
films is to suggest a sequel at the end. That's not something anyone should
have to worry about here.

The star of the show is Aunt Lucy's strange, demented teenage son. He has
problems. Played by Stephen Geoffreys, he takes on evil powers, and starts
getting even with all the people who have mistreated him. What an original
idea for a plot, huh? They include his cool biker cousin Pat O'Bryan; his
cousin's spider-fearing girlfriend Lezlie Dean, and the bullies who usually
beat him up in bathroom at school almost daily.  Like Freddy Krueger, this
kid is quick with the nasty, voice-processed quip. In place of Freddy's
razor glove, this chap has lethal green fingernails. Like I told you, he
has problems.

I was left with two pressing questions, which I present to the reader:
If you have your hand cut off at the wrist, are you in any position to
quietly contemplate the meaning of life?  And if your house is turned into
a gaping hellhole, wouldn't you -- not to mention your neighbors -- bat
an eyelash or two? It has gotten to the point in these movies where
surprise is one lonely emotion.

976-EVIL was released by CineTel Films. The running time is 92 minutes,
if you can sit through it all without dying from boredom. The ratings
people give it an "R", and the movie review editor at this austere
Digest gives it one star, out of some generosity and goodwill toward
Ms. Dennis.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #119
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 3 Apr 89 1:38:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #120
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Apr 89 01:09:44 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Reach Out And Tap Someone (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Caller ID and crank calls (Mark Robert Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 3 Apr 89 1:05:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Reach Out And Tap Someone

Two former employees of Cincinnati Bell, who were fired by the company for
'good cause' according to Cincinnati Bell Chairman Dwight Hibbard are
claiming they installed more than 1200 illegal wiretaps over a 12 year period
from 1972 - 1984 at the request of their supervisors at the telco and the
local police.

Among the alleged targets of the snooping were past and present members
of Congress, federal judges, scores of the city's most prominent politicians,
business executives, lawyers and media personalities.

Leonard Gates and Robert Draise say they even wiretapped the hotel room
where President Gerald Ford stayed during two visits to Cincinnati; and
this part of their story, at least, has been verified by the now retired
security chief at the hotel.

As more details come out each day, people in Cincinnati are getting a rare
look at a Police Department that apparently spied on itself, and at a grand
jury probe that has prompted one former FBI official to suggest that the
Justice Department seems more interested in discrediting the accusers than
in seeking the truth.

Cincinnati Bell executives says Gates and Draise are just trying to 'get
even' with the company for firing them. But disclosures thus far seem to
indicate there is at least some truth in what the two men are saying about
the company they used to work for.

According to Gates and Draise, they were just employees following the orders
given to them by their superiors at Cincinnati Bell. But Dwight Hibbard,
Chairman of the Board of Cincinnati Bell has called them both liars, and
said their only motive is to make trouble for the company.

Cincinnati Bell responded to allegations that the company had specifically
participated in illegal wiretapping by filing a libel suit against Gates
and Draise. The two men responded by filing a countersuit against the telco.
In addition to their suit, four of the people who were allegedly spied on
have filed a class action suit against the telco.

In the latest development, Cincinnati Bell has gone public with (according
to them) just recently discovered sordid details about an extramarital
affair by Gates. A federal grand jury in Cincinnati is now trying to
straighten out the tangled web of charges and countercharges, but so far
no indictments have been returned.

Almost daily, Gates and Draise tell further details about their exploits,
including taps they claim they placed on phones at the Cincinnati Stock
Exchange and the General Electric aircraft engine plant in suburban
Evendale.

According to Draise, he began doing these 'special assignments' in 1972,
when he was approached by a Cincinnati police officer from that city's
clandestine intelligence unit. The police officer wanted him to tap the
lines of black militants and suspected drug dealers, Draise said.

The police officer assured him the wiretapping would be legal, and that
top executives at the phone company had approved. Draise agreed, and
suggested recruiting Gates, a co-worker to help out. Soon, the two were
setting several wiretaps each week at the request of the Intelligence
Unit of the Cincinnati Police Department.

But by around 1975, the direction and scope of the operation changed, say
the men. The wiretap requests no longer came from the police; instead
they came from James West and Peter Gabor, supervisors in the Security
Department at Cincinnati Bell, who claimed *they were getting the orders
from their superiors*.

And the targets of the spying were no longer criminal elements; instead,
Draise and Gates say they were asked to tap the lines of politicians,
business executives and even the phone of the Chief of Police himself,
and the personal phone lines of some telephone company employees as well.

Draise said he "began to have doubts about the whole thing in 1979" when
he was told to tap the private phone of a newspaper columnist in town.
"I told them I wasn't going to do it anymore," he said in an interview
last week.

Gates kept on doing these things until 1984, and he says he got cold feet
late that year when 'the word came down through the grapevine' that he
was to tap the phone lines connected to the computers at General Electric's
Evendale plant. He backed out then, and said to leave him out of it in the
future, and he claims there were hints of retaliation directed at him at
that time; threats to 'tell what we know about you...'.

When Dwight Hibbard was contacted at his office at Cincinnati Bell and asked
to comment on the allegations of his former employees, he responded that
they were both liars. "The phone company would not do things like that,"
said Hibbard, "and those two are both getting sued because they say we do."
Hibbard has refused to answer more specific questions asked by the local
press and government investigators.

In fact, Draise was fired in 1979, shortly after he claims he told his
superiors he would no longer place wiretaps on lines. Shortly after he quit
handling the 'special assignments' given to him he was arrested, and charged
with a misdemeanor in connection with one wiretap -- which Draise says he
set for a friend who wanted to spy on his ex-girlfriend. Cincinnati Bell
claims they had nothing to do with his arrest and conviction on that charge;
but they 'were forced to fire him' after he pleaded guilty.

Gates was fired in 1986 for insubordination. He claims Cincinnati Bell was
retaliating against him for taking the side of two employees who were suing
the company for sexual harassment; but his firing was upheld in court.

The story first started breaking when Gates and Draise went to see a reporter
at [Mt. Washington Press], a small weekly newspaper in the Cincinnati suburban
area. The paper printed the allegations by the men, and angry responses
started coming in almost immediately.

At first, police denied the existence of the Intelligence Unit, let alone
that such an organization would use operatives at Cincinnati Bell to
spy on people. Later, when called before the federal grand jury, and warned
against lying, five retired police officers, including the former chief,
took the Fifth Amendment. Finally last month, the five issued a statement
through their attorney, admitting to 12 illegal wiretaps from 1972 - 1974,
and implicated unnamed operatives at Cincinnati Bell as their contacts to
set the taps.

With the ice broken, and the formalities out of the way, others began coming
forward with similar stories. Howard Lucas, the former Director of Security
for Stouffer's Hotel in Cincinnati recalled a 1975 incident in which he
stopped Gates, West and several undercover police officers from going into
the hotel's phone room about a month before the visit by President Ford.

The phone room was kept locked, and employees working there were buzzed
in by someone already inside, recalled Lucas. In addition to the switchboards,
the room contained the wire distribution frames from which phone pairs ran
throughout the hotel. Lucas refused to let the police officers go inside
without a search warrant; and they never did return with one.

But Lucas said two days later he was tipped off by one of the operators
to look in one of the closets there. Lucas said he found a voice activated
tape recorder and 'a couple of coils they used to make the tap'. He said
he told the Police Department and Cincinnati Bell about his findings, but
".....I could not get anyone to claim it, so I just yanked it all out and
threw it in the dumpster...."

Executives at General Electric were prompted to meet with Draise and Gates
recently to learn the extent of the wiretapping that had been done at the
plant. According to Draise, GE attorney David Kindleberger expressed
astonishment when told the extent of the spying; and he linked it to the
apparent loss of proprietary information to Pratt & Whitney, a competing
manufacturer of aircraft engines.

Now all of a sudden, Kindleberger is clamming up. I wonder who got to him?
He admits meeting with Draize, but says he never discussed Pratt & Whitney
or any competitive situation with Draise. But an attorney who sat in on
the meeting supports Draise's version.

After an initial flurry of press releases denying all allegations of illegal
wiretapping, Cincinnati Bell has become very quiet, and is now unwilling
to discuss the matter at all except to tell anyone who asks that "Draise
and Gates are a couple of liars who want to get even with us..." And now,
the telco suddenly has discovered information about Gates' personal life.

Well TELECOM Digest readers, *you* be the judge and decide who is telling
the truth. Would a telephone company cooperate with a police intelligence
unit and do these things? Could telco employees pull those things off for
that many years and their superiors not be aware of it?


Patrick Townson

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: Caller ID and crank calls
Date: 29 Mar 89 19:41:31 GMT
Organization: M. R. Smith Consulting, New Brunswick, NJ


Well, it would seem to me that being able to give the crank's number
to the police, and having it on your machine is a fairly good
deterrent.  It's not easy to get a number onto your Caller*ID machine
without them actualy calling you, and I'm sure the police would
consider it convincing evidence.

Here at Rutgers, a Hispanic activist got a long series of racist calls
form a few freshmen.  She followed up on it with the police, they
traced the calls with the aid of NJ Bell, and now the frosh are facing
a $5000 fine and 90 days per call.

I'd say it's a useful deterrent.  How many cranks are gonna call you
long distance or from a pay phone?

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    rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?)
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #120
*****************************











Date:     Mon, 3 Apr 89 2:03:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #121
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Apr 89 01:41:55 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular Phones and Big Brother (Richard Snider)
    How to use Caller*Id? (Dave Levenson)
    Response Time Statistics (Denise Holz)
    Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals (Ken Stox)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Paul Fuqua)
    Reply To Moderator: Divestiture NOT A Mistake (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: xrtll![e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Phones and Big Brother
Date:     Fri, 31 Mar 89 14:56:57 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries, Toronto, Canada

Yesterday I sat in my office and had a nice chat with a friend of mine
who called my from his truck while driving through Toronto.  We talked
for about 10 minutes and I noticed that handoff happened about 4 times.
In this 10 minutes he could not have driven more than 10 km. This seems
to imply to me that the cell areas are about 4 km apart.

Afterward I thought about this and relized that the cellular service
providers here have a VERY good idea of where you are with your phone.
There seems to be a potential here for the police department to locate
stolen vehicles with cellular phones in them by simply having the
service providers tell them where they are.  As well, the phones will
respond if polled so there does not have to be a conversation in progress
in order to do this.

With some fiddling about with the computers, I am sure that the
cellular network could easily report location within .5 km since each
transmitter maintains a record (or samples) of signal strength relative
to other nearby transmitters to decide when to handoff.  Unfortunately
I believe that if the general public was made aware of how well their
location was known if they owned a cellular phone there would be rage and
panic, not to mention there is not a thing that can be done about it.

I seem to remember that somewhere in the states a company offered a
service to find your stolen car.  You get this transmitter installed
in your car and some police car has a directional receiver that they
use to follow your car around if it has been stolen.  It never caught
on because everyone thought this made people too easy to find even if
the car is not stolen.

So how many people out there just decided to turn off their cellular
phone when they are not using it or expecting calls ?
After all, you ARE being watched......

                                        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!"


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: How to use Caller*Id?
Date: 1 Apr 89 04:21:21 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Our business here in Warren Township, New Jersey, has a phone number
which is not equal to the number of the Racketball Court a few miles
away.  But once or twice a week, someone reaches us while trying to
call the racketball place.  We have had Caller*Id in operation for a
week, and we have now discovered that all of the racketball calls we
got this week came from the same number (in nearby Somerville,
according to the prefix).  The next time we get a call from that
number, we'll assume the caller doesn't want to talk to us.  A
question for the net:  what should we do with him?

Answer as if we were the racketball place and give him the
reservation he'll probably request for the court?

Answer as if we were the racketball place and refuse his request?

Tell him, for the umpteenth time, that we are not the racketball court?

Call the racketball place on the other line, and conference him in?
We could then eavesdrop and perhaps obtain the caller's name!

Any other suggestions for fun?

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


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

From: rutgers!usdtsg.dayton.ncr.com![e-mail]
Subject: Response Time Statistics
Date: 30 Mar 89 21:15:51 GMT
Reply-To: <rutgers!usdtsg.dayton.ncr.com![e-mail]>
Organization: USDPG/ISS Dayton, Ohio


This semester I'm working on a project involving the application
of human factors engineering in industry.  Has anyone seen any
research showing actual user response times in large, distributed
networks?

Please respond to me personally through email or phone, Thanks in advance 8-).

Denise Holz                        email [e-mail]
4555 Irelan St.
Dayton, Ohio 45440                 Telephone [phone]  (8-5)


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

Subject: Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals
From: ihlpb![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 12:30:20 GMT

[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator):
> Patrick Kane, president of Telephone Entertainment, Inc. conceived the idea
> of using the phone to make confessions while profiting from those
> folks who want to hear the lurid thoughts of others. He set up his service
> in New York City and allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- anyone and everyone
> to call in at no charge. A soothing woman's voice, described in some of
> his advertising as 'Priestess' urges, "I want to hear about what you have
> done; about your secret thoughts, and the things that have been done to
> you..."  And the caller is then given a minute to let it all hang out, no
> names required or desired.

Yow !!!    Shades of THX1138. A great George Lucas flick, if
you haven't seen it.

Ken Stox
ihlpb!stox

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

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89  12:46:43 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?

    Date: Wednesday, March 29, 1989  12:28pm (CST)
    From: folta at tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
    Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?

    But is this really a very large area?  How large might a local call area be
    in LA or NY?  Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might
    there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes
    thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people?

    (It would be interesting to hear about maximal sizes in terms of: area,
    number of people, and number of exchanges.)

The local calling area in Dallas includes the city itself, plus most of
the first two rings of suburbs and DFW airport.  That's a rough square
25 or 30 miles on a side, so 600 to 900 square miles.  Between 1 and 2
million people, more than 300 exchanges.

Also, it's all "free" -- there's no measured local service here, except
for a couple of economy and business plans that charge per-call.
Southwestern Bell keeps trying to institute time-and-distance charging
for local calls (ie, message units), but the PUC keeps shooting them
down.

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: Sun, 2 Apr 89 21:03:26 EDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Divestiture was not a mistake

The current state of COCOTS and the recent rulings regarding default
long distance carriers for pay phones can surely cause one to despair.
With regard to pay phones and AOS, divestiture *is* a joke.

I think it is mistaken to blame divestiture for these problems.  If
our pal Judge Hoo-Haa and his cronies had the public's best interest
in mind, we might see a few reasonable laws.  Allowing crappy AOS
companies to charge exorbitant prices without telling the dialer is
stupid.  There has to be some recourse against these thieves.

I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize
long distance service.  If the pay phones were required to display
or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the
free market.  The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't
be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute!

sincerely 10333,

steve elias
([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #121
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 4 Apr 89 1:19:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #122
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 4 Apr 89 00:55:26 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller*ID betrays a crank caller (Mark Robert Smith)
    Customer Name and Address Service (Mark Brader)
    Cancer from cell phones (Bradley W. Smith)
    Make/break ratios (Linc Madison)
    Wanted: APPLE-2 software for DEAF-TTY connections. (A. Dalrymple)
    "You'll find some changes here." (Chet Edelman)
    Re: British phone cards (Peter Kendell)

[Moderator's Note: Mark Robert Smith (first item, below) tells of catching
an obscene caller in the act with his Caller ID equipment. His report
brings back memories of 1967, when a buddy of mine working for IBT caught
one of the lowlifes. I will post it in the next issue of the Digest. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:34:26 EDT
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID betrays a crank caller

The other night, I got a call at 3am, that I wasn't expecting.  So, I let
the phone ring twice, and poof, the number 560-0846 appears on my CallerID
box.

I didn't recognize the number, but I answered anyway.  The person on the
other end proceeded to say any number of obscene things.  I interrupted,
saying:  "Did you know that your phone number is 560-08[click]".  He
hung up before I could finish.  So, I called him back.

Caller - "Hello?"
Me - " Why did you just call me?"
Caller - silence
Me - "I know your phone number, it's 560-0846, and if you ever call back
       here again, I'm going to report you to the police."
Caller - "All right [click]"

His "All right" was very sheepish-sounding.

I next called the operator, to see if she could do a reverse-directory
listing check.  She passed me to her supervisor, who told me that she
couldn't, and I should call either the police, or the business office on
Monday.  I told her the story, and heard a room full of people
laughing in the background, hysterically.  She said, "I wish I could
have seen his face when you called back...."

So, I called the business office on Monday.  They refused to do a
reverse directory lookup, because that information is private.  The
best I could have done, is pay $1 to do a Call*Trace, after which I
would have to contact the police and press charges, before I could
find out who it was.

Does anyone out there know of another way to do a reverse lookup?

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    rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?)
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Try the Haines Criss Cross Directory; available in the
Business/Technology or similar reference department in many public libraries.
Sometimes if you call the library on the phone and ask for the reference
department the librarian will do the look up and give it to you; other times
they say you have to come in the library and do it yourself.  PT]

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Name and Address Service
Date:     Mon, 3 Apr 89 00:53:29 EDT

> Illinois or several other states ...
> provide public CN/A (Customer Name and Address) services, much
> like a reverse directory bureau.

In the early 1960's when I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, a form of reverse
directory was included right in the public directory, as "Pink Pages".
Where the white pages might say

        Brader S L 12219 51st St ........... 477-7474

the pink ones would just have

        7474 Brader

as an entry under the heading 477; thus they were much shorter than the
white pages.  I was too young in those days to think of investigating
whether the pink pages listings included all phone numbers or only some
classes thereof, and I have no idea when they stopped doing that.

By the way, that was my actual phone number.  Best one I've ever had,
though for most of the time we had it, it was still GRanite 7-7474.
My present one has a pretty nice pattern, too: 488-6366.  Unfortunately,
the number 488-6636 belongs to a business.

--
Mark Brader            "It can be amusing, even if painful, to watch the
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         ethnocentrism of those who are convinced their
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]     local standards are universal."    -- Tom Chapin

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

Subject: Cancer from cell phones ...
Date: 3 Apr 89 13:03:56 EST (Mon)
From: gmeeca![e-mail]


The recent comments produce concern -- ionizing radiation is clearly NOT
the only to get cancer -- there is  much  concern  about  low  frequency
radiation (previously thought to be safe), such  as  60  Hz.  There  are
several studies out that show  that  people  living  in  the  area  (not
underneath, not  sitting  on  the  wire)  of  high  voltage  lines  have
significantly increased chances of cancer (and I forget which type). For
infants, it is clearly stated that even the  minor  field  generated  by
electric blankets can induce cancer.

Having been in the EMC arena for a while, the topic of cancer  is  under
very heavy scrutiny in the 500W arena/60 Hz arena, to which we  are cur-
ently exposing people in relatively large quantities, as this is the std
power used to drive large magnetic (Helmholz coils).  As a safety  prec-
aution, we do require our people to be with the vehicle while it is sub-
jected to this EMR (as it is  on  a  dynamometer).  We  also  require  a
minimum of a yearly physical exam done by the company to catch any areas
of difficulty that could arise.  It is  important  to  understand,  that
while this field will seriously deflect a CRT beam at several  feet,  it
is nothing when compared to the field produced by a hand held razor.

As this applies to Cellphones (including those with internal mount  ant-
ennas), there is most likely a very small finite  probability  that  the
radiation will produce odd side effects in adults.  This probability  is
also vastly increased for infants (namely those under 2 years old). THIS
DOESN'T MEAN DON'T USE CELLPHONES! Dosage is the key factor -- no  human
being is exposed to hours of cellphone communication on end --  expense,
drop-outs, safety, and cauliflower ear prohibit such exposure.  Using an
electric blanket, a child gets 8 hours plus per day exposure.  Using our
coils - technicians get 2 min/day of whole body exposure  and  using  an
electric razor a persons exposure is less than three minutes per day.

In the future, there is going to be a significant amount  of  discussion
about radiation limitations in the low frequency and low power areas  of
operation.  These concerns have been troubling the EMC types for quite a
while.

                    Bradley W. Smith
                    [phone] @ GMPG
                    lll-tis!gmeeca!sb
                    umix!clip!hse001!sb

Disclaimer:  In consideration of the legal ramifications  of  the  above
         statements, consider the aforementioned statements to be my
         personal opinions and non-indicative of my employer.

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

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 89 23:40:37 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Make/break ratios

The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio
isn't terribly critical (at least in US).  I discovered some years ago
that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly.  One time I even
dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method.  Obviously my
fingers weren't carefully figuring out whether I was using a 39/61
ratio or 33/67, so I suspect there is a high tolerance in the system
for slop.

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]

Disclaimers: I speak my own mind.  The telephone number listed above no
longer belongs to anyone I know, but please don't call it.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: [WANTED]: APPLE-2 software for DEAF-TTY connections.
Date: Mon,  3-Apr-89 08:22:02 PDT

    I'm looking for APPLE-2 software or a BASIC program
that will connect me to a DEAF-TTY.  DTTY uses the BAUDOT
character set (5-bit data words).  APPLE-2 uses the ASCII
character set (8-bit data words).  I need a interface be-
tween the 45.5 baud rate that BAUDOT requires and the 300/
1200 baud rate that I'm set-up with.  I realize that the
"APPLE-CAT" modem accomplishes this between h/w and s/w,
but I'm trying to make due with what I have.

    If anyone out there can aim me towards the software
for this (share/freeware?) or actually could port something
simple over into BASIC or ASM/HEX, that would be most ap-
preciated.

    If you don't happen to have even the foggiest of what
I am speaking about, but could steer me towards other re-
sources, THAT is also most appreciated.

    Please try to reach me at the following addresses; upon
failure to reach me, please post back here.  In advance,
thank you for your time and effort.  You may be the one to
bring friends and family closer together - please give it
a go.


Cordially,

  A. DALRYMPLE             [e-mail]
                           sun!portal!cup.portal.com!sirald

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

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 12:49:36 EDT
From: Chet Edelman x3425 <ileaf!io!hineni![e-mail]>
Subject: ``You'll find some changes here.''

Hiya Pat, I couldn't remember you had already run this, so I am sending
it just to make sure.

What follows is the verbatim text of an advertisement in The Boston
Globe, Monday April 3, 1989, page 6;

              ===========================================
          ``You'll find some changes here.''

        Recently, a change was made in your long distance pay
    phone calling.

        In the past, when you used our pay phones to call
    outside your New England Telephone calling area*, the call was
    carried by AT&T.  This is not necessarily true anymore.

        Now when you dial ``0'' plus the number for specially
    billed calls like collect and Calling Card, the call will be
    handled by the long distance company chosen by the property
    owner.  The long distance company will be identified on each pay
    phone's instruction card.

        If you prefer, you can use a different long distance
    company by dialing that company's special access code.

        We hope you've found this small change handy.

    *In Maine (207), New Hampshire (603), Vermont (802), and Rhode
    Island (401), the New England Telephone Calling Area is the
    entire state.  In Massachusetts, there are two New England
    Telephone Calling Areas: Western Massachusetts (413) and Eastern
    Massachusetts (617/508).

            New England Telephone
               A NYNEX Company

Chet Edelman        "Here am I"            Interleaf Inc.
[e-mail]                        10 Canal Park
{sun!sunne,mit-eddie}!ileaf!io!hineni!coe        Cambridge Ma 02141
([e-mail], [e-mail])        [phone]x3425

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

From: Peter Kendell <mcvax!tcom.stc.co.uk![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British phone cards
Date: 3 Apr 89 14:32:28 GMT
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (laura
halliday):
} While in London a couple of years ago the locals told me
} that the rationale for phone cards (other than byuing a
} 20 pound phone card with paper money rather than coins)
} was that card phones have no money in them, and are thus
} much less likely to be vandalized.
}
} - Laura

Plus, BT just *love* collecting your money from you before you make your
call. Think of all that extra cash it gives them. Plus you might lose
the card. Plus, a card telephone doesn't show you your money draining away
the way a cash one does so you are likely to spend more.

Do I carry a card? Yes, because money phones are disappearing fast and
the time I *really* need a phone will be the time there's only a card
phone nearby.

But I don't like it.
--

|          Peter Kendell <[e-mail]>                   |
|                ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete           |


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #122
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 4 Apr 89 2:33:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #123
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 4 Apr 89 02:17:28 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Obscene Caller Brought To Justice (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (John Higdon)
    Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Linc Madison)
    Re: How to use Caller*Id? (Will Martin)
    Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 4 Apr 89 2:09:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Obscene Caller Brought To Justice

The year was 1967. I was living in Hyde Park, one of the south side
neighborhoods in Chicago. A fellow living in my building worked for Illinois
Bell as a techician in the frames at the Chicago-Wabash central office
downtown.

Now this was long before ESS, of course, and in fact at the time, Wabash
was an ancient step by step office; one of the first converted to dial from
manual service in the early 1940's. Woody worked the 4-12 midnight shift
on Saturday and Sunday, and had just a single clerk working with him;
a woman who answered the calls to '611' repair service among other things.

You would have to know something about the area to fully appreciate the
story, but here goes anyway. The section of downtown Chicago where
that CO is located is on the southern edge of the financial section.
It is *dead* on Saturday evenings; no one is left in any of the offices
to call Repair Service at that time on the weekend; at least not back then.

So as often as not, the woman clerk taking 611 calls would sit there for
several minutes at a time doing nothing. There was one fellow though,
who *always* called at exactly 6:00 PM on Saturday, and would begin talking
dirty to the woman who answered the repair line. I assume this chap was
probably alone in his office, getting ready to go home for the night, and
liked to get his jollies by talking dirty on the phone. He apparently
assumed calls to 611 could not be traced; or at least he knew it was a
free call and would cost him nothing for a couple minutes of thrills the
way he liked to get them.

You could set your watch by this guy. Every Saturday night; always at
6 PM; always to the same woman answering 611 calls; always two or three
minutes of nasty talk while he was on the other end doing whatever it is
that guys do while they are making calls of this sort.

Woody the central office tech and the repair service lady always used
to laugh about it. Around five minutes to six every Saturday night Woody
would tell the woman, "oh, look at the time; its about time for your
boyfriend to call..."

One night Woody was feeling energetic, and he said to the clerk, let's
catch that silly old fool tonight.

The woman asked how, and Woody explained, thusly --

"You've got no calls now; when it lights up you know it will be him.
No one else ever calls Repair at this time of the evening from downtown
on Saturday night.

"What I want you to do is this: when he calls, make your voice sound like
a *recorded message*, and all I want you to say is 'Repair Service has a
new number. To call Repair Service, please hang up and dial 230'..."

In those days at least, '230' was a special test number which terminated
on the test board. Woody had a special treat in mind for their gentleman
caller that evening.

Sure enough, within a minute or two, 611 gets a call. The woman answers
and carefully recites, "This is a recorded message. Repair Service has a
new telephone number. To reach Repair Service, please hang up and dial
230. Dial 230 to reach Repair Service. There is no charge for this call;
this is a recorded message from Chicago-Wabash"  (click).

Sure enough, maybe ten seconds later, 230 lights up on the test board.

"Get over here! Hurry up and answer this guy. I'll be on the line."

Woody plugged in his headset in the test board, and the clerk plugged
in the spare jack. Plugging in the cord, she answered, "Repair Service,
how may I help you?"

Sure enough, our boy was there, and his mouth started running right away.
Woody got a big grin on his face, and he hit a couple keys on the test
board and immediatly spoke up. "You son of a bitch! This time we caught
you! I have wanted to nail you for the last six weeks, and this time we
got you."

Well, the chap immediatly hung up his phone, and Woody said he started
ringing him back. From the test board, he could hold up the line as long
as he wanted by keeping a shoe on the line, and he said to the clerk
we will just play games as long as he wants to play games.

Woody said he must have rang the guy's phone for 30 minutes trying to
get him to pick up. "First I would give him a real long ring, like
thirty seconds. Then a couple of short ding-dings. Then a couple long
ones again. Finally after 30 minutes or so, the guy picked up, all the
innocent bystander."

"Hello?"

"Say you! What's your name and your phone number?"

"I'm not going to tell you."

"Oh yeah? We'll see about that!"

Woody says this banter went on for a few minutes, and finally the poor
mousy fellow, by this point almost in tears, told him the number he
was calling from.

(Woody) "Well, I'm not so sure I can believe you. Tell you what I am going
to do. It's time for my dinner break. I am going over to Walgreens and get
a sandwich and some coffee. I'll be back in about an hour. Until I get
back, I'll just leave your line the way it is; and when I get done with
my dinner, I'll just take a walk into the frames and find out for myself
who you are. You can go ahead and hang up if you want; I've got you
locked down on the test board so I can find you later on."

Woody says when he got back from dinner, he went in the frames and was able
to verify that the caller had given the correct number. Checking their
records, they found the name on the phone, and the address.

I asked him what happened at that point. He said on Monday morning they
told the Business Office. I asked what the Business Office did
about it, and he said, "not very much! They slapped his wrist, and
told him not to make that kind of phone call any more or they would cut
his service off. It solved our problem anyway. We never heard from him
on the Repair Desk again."

That was 1967, and Woody had been with Illinois Bell about twenty years
at that point in time. A few years later, he read in [Telephony Magazine]
about some small rural telco out in Arizona that was going bankrupt. He
retired from Bell, took the several thousand dollars he had in his pension
fund account and bought into the rural telco. He moved to Arizona and
became a part owner of his own telco, instead of working for Ma Bell any
longer. The last I heard from him, about fifteen years ago, he loved it
there, and said he would never return to Bell. No gripes with them; just
that he liked being his own boss for a change.

History books about the telephone industry say the first complaint of an
obscene phone call was recorded by the manager of the New Haven exchange
in February, 1881. The record does not indicate *what* the caller had to
say, but it does report the callee was quite disturbed by the '...filthy
language that strange man said to me on the phone....'.

And the beat goes on.

Patrick Townson

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother
Date: 4 Apr 89 03:49:20 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, xrtll![e-mail]
writes:
> So how many people out there just decided to turn off their cellular
> phone when they are not using it or expecting calls ?
> After all, you ARE being watched......

Frankly, I do turn off my handheld when I am not using it or expecting
calls, but that's only to preserve the battery. I really don't care if
the cellular system "knows" where I am; I'm not hiding. Now if my boss
could tell that I wasn't calling from downtown San Francisco but
instead calling from the Napa wine country, that would be a different
matter. I suspect, however, that this information will not be available
on a casual basis.

If you stop to think about it, *they* certainly know where you are when
you use your home or office phone, don't they. And I understand that
the cellular phone is still the communications medium of choice among
LA's finest drug dealers:-)
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 89 23:56:18 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays?
Organization: U.C. Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]> David Bernholdt writes:
>
>... -- and every subscriber in the county gets an item like "E911
>Upgrade" on their local service billing to pay for it (at $0.50/month).
>
>... Just out of curiousity, does anyone know of other cases where the
>BOC is collecting "taxes" for a local government?

Here in Berkeley, California, we have several "taxes" and taxes that the
BOC collects.  We have a state excise tax on all telephone charges
except out-of-state toll calls.  We also have a *municipal* excise tax
applied to the same charges.  We also have a 0.5% tax applied specifi-
cally to pay for enhanced 911 service.  We also have a tax applied to
pay for TDD's (Telephone Devices for the Deaf).

When I was living in San Jose, California, the mayor (Tom McEnery) had
a *bright* idea -- why not apply the municipal phone tax on *all* calls,
including interstate?  Regrettably, he talked to his legal staff *after*
telling the press.

By the way, the total of all taxes I pay on in-state charges is about
11%, including the 3% federal.

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]

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

Date:     Mon, 3 Apr 89 15:20:26 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  How to use Caller*Id?

There are several possible explanations for the repeated mistaken calls
to your phone from the same calling number always wanting the racketball
court. (I suppose I am assuming that the caller is not intending to harass
you, and that it is as much of an annoyance to him to get the wrong
destination repeatedly as it is to you to get the wrong-number calls.
Maybe I'm wrong in trying to look for the reasonable interpretation,
though -- in that case, my advice would be to take revenge...:-)

Possible causes:

1) Defective phone at the caller's site. Does the intended number differ
from yours by some regular error, such as having "3"'s where your number
has "2"s? If so, the phone the caller is using may be intermittently
broken, so that pressing or dialling "3" generates a "2" instead. Maybe
it generates the wrong number if the touch is light, and when he tries
again after reaching you, he presses buttons more firmly, or dials more
slowly, and gets the right number then.

2) Position of the phone and the caller at their site. Right now, for
example, the phone by my desk is sitting on an equipment cabinet at
above my seated eye-level. I often hit incorrect buttons because of the
angle at which I am viewing the face of the phone. If the phone being
called from is on the wall in dim light, say, the caller may just not be
seeing it well enough to hit it right.

3) Handicap of the caller -- maybe he has bad vision, or hand spasms, or
some other reason that he hits incorrect numbers in a consistent fashion,
so that he gets your number repeatedly instead of the desired one.
(Admittedly far-fetched if he is athletic enough to be calling for a
racketball court.)

4) Mysterious gremlins in the phone-switching circuits. Some
similar-sounding things have been in Telecom in the past, so it isn't
impossible that the caller is dialling the correct number, yet some
percentage of the time, and only on the linkage from his line or CO to
the racketball-court's number, your phone gets rung instead.

5) Bad posted information -- maybe this is a public place, like another
sports-oriented site, and they have a chart on the wall with your number
shown by the name of the racketball court. A simple explanation, but,
after all, human stupidity can take infinite forms! :-)

Is it always the same individual calling? If so, that sort of rules out
5 but makes 1 thru 4 more likely. Does he seem honestly puzzled as to
why he reaches you instead of the court? That would indicate a hardware
bug. If he is apologetic or defensive, maybe that indicates personal or
known handicap problems.

Have you tried calling the number back? You might be able to guess
something from how it is answered, if it is a home or business...

Just some things that came to mind as I read your posting...

Regards, Will Martin

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 4 Apr 89 04:04:49 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve
Elias) writes:
> I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize
> long distance service.  If the pay phones were required to display
> or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the
> free market.  The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't
> be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute!

I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our
regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to
pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal
or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a
quasi-emergency device. The one you end up in front of is the one you
end up with. If it rips you off, that's too bad. Even in places where
you might conceivably shop around, such as an airport, one outfit has
the "concession" and there is no choice.

An alternative (other than declaring COCOTs a "public utility" item, to
be handled only by the utility) would be to require *all* pay phones to
give a choice of all carriers that are on an equal-access basis in the
area with complete instructions on how to select. Pacific Bell has
had phones like this in airports for years. By limiting the selection
to equal-access, you would eliminate the scummy AOS people.

As it is right now, if it isn't obviously a Pac*Bell payphone, I don't
even slow down. If the call is *really* necessary, I pick up the
handheld.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #123
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 5 Apr 89 2:56:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #124
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Apr 89 02:41:38 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Push to Centrex (John Higdon)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Paul Anderson)
    How To Use Caller*ID (Erik Dufek)
    Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Leslie Mikesell)
    Re: An April Fool's Joke (Roy A. Crabtree)
    Gremlins in the network (Bob Langford)

[Moderator's Note: Just one issue of the Digest today.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: push to Centrex
Date: 4 Apr 89 07:49:13 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In California, Pacific Bell is doing a saturation campaign to sell
Centrex services to business. They push the reliablility of the service
("the equipment is in our office, and we monitor it 24 hours a day")
and the fact that it can grow with your company.

I think I have found a major flaw with centrex (other than the obvious
ones). In my home there are nine lines in Commstar II, Pac*Bell's
"small" centrex service for business and residence. The easiest way to
retrieve calls from my Watson is by calling it. Normally, I pick up any
phone, dial "#20" (the intercom code for the Watson) and get my
messages.

This morning in the Bay Area there was a small earthquake. I thought no
more about it until it was time to check my Watson. Picked up the phone
and, you guessed it, no dial tone. The CO was overloaded from all the
dummies calling Aunt Millie to see if she felt the 'quake.

So now here's the scenerio: There is an earthquake. Things fall off
shelves, shelves fall over, people are screaming. And XYZ Corporation
has now lost all of its internal communications because they made the
"right" choice and bought Centrex. At least if you own your own switch,
while you may not be able to make outgoing calls (CO trunks dead),
you can call up to the third floor to make sure everyone is OK.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: Paul Anderson <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 5 Apr 89 00:49:32 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Anderson <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., a Dun & Bradstreet Company


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Paul Fuqua) writes:
>    Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?

>The local calling area in Dallas includes the city itself, plus most of
>the first two rings of suburbs and DFW airport.  That's a rough square
>25 or 30 miles on a side, so 600 to 900 square miles.  Between 1 and 2
>million people, more than 300 exchanges.

Hmmm.  In this light, I think that the Atlanta calling region -may- be
larger geographically (and I will take a stab at a population for that
region to be around 4 million people).  The Atlanta local calling area
extends from about 20 miles on one side of the 'perimeter' to 20 miles
out on the other side. The I285 ('perimeter') is conservatively 20 miles
across.  This yields a diameter of 60 miles or ~ 2826 sq miles.  Now,
while you are all coughing, I have made calls this distance regularly
and drive to these locations to do business!  I searched the phone
book for a listing of the exchanges and was unable to find
anything.  There are, however, 400 private residence listings per page
in the phone book for all 2004 pages of it yielding a total of 801,600
residence listings.  If the average household headcount of 4 per holds,
then this bears out an estimate of about 4 million people in the metro
area.  The business section averages 350 listings per page for 700 pages
for a total of 245,000 *listed* lines.  The real number is at least
probably double that, but more likely triple that, so lets say business
lines account for 600,000 more.   That yields a total of 1.4 million
lines.  This results in 495 lines per sq mile.  Big area, but not real
dense like in New York City.

Paul
--
Paul Anderson        gatech!stiatl!pda        [phone]
        X isn't just an adventure, X is a way of life...


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

Date: Tue Apr  4 17:34:20 1989
From: [e-mail] (16)
Subject: Re: How to use Caller*Id?
Organization: NetCom Unix, San Jose CA


In article <[e-mail]>, westmark![e-mail] (Dave
Levenson) says:

> Our business here in Warren Township, New Jersey, has a phone number
> which is not equal to the number of the Racketball Court a few miles
> away.  But once or twice a week, someone reaches us while trying to
> call the racketball place.  We have had Caller*Id in operation for a
> week, and we have now discovered that all of the racketball calls we
> got this week came from the same number (in nearby Somerville,
> according to the prefix).  The next time we get a call from that
> number, we'll assume the caller doesn't want to talk to us.  A
> question for the net:  what should we do with him?

> Answer as if we were the racketball place and give him the
> reservation he'll probably request for the court?

> Tell him, for the umpteenth time, that we are not the racketball court?

I'd use this fix for all your wrong calls.  Tell them that you are closed
for business today because the phone company is redoing the phones.  Tell
them to write down the new phone number since it will be changed tomorrow.
Then proceed to very carefully give them the new number.  Remind them to
change all their speed calling to the new number.  I suspect that your
caller has the wrong number stored somewhere.  Explain that the new number
will be very similar to the old number and they should be careful when
copying it or programming it into their phone.  I suspect this will help
lower the wrong numbers.

Of course if you are real viscous you could give them the number to the
local pizza palace or the phone company's business office.

Erik Dufek     <[e-mail]>


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother
Date: 4 Apr 89 22:05:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, xrtll![e-mail]

writes:
> Yesterday I sat in my office and had a nice chat with a friend of mine
> who called my from his truck while driving through Toronto...

> Afterward I thought about this and relized that the cellular service
> providers here have a VERY good idea of where you are with your phone.
> There seems to be a potential here for the police department to locate
> stolen vehicles with cellular phones in them by simply having the
> service providers tell them where they are.  As well, the phones will
> respond if polled so there does not have to be a conversation in progress
> in order to do this.


A few years ago, a friend had a cellular mobile phone stolen from
her car.  She called the local service provider to ask them to try
to locate the vehicle.  (She worked at Bell Laboratories, and was
involved in the development of the software that makes Cellular
Telephony work.)  They refused to do any kind of tracing, and
suggested that their equipment did not make the information
available.

They did offer to turn off the service (by causing their switch to
reject calls to/from the mobile number).  The stolen equipment
turned up on my friend's door step one morning a few weeks later!

--
Dave Levenson            /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.            |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA            |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave    \-----------------------------/


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

From: Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 4 Apr 89 22:31:17 GMT
Reply-To: Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
Elias) writes:
>I think it is mistaken to blame divestiture for these problems.
[...]
>I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize
>long distance service.  If the pay phones were required to display
>or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the
>free market.  The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't
>be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute!

The solution is actually much simpler than voice equipment.  The services
should be required to connect through the lowest priced LD service
unless otherwise directed (by dialing the access code) by the caller.
Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest
rate.  Then they could only gouge you for local services.

Les Mikesell

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

From: "Roy A. Crabtree" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An April Fool's Joke
Date: 4 Apr 89 16:56:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Today is the big day. We are celebrating April Fool's Day this year
[elided]
> And people are angry: The FCC is receiving about 2000 letters a month from
> Americans asking what in the hell has happened to the phone service. Even
[elided]
> for most folks on the run, the pay phone at the airport or train
> depot, or the phone at the corner convenience mart is where they stop.

> And boy, have *they* got a suprise coming, starting today. I really wonder
[elided]
> As the late Jim Jordan's wife, Mollie used to say, "tain't funny, McGee!"
[elided]
> Patrick Townson

   it's just starting ... because the 3-5 year period we just went
through is the lead time needed to flow through a new regulatory
policy and begin networ wide implmentation.  Wait until the AOSs
and the COCOTs and other ilk really get rolling.

POTS is dying, folks; and the co$t i$ going up ...

As bad as some areas of AT&T practise and service have been (& having
lived on the inside for much of my career, I can attest to it), you
really do not know what you will miss until it is gone:

    - IN Mexico they _will_ their telephones; new connects take
      7-10 years in some areas.

    - In France up to 1 in 3 local calls go astray.

Competition is fine, but why throw out the baby with the bath water?

roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc 201-957-6033

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

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 12:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Gremlins in the network

A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
played back her answering machine, and got this:
 <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
 "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
  again later."

Is this a new service?  The switch notifies people when high utilization
occurs?  Was her recorder trying to make calls to its friends?  The
message (and especially the tones) sounded real, or I would be more inclined
to expect a joke (it was April 1st.....).

Any guesses?
         ...Bob Langford, Medical College of Virginia...

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #124
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 6 Apr 89 0:05:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #125
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Apr 89 00:01:51 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Centrex (Michael Barnes)
    Centrex (Will Martin)
    Phones and Earthquakes (was push to Centrex) (Hector Myerston)
    Re:  How to use Caller*Id? (Carl Moore)
    ISDN Prototyping Phone in Radio-Electronics (Kurt A. Geisel)
    Cordless phone that works within 10 miles (Tsz-Mei Ko)
    Re: Telecomm Distributors List Wanted (Joe Kittel)
    Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (John B. Nagle)
    Re: Gremlins in the network (Paul Anderson)
    Phone fraud (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 1989 06:10-PDT
Subject: Centrex
From: 410 BMW/SCX--KI Sawyer AFB MI <[e-mail]>

No flames please, but for the sake of this poor ignorant person,
(me personally, no reflection on the rest of my office)
I would like to see definitions of Centrex.  I have heard many and
am curious what the net has to say .

Now's the chance for some real interesting stuff.  Please send me
*your* definition of Centrex.

Thanks,
Michael

*****************************************************************
Michael Barnes                    * The nice thing about policies
OldNet: [e-mail]   * and standards, is that there
NewNet: [e-mail]  * are so many to choose from.
HamNet: WA7SKG                    * If you don't find any you
BellNet: 906-346-2578             * like, simply wait for next
AV Net: 472-2578                  * years models!
SnailNet: 2001CS/XP               *
          K.I. SAWYER AFB,MI      *
*****************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: The ideas, comments, remarks, replies, insinuations,
innuendos, flatuations, and any other conceivable or inconceivable
outputs presented here, real, imagined, or implied, simply do not
exist.  The names are real, the stories have been changed due to
simple boredom.
****************************************************************


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

Date:     Wed, 5 Apr 89 9:08:35 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Centrex

The main fault I find with Centrex, in an operational, user-interface sense, is
the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer calls and get another line.
If I call a number and get a busy signal, and want to hang up and try again
or try a different number, even if I press the button down deliberately
and hold it down for what seems to me to be a loo-oo-oong time, I STILL get
the beep-beep-beep that tells me the first call is on hold and I am now
connected to a second line. That should only happen with a single SHORT
flash of the switchhook; any measurable length of time of holding down the
switchhook should be a hangup.

I find it a terrible user interface to force me to delay as long as it
wants me to to get a real hangup.

I would think that one of the touchtone buttons, like # or *, could be
sensed during a call to perform the action that is now controlled by the
switchhook.

Will Martin

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 09:01:31 PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones and Earthquakes (was push to Centrex)

    John Higdon writes about how to avoid post-earthquake dial
tone delays if one has a PBX voice Centrex.

    John, think about it.  The blockage and/or dial-tone delay
are not caused by the equipment but by an abnormally large number
of user going off-hook.  What makes you think that PBX users will
act any differently?  (You even suggest calling the Third Floor to
check!).  Even the best "Non-Blocking" [ :-) ] PBXs cannot support
everyone going off-hook simultaneously without service delay.

    In big shakers many "calls" are caused by cheap light weight
sets falling off hook.  In this area (SF Bay) the radio stations
advice everyone to stay off the phone and, in the next second, ask
everybody to call THEM with the same tiresome "Gee, I'm OK but I
really felt it..." reports.  In between calls they (the radio
stations) gang-dial USGS, Berkeley Seismology Lab etc to ask inane
questions.
-------

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

Date:     Wed, 5 Apr 89 8:45:32 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  How to use Caller*Id?

Is that caller dialing the number for the racketball place or is it
stored?  I had a case several years ago in my office, which uses a
Centrex or similar setup, where callers from outside who were trying
to reach an extension of the form 6abc got 66ab instead; this came
to my attention because I was in an area where many extensions started
with a double 6.

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

Date: Wed,  5 Apr 89 19:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Kurt A. Geisel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Prototyping Phone in Radio-Electronics

The May 1989 issue of Radio-Electronic starts a multi-part article
on building an ISDN prototyping phone.  It is a special interface
board which connects to a standard Telenova PBX station.  It provides
a complete TE1 interface, based on the AM79C30A chip, which can be
made ISDN-ready if you have a hookup available.  In case you don't, a
standard analog phone interface is built in (with DTMF and
call-progress monitoring), allowing you to connect to an existing twisted
pair and emulate ISDN functions.  Apparently, you will be able to customize
the software (the Telenova's 8085 w/ 64K) to do your own ISDN
experiments, as well have a fully-functional TE1, but the software
details won't be revealed until a later issue.

All in all, it looks pretty promising for all you hacker ("good" sense
of the word, I THINK...) types.

- Kurt
Kurt Geisel                       SNAIL :
Carnegie Mellon University            65 Lambeth Dr.
ARPA : [e-mail]           Pittsburgh, PA 15241
UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel  "I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped,
BIX  : kgeisel               briefed, debriefed, or numbered!" - The Prisoner

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

From: "t.m.ko" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles
Date: 5 Apr 89 14:21:35 GMT
Reply-To: "t.m.ko" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T, Middletown, NJ



I am looking for a cordless phone that would work even if the handset
is away from the base for up to 10 miles.
Is there such a product?

I need to use it in some rural area where cellular service is unavailable.

All recommendations and comments are appreciated.


******************************************************************************
Tsz-Mei Ko
ARPA:    bentley![e-mail]            AT&T Bell Labs
UUCP:    [e-mail]            LC 3N-P08
                        184 Liberty Corner Road
{att-ih,decwrl,amdahl,linus}!ihnp4!bentley!tmk    Warren, NJ 07060-0908
*******************************************************************************


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

From: Joe Kittel <hp-sdd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecomm Distributors List Wanted
Date: 4 Apr 89 18:07:36 GMT
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO



> Please excuse the message if I've sent it to the wrong person,
> but do you maintain a list of telecomm product distributors,
> or can you direct me to someone who might?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Steve Diamond
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Mountain View, CA  94043
> 415-336-4190

Steve,

Not sure what's meant by "telecom product distributors" but this MAY BE what
you're looking for:

  1989 Telephone Industry Directory (3rd edition)
  Phillips Publishing
  7811 Montrose Road
  Potomac, Maryland  20854
  [phone]; customer service [phone]

Happy to help our friends at Sun ...

Regards,


Joe Kittel                        Hewlett-Packard - NSS - Telecom Industry Mktg
Ph: [phone]                         UXmail:  [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!joe-k


P.S.  Feel free to call ...

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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother
Date: 5 Apr 89 16:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University



      It's not all clear that the ECPA prohibits listening to the cellular
control channel.  There might be some potential for a business that monitors
all traffic on the cellular control channel in an area and reduces the data.
Not only could you locate stolen phones, but you could develop targeted
marketing information concerning heavy cellular phone users.

                    John Nagle

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

From: Paul Anderson <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network
Date: 5 Apr 89 18:38:57 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Anderson <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., a Dun & Bradstreet Company


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
>played back her answering machine, and got this:
> <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
>  again later."

I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta
once every other day for a week and a half now...   Can anyone take any
guesses as to what is happening?

paul
--
Paul Anderson        gatech!stiatl!pda        [phone]
        X isn't just an adventure, X is a way of life...


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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 23:20:04 EDT
From: Shakil Waiz Ahmed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone fraud


I would like to thank all those of you who responded to my request for
possible phone fraud techniques at Yale.  The information you all provided
was extremely valuable and really helped us build our case.  We managed to
corner Yale Communications on a quite a lot of issues.  The Executive
Committee hearing was today, and it not only voted that they could not prove
my friend to be guilty, but also that she was totally innocent of all charges.
My friend who was totally ignorant of all technical issues wholeheartedly
thanks all of you.

-- 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
===============================================================================

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #125
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 6 Apr 89 1:35:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #126
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Apr 89 01:18:40 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Clayton Cramer)
    Demon Dialer Info (William G. Martin)
    Who is responsible for COCOTS? (Marvin Sirbu)
    Repeated wrong number (was Uses of Caller ID) (David Tamkin)
    Question on phone system made by TIE Communications (Jeff Kitson)
    Local Area Sizes (David Gast)
    FCC's AOS Order (TELECOM Moderator)
    976-WAKE - up Service in California (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:57:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john
@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> > (Steve Elias) writes:
> > I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize
> > long distance service.  If the pay phones were required to display
> > or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the
> > free market.  The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't
> > be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute!
>
> I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our
> regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to
> pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal
> or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a
> quasi-emergency device. The one you end up in front of is the one you

If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an
issue.  Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an
ambulance after a traffic accident?

> end up with. If it rips you off, that's too bad. Even in places where

If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service)
that's quite different from "outrageous pricing".

> John Higdon

My own experiences with COCOTs are mixed.  I recently tried to make
a phone call from two different COCOTs, both owned by the same company,
and as I got closer to the destination caller, the toll charges they
requested went UP.  However, it wouldn't actually accept my coins
to pay the toll charge, so I was able to make the call.  At least
it gave me my money back.


--
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Abandon all hopes of utopia -- there are people involved.

Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 14:05:58 MDT
From: "William G. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Demon Dialer Info

This showed up on the Info-CPM list and it looks to be of interest to
Telecom, so I'm forwarding a copy:
                ---------------

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from LL.ARPA by WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL with TCP; Wed, 29 Mar 89
10:05:58 MST
Date: Tue 29 Mar 1989 12:07:14 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Redialing Phones
To: [e-mail]
Local addressee: SAGE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

   Martin Olivera asked about phones that automatically redial a busy
number.  One of the most famous of these is the Demon Dialer from Zoom
Telephonics in Boston.  It does much more than redial; it is a complete
phone enhancement system.  It is installed in series with the incoming
phone line and thus gives its capabilities to all telephones in the
house or office.

   It serves as a repertory dialer (allows numbers to be associated with
abbreviated strings, such as #MOM to call home), it will rapidly retry a
busy number, and it will at intervals retry a number that does not
answer.

   One factor you should consider is whether the telephone has busy TONE
detection.  I have what is otherwise a very nice telephone, the AP2002
that you see in the DAK catalogs.  It is the best speakerphone I have
ever heard, has a full typewriter keyboard, stores hundreds of numbers
under alpha codes, and will automatically redial a busy number.
However, it only knows a number is busy by inferring that from its not
answering after some thirty seconds.  The smart modems, of course, can
detect the busy tone and disconnect immediately.  Listening to the busy
signal for thirty seconds every minute can get rather annoying.  It
would also be nice if the phone would supply a local ring signal to
alert you when the call does go through.  The Zoom Demon Dialer may have
these features, but I am not sure.

   Here is the address and phone number of Zoom as I got it from the
phone book:

          Zoom Telephonics      617-423-1072 (general)
          207 South Street      617-423-1076 (tech support)
          Boston, MA

   They are coming out in the next several months with an even more
spectacular product.  It will be a complete telephone subsystem that can
be controlled from your personal computer.  Demon dialing is only a
small part of its capabilities.  It can handle two incoming central-
office lines and four local lines, which might be connected to voice
telephones, modems, fax machines, and so on.  It does its own touch-tone
decoding and voice synthesis.  Here is a scenario.  A call comes in on
line one.  A synthesized message asks you to press key 1 for the fax, 2
for the modem, 3 for voice.  Suppose you ask for the modem.  It can then
request that you key in a password before it will connect you to the
modem.  Or, wherever caller identification service is available from the
phone company, it will check the phone number of the CALLING party and
act accordingly.  This is where your personal computer comes in.  There
are many interesting possibilities here!

   I have no connection with Zoom except as someone fascinated by their
products.  Though I always yearned for a demon dialer, I never did buy
one.  However, this new gadget, I suspect, will be beyond my powers to
resist!

-- Jay Sage


-------

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

Date: Wed,  5 Apr 89 15:24:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is responsible for COCOTS?

You don't need divestiture to have a problem with COCOTS.  You don't even need
facilities based competition.  All you need are:

1) Authorization of resale of long distance, with no price regualtion for
resale carriers.

2)  Authorization to property owners that they may choose the AOS operator of
their choice, and receive whatever kickback that operator wants to give them.

Given these two propositions, both of which are strictly within the domain of
the FCC, you can create all the problems we have seen with AOS.

The solution therefore, is also within the domain of the FCC.  Either

a)  eliminate resale.  This of course would eliminate Telenet, Tymnet,
Compuserve and all other value added network providers.

b) compel the property owner to contract with only the lowest cost service
provider (likely to lead to low level of service quality.)

c)  limit the level of kickbacks to property owners, thereby reducing
(partially) the incentive for high AOS prices; or

d)  put price caps on what AOS operators can charge.

e) mandate that all carriers be reachable from every payphone and educate
customers to choose the lowest cost carrier.

f) do nothing.

I vote for d).



Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University
internet:  [e-mail]
bitnet:    ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Repeated wrong number (was Uses of Caller ID)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 22:50:36 CDT

In Digest volume 9, issue 123, Will Martin <[e-mail]>
wrote in response to the previous submission about someone who repeatedly
calls a Digest subscriber's business, expecting to reach the phone number of
a racquetball court:

| There are several possible explanations for the repeated mistaken calls
| to your phone from the same calling number always wanting the racketball
| court.

| Possible causes:

| 1) [caller has defective telephone]

| 2) [caller has poor view of dial or keypad]

| 3) [caller has visual or motor difficulties]

| 4) [telco has a problem]

| 5) [caller keeps rereading public posting with wrong number on it]

There are a couple other possibilites that come to mind:

6) The caller keeps rereading a handwritten note with what he thinks is the
racquetball court's number and swears every time that this is the piece of
paper with the *right* number on it (why he doesn't throw it out so that
only the right one is around, I don't know).

7) The caller has an incorrect number preprogrammed into a Speed Dial code
or into an autodialing key on the phone.  Someone else programmed the
numbers and marked this one "Racquetball Court" but the caller is too
nontechie to grasp that the friend goofed.

8) The caller programmed a Speed Dial code or an autodial key himself with
the Raceptball Court's number (so he thought), but did it wrong and keeps
making the same mistake when he tries to reprogram it.

9) The caller keeps forgetting to reprogram the Speed Dial code or the
autodial key but thinking he fixed it already and then tries it again.

David W. Tamkin     Post Office Box 567542    Norridge, Illinois  60656-7542
[e-mail]    Jolnet Public Access Unix     GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
...!killer!jolnet!dattier      Orland Park, Illinois         CIS: 73720,1570
Anyone on Jolnet who agrees with me is welcome to speak up on his or her own.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 09:22:29 PDT
From: Jeff Kitson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on phone system made by TIE Communications

My company has a key service unit, model CK III, made by TIE
Communications.  We're moving into a new building and we want to run
both the phone and RS232 lines through the same 25-pair cable into
offices.  My question is if anyone out there has a similar setup and
has successfully or unsuccessfully done this?

A *technical* person from TIE said that he has heard of some place
that had trouble when some *computer cables where run in parallel with
the phones*, but he didn't know anything more specific.  He said I
should do some tests myself.

Thanks in advance,  Jeff
---------
Jeff Kitson                 [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 17:16:40 PDT
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Area Sizes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Paul Fuqua) writes:
>    Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?

I think we went over this subject a few months ago.  Unfortunately, it
is not a very interesting question in itself.  In theory, a local
calling area could be all of a state, all of the country, or all of
the world.  One would just need the ``right'' tariff.

A much more interesting question is what is the cheapest phone service.
This question is also much more difficult to define because the cheapest
phone service depends on the calling pattern of the individual subscriber,
which clearly varies with the subscriber.

The point is:  There is an implicit if not explicit assumption that a large
calling area is equated with lower cost.  (Why else would it be an advantage
instead of just a question for trivial pursuits?) This assumption is not
necessarily true.  It is only likely to be true if the individual
subscriber makes a lot of calls to the outlying area of the local
calling area.  If GTE offered me a local calling area twice the size
for $2 more per month, I would not take it because I do not make $2
worth of toll calls to the expanded area per month.  Other people would
probably would take it.  In fact, I might even trade in some of my
local calling area in exchange for a lower base rate.  (Depends, of
course, exactly what areas they want to take away.  The ``Valley'', for
example, is a local call me for me, but I never call there because I
``like for sure can't totally understand any rad, bitchin' thing'' they
say.  :-) )

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

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

Date:     Thu, 6 Apr 89 1:08:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FCC's AOS Order

Blake Farenthold very kindly sent me a complete copy of the recent order
entered by the FCC regarding the AOS companies, and the changes
ordered in their operations.

The trouble is it is a *huge* file, by Digest standards. 33,000+ bytes
of text. The typical Digest is 10-13,000 bytes. The Digest software requires
that each Digest be less than 15,000 bytes. This is due to the way some
mailers handle messages, etc. Larger Digests (especially when you mail a
huge number at a time, as I do) causes the mailers to complain and mess
things up.

So -- I am going to send out a copy of the FCC Order to the list (and
comp.dcom.telecom) over the weekend in a *three part mailing* of about 12,000
bytes each. Typically, mail to the Digest is slower on weekends, and we
usually have only one or two Digests anyway.

When you get the three parts, which will be 'special editions', you can
cut out the headers and paste all the actual text back together again, and
have a complete copy for your own reference library.

Watch for them Saturday or Sunday, spaced about an hour apart in the mail.

Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Thu, 6 Apr 89 1:17:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  976 WAKE - up Service in California

You don't have to be a hotel guest to get a wake-up call anymore.
People in California can now dial a service called '976-WAKE' and arrange
a telephonic alarm clock/reminder service for the next day.

From one of several area codes in California, the caller dials 976-WAKE,
then follows the instructions given, entering his own telephone number
on the touchtone pad, and the time for the wakeup call, etc. The system
is programmed so that only California area codes can be called; and no
calls can ordered for numbers such as xxx-555-xxxx, etc.

The charge is $2 for each wakeup/reminder call. You do not have to be in
California to hear how it works; just dial 213-976-WAKE. From outside of
California all you will pay is around 25 cents if you call at night, but
don't expect to be able to get a wakeup call, because it won't work without
a California area code entered.

Is this God's way of telling people they have too much money?

Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #126
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 7 Apr 89 3:21:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #127
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Apr 89 03:10:32 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Daemon Dialer (Scott D. Green)
    Re: Demon Dialer (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Gremlins in the network (Nigel Whitfield})
    Re: Gremlins in the network (Ken Frantzen)
    I need to dial in from Houston to the internet (Brian Jay Gould)
    Re: push to Centrex (Linc Madison)
    Re: Centrex (Marvin Sirbu)
    Modem pool (John Amason)
    Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Robert C. White Jr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 14:40 EST
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Daemon Dialer

I've been using the Daemon in my office for many years now.  I think I picked
it up at Radio Schlock.  I dedicated it to one the lines on my old ATT leased
key system.  We had to play with the jumpers a little bit, but it has been
working faithfully ever since - even with my replacement key system, an Eagle.
(I feared that the all-electronic Eagle would be too "smart" for the Daemon.)

The auto-redial feature is truly the best, but you can't really appreciate it
unless you've got a speakerphone or a headset.  After reaching a busy, hangup
and dial *3.  It will keep trying, for the first minute or so constantly, then
every 30 seconds for ever :).  Once it detects ringing, it kicks in the
"normal" volume.  It sometimes gets confused if it takes a l-o-n-n-n-g time to
hit the ring, since that's what it's trying to find.  It will also auto-redial
for no answers as well as busys.  BTW, if you don't have speaker or headset,
dial *2 and once it decides that the call has connected the handset will emit
a fairly loud BEEP BEEP BEEP to alert you.  Flash the switchhook to complete
the connection.  (Note:  it would be fairly uncomfortable to have the alert
go off in your ear - this should only be used if you're going to lay the
handset down.)

As was mentioned earlier, you install the Daemon on your line, and, assuming
you're wired in series, it will be available on all extensions of that number.

Programming is easy:  # S (for Store) # (2-7 character code) # AC+number #.
If you try to use an existing code, it beeps and kicks you off.  To delete:
# D (for Delete) #.  A confirmation tone lets you know if you're successful.
And to dial, # (code) #.

A big drawback:  YOU must keep track of all your codes and associated numbers.

Sort of like BOC's speedcalling.  On the other hand, if you get totally
snafu-ed, there is a Clear All command so you can start over.

If the phone goes off-hook for more than 3-4 seconds without a #, the Daemon
disengages, allowing other use of the # (octothorpe?).

Anyway, without dragging on much longer, I am very pleased that Zoom is still
in business and that the Daemon is still available.  Radio Schlock dropped, and
I didn't see it advertised for a long time.  Not even in DAK.  Or JS&A.

Scott Green
U. of PA

(no, of course I'm not connected with Zoom.)

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

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 89 14:15:55 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Demon Dialer


>...phones that automatically redial a busy
>number.  One of the most famous of these is the Demon Dialer from Zoom
>Telephonics in Boston.  It does much more than redial; it is a complete
>phone enhancement system.  It is installed in series with the incoming
>phone line and thus gives its capabilities to all telephones in the
>house or office.
>
>One factor you should consider is whether the telephone has busy TONE
>detection.
>
>It would also be nice if the phone would supply a local ring signal to
>alert you when the call does go through.  The Zoom Demon Dialer may have
>these features, but I am not sure.

I have had a Demon Dialer for many years and installed several a a company.
The DD does detect the difference between busy and no answer in most but not
all cases.

One problem in using the demon dialer, is that you must leave the phone off
the hook while it is doing redials.  When it gets through, it places a VERY
loud beep on the line and you must hit the switch hook to connect.  If you
happen to have the phone by your ear when the dialer beeps, the sound is
painful and might even cause damage to your ear.  While DD is in retry mode,
it will accept incomming calls between trys, but it will not allow you to
make a different outgoing call.

DD will work for all lines on one phone (I have never tried this) or all
phones on one line.  If you have 2 lines thatn you need 2 Deamon Dialers and
have to remember to update the second one every time you update the first
one.  It will hold up to about 170 numbers depending on the size of the
numbers, but if you forget what you have programmed you are out of luck.
Your only option would be to clear the entire memory and start over from
scratch.  It has power fail protection without a battery (a large capacitor
that holds memory for a long time).

I use it all the time, but when I installed it in an office, I found that the
non-technical office staff found it too complex and ended up not using it.

I once had to call for tech support and was pleased with the service that I
received.

I have one telephone that sometimes causes the DD to misdial.  I suspect that
the tone freqency is slightly off and that the DD is less tolerant of this
than the phone company.

I look forward to any new products that Zoom may produce.  Two lines would be
much better, 3 would be great.  I hope that any computer interface will
support calling party ID and that I could default the system to modem routing
on one of my incomming lines because most of my modem callers are unattended
machines which could not deal with having to send extra tones to select a
modem.

Ken Levitt
--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 22:53:56 BST
From: Mad Nige <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network

Here in the UK we used to have a similar problem, where we would come
home and find that the local (system-X) exchange had left messages on
our answering machine saying "You have dialled incorrectly. Please
replace the handset and try again."

Eventually we worked out that this happened if someone dialled and
waited for just enough rings that the machine would pick up the line
and then hung up. The exchange would think that we had picked up the
line and then after nothing was dialled issued the message.

Nigel Whitfield.

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

From: Ken Frantzen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network
Date: 6 Apr 89 23:36:26 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Frantzen <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> Paul Anderson <stiatl!pda@gatech.
edu> writes:
>>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
>>played back her answering machine, and got this:
>> <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
>> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
>>  again later."

A guess what may be happening.

Somebody with a 3-way calling feature calls you.

The switch hook is flashed (instead of hanging up).
This activates the 3-way calling.

Another number is dialed - plus another flash.
Your machine is now bridged on the call that
gets the no circuit announcement.

You now record the announcement. I'd think you'd eventually
get a recording of a live conversation if this happens several
times.





















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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: I need to dial in from Houston to the internet
Date: 7 Apr 89 04:59:56 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I have a user in Houston who needs to access the internet.  He has an
account in New Jersey, but he really can't afford the long distance call.

Anyone at U of H or Rice out there?

Please e-mail reply to me directly.  Thanks 8-)
--

- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]   BITNET gould@jvncc  -
-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould    Telephone [phone] -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------s

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 23:59:00 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: push to Centrex
Organization: U.C. Berkeley EECS CAD Group

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 124, message 1 of 7
>
>In California, Pacific Bell is doing a saturation campaign to sell
>Centrex services to business....
>--
>John Higdon
>john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

Bizarre cross-posting, I admit....

I live in a student housing co-op.  Recently, after some prodding by
Pacific*Bell and much prodding by the president of our organization,
our house had Centrex installed.  While most of the disinformation
seems to have come from our prez, there are still complaints I have
with regard to Pacific Bell's end of things.

(1) We were told that the $5 or so per month *included* FCC access
charges; not so (not Pac Bell's fault, near as I can tell)

(2) We are classed as "dorm Centrex," which is basically residential
service.  We pay the residential rate for FCC access.  However, we do
not even have the *option* of unlimited local calling.  Why????  It
really annoys me, just on principle, that I have to ponder the fact
that my modem connection to this computer is costing me $0.004/minute.
Not a cost of consequence by any means, but an annoyance anyway.

(3) We can't get calling cards on our accounts, even though toll calls
are billed to the individual rooms.  I can see why giving us cards with
our real phone numbers +4 would be messy for billing, but I don't see
why they can't issue fictitious-number cards tied to the toll accounts.

(4) Pac Bell seems to be terminally confused about the whole idea of
dorm Centrex.  I'm the house manager and therefore in charge of the
system for the house.  The house wound up making an overpayment to one
of the room accounts.  Pacific Bell refuses to refund the overpayment
because "your name isn't shown as house manager."  Bullshit.  There is
no other name that could POSSIBLY show as "house manager."  Under the
setup we have, I'm supposed to be authorized to handle this kind of
stuff.  But no-o-o-o-o.  I can't penetrate the wall of unhelpfulness.
I called the special number they have for house managers only to speak
to someone allegedly knowledgeable about the system.  No response.

(5) They've been everything short of helpful in dealing with room
changes at semester time.

For once, a real and meaningful disclaimer: the opinions expressed
above are my own and not necessarily reflective of my house, my co-op
organization, or any other individual, not to mention the university.
The purported facts related above I believe to be true.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu,  6 Apr 89 09:27:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex

Will's problem is not with Centrex, it is with his telephone!  There are
a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button:  press it
and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of time
for call waiting or 3-way calling.

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

From: "jma:jma" <jma![e-mail]>
Subject: Modem pool
Date: 6 Apr 89 04:10:43 GMT

I am in the process of selecting hardware to implement a communications
server. The server will be a Unix based platform connected to a LAN and
will have a model pool attached to allow employees to dial-in. To improve
security, it has been decided that a callback should be required before
system access will be granted.

I have been investigating the use of the Microcom HDMS system which appears to
have a reasonable callback strategy; however, we have had poor results with
the AX/9624c connecting to non-Microcom modems, if the unit is configured
for MNP class 6 communications ( required for 9600 bps operations).

Does anyone know how to configure this modem to communicate with other brands
of modems and to properly fall back to 2400 bps or 1200 bps when necessary?

Does anyone know of an alternate solution for a modem pool w/callback support?

I have grown fond of the Telebit modem but its callback directory permits
only a limited number of entries. So maybe, a separate callback unit would
be the best solution.

I would appreciate any suggestions - even commercials.

Thanks,

John

--
John Amason                     e-mail: uunet!jma!jma
Landmark Graphics Corp.         phone: [phone]
333 Cypress Run, Suite 100
Houston, Texas  77094


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

From: "Robert C. White Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 6 Apr 89 21:40:15 GMT
Organization: National University, San Diego


in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leslie Mikesell) says:
> Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest
> rate.

This is only true if the machine knows how long you are going to talk,
and by teh time that datum is regestered it's to late to do anything
about it.

Rob.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #127
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 8 Apr 89 21:03:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #128
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Apr 89 20:07:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FBI/Bell Wiretapping Network? (Robert Horvitz)
    ISDN Calling Number Identification Services (Marvin Sirbu)
    Caller ID (Ed Wells)
    Correction to submission on area code 708 (David Tamkin)
    A note on MCI (Will Martin)
    Re: Make/break ratios (Patt Haring)

[Moderator's Note: I reported the Cincinnati Bell wiretap scandal here
in the Digest about a week ago ("Reach Out and Tap Someone"), and today
a second report on this matter is being presented by Robert Horvitz, as
the first article in this issue of the Digest. I suspect we will be
hearing more about the matter before all the dirty laundry has been aired
out and washed.

A little later tonight you will be receiving a three part 'special edition'
of the Digest which will contain the complete text of the decision of the
Federal Communications Commission regarding the AOS situation.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 23:46:00 PST
From: Robert Horvitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI/Bell Wiretapping Network?


rh:  The following article (slightly abridged) appears in the
April 1st edition of the "W5YI Report," a radio-electronics
newsletter for ham radio operators ($23/year for 24 issues to US
addresses from:  The W5YI Report, P.O. Box 565101, Dallas, Texas
75356-5101).  This was NOT an April Fool's issue:
=========================
Bob Draise/WB8QCF was an employee of Cincinnati Bell Telephone
between 1966 and 1979.  He, and others, are involved in a
wiretapping scandal of monumental proportions.  They say they
have installed more than 1,000 wiretaps on the phones of judges,
law enforcement officers, lawyers, television personalities,
newspaper columnists, labor unions, defense contractors, major
corporations (such as Proctor & Gamble and General Electric),
politicians (even ex-President Gerald Ford) at the request of
Cincinnati police and Cincinnati Bell security supervisors who
said the taps were for the police.  They were told that many of
the taps were for the FBI.

Another [radio] amateur, Vincent Clark/KB4MIT, a technician for
South-Central Bell from 1972 to 1981, said he placed illegal
wiretaps similar to those done by Bob Draise on orders from his
supervisors - and on request from local policemen in Louisville,
Kentucky...

I asked Bob how he got started in the illegal wiretap business.
He said a friend called and asked him to come down to meet with
the Cincinnati police.  An intelligence sergeant asked Bob about
wiretapping some Black Muslims.  He also told Bob that Cincinnati
Bell security had approved the wiretap - and that it was for the
FBI.  The sergeant pointed to his Masonic ring which Bob also
wore - in other words, he was telling the truth under the Masonic
oath - something that Bob put a lot of stock in.

Most of the people first wiretapped were drug or criminal
related.  Later on, however, it go out of hand - and the FBI
wanted taps on prominent citizens.  "We started doing people who
had money.  How this information was used, I couldn't tell you."

The January 29th "Newsday" said Draise had told investigators
that among the taps he rigged from 1972 to 1979 were several on
lines used by Wren Business Communications, a Bell competitor.
It seems that when Wren had arranged an appointment with a
potential customer, they found that Bell had just been there
without being called.  Wren's president is a ham [radio
operator], David Stoner/K8LMB.  I telephoned Dave...

"As far as I am concerned, the initial focus for all of this
began with the FBI.  The FBI apparently set up a structure
throughout the United States using apparently the security chiefs
of the different Bell companies...  They say that there have been
other cases in the United States like ours in Cincinnati but they
have been localized without the realization of an overall pattern
being implicated."

"The things that ties this all together is if you go way back in
history to the Hoover period at the FBI, he apparently got
together with the AT&T security people.  There is an organization
that I guess exists to this day with regular meetings of the
security people of the different Bell companies.  This meant that
the FBI would be able to target a group of 20 or 30 people that
represented the security points for all of the Bell and AT&T
connections in the United States.  I believe the key to all of
this goes back to Hoover.  The FBI worked through that group who
then created the activity at the local level as a result of
central planning."

"I believe that in spite of the fact that many people have
indicated that this is an early 70's problem - that there is no
disruption to that work to this day.  I am pretty much convinced
that it is continuing... It looks like a large surveillance
effort that Cincinnati was just a part of."

"The federal prosecutor Kathleen Brinkman is in a no-win
situation...  If she successfully prosecutes this case she is
going to bring trouble down upon her own Justice Department.  She
can't successfully prosecute the case."

About $200 million in lawsuits have already been filed against
Cincinnati Bell and the Police Department.  Several members of
the police department have taken the Fifth Amendment before the
grand jury rather than answer questions about their roles in the
wiretapping scheme.

Bob Draise/WB8QCF has filed a suit against Cincinnati Bell for
$78 for malicious prosecution and slander in response to a suit
filed by Cincinnati Bell against Bob for defamation...  Right
after they filed the suit, several policemen came forward and
admitted to doing illegal wireptaps with them.  The Cincinnati
police said they stopped this is 1974 - although another
policeman reportedly said they actually stopped the wiretapping
in 1986.

Now the CBS-TV program "60 Minutes" is interested in the
Cincinnati goings-on and has sent in a team of investigative
reporters.  Ed Bradley from "60 Minutes" has already interviewed
Bob Draise/WB8QCF and it is expected that sometime during April,
you will see a "60 Minutes" report on spying by the FBI.  We also
understand that CNN, Ted Turner's Cable News Network, is also
working up a "Bugging of America" expose.

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

Date: Fri,  7 Apr 89 14:29:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Calling Number Identification Services

Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000860, "ISDN Calling Number Identification
Services" can be purchased for $46 from:

Bellcore
Customer Service
60 New England Ave
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196
[phone]

"This Technical Reference contain's Bellcore's view of generic requirements for
support of ISDN Calling Number Identification (I-CNIS).  The I-CNIS feature
extends the concepts of Calling Number Delivery and Calling Number Delivery
Blocking to ISDN lines.  I-CNIS also allows the customer to specify which
Directory Number (DN) should be used for each outgoing call and provides
network screening to ensure that the specified DN is valid.  I-CNIS handles
calling number processing for both circuit-mode and packet-mode ISDN calls and
provides four component features:  Number Provision, Number Screening, Number
Privacy, and Number Delivery.  Material on Privacy Change by the calling party
and Privacy Override by the called party is also included."

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

From: Ed Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID
Date: 7 Apr 89 08:34:57 GMT
Organization: Wells Computer Systems Corp., Levittown, Pa. 19058


  How does the caller ID work (technically)?  Is it a DTMF code before
the phone rings?  Some other kind of digital code?  What ESS switch
does this feature start on?
--
=========================================================================
Edward E. Wells Jr., President                Voice: (215)-943-6061
Wells Computer Systems Corp., Box 343, Levittown, Pa. 19058
{dsinc,francis,hotps,lgnp1,mdi386,pebco}!wells!edw

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction to submission on area code 708
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 0:36:23 CDT

In the letter from me that the moderator included in Digest volume 9, #112,
I typoed on the list of prefixes I expected to remain unused in both area
codes 312 and 708.  The list should have read, "219, 312, 414, 708, and 815
because part or all of the area codes bearing those same digits are in the
LATA that will include 312 and 708; and 217, 309, and 618 because there are
area codes in Illinois named by those same numerals."

Because that started out as a letter to someone who lives in the same region
and knows much of what was in it, some things in it were phrased less than
fully; plus I typoed "805" for "815" (805 is an area code in California and
a prefix already in use in 312) and put it in the wrong part of the list
(after the semicolon, with 217, 309, and 618).  Anyone who wants further
explanation of some of the geographical references in it is welcome to write
to me.

David W. Tamkin     Post Office Box 567542    Norridge, Illinois  60656-7542
[e-mail]    Jolnet Public Access Unix     GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
...!killer!jolnet!dattier      Orland Park, Illinois         CIS: 73720,1570

PS: This would have been submitted a lot sooner if the first mailing hadn't
taken four days to bounce.

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

Date:     Fri, 7 Apr 89 13:02:07 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  A note on MCI

An item from the Federal Bytes column on page 38 of Federal Computer Week,
March 20, 1989:

NO SHOES

"The cobbler's children are alive and apparently well at MCI Communications
Corp. A call to its 19th St. headquarters in Washington, DC last week
produced one of these messages: "All operators are busy, but if you'll
stay on the line..."

The message was followed by a long silence. A live operator finally
appeared, rang the public relations department as requested, and another
recorded message and long delay ensued. Well, it is the long-distance
company, after all, and we were calling locally."
***End of item***

Speaks for itself, I guess... :-)

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

From: Patt Haring <ccnysci![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make/break ratios
Date: 8 Apr 89 13:57:08 GMT
Reply-To: Patt Haring <ccnysci![e-mail]>
Organization: City College Of New York


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (e118
student) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 122, message 4 of 7
>The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio
>isn't terribly critical (at least in US).  I discovered some years ago
>that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly.  One time I even
>dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method.  Obviously my

    My parents put a lock on our telephone (old-fashioned
    dial; not touch-tone) to keep ** ME ** from using
    the phone after school when my father nearly
    had a coronary after opening the monthly phone
    bill.

    Well, that didn't stop me - I just used the switch hook
    same technique as described above!

    Poor dad, still couldn't figure out why the phone bill
    was so high ;-)

P.S.  Office maintenance personnel use locked telephones in
    exactly the same way; if your office phone is busy
    at 11 PM when you're trying to dial in then you can
    count on one of the cleaning people using your phone
    to call Santo Domingo, Honduras or Mexico :-)

    I had to pick up some documents in my office late
    one night before proceeding to the printer to read
    galleys and when I opened my boss' locked office
    door -- there she was -- with one of his tub chairs
    rolled over to the telephone table by the sofa :
    her feet were up on the table while she smoked her
    cigarette and talked long distance on ** HIS ** phone
    to her relatives in Santo Domingo.

    We had been having some trouble figuring out who
    was calling Santo Domingo at that late hour (the phone
    had a lock on it) since we had no clients in that
    country B-)

--
Patt Haring
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #128
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 8 Apr 89 21:52:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #129
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Apr 89 21:26:36 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 976-WAKE (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re: 976-WAKE (Martin Minow)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (K.Blatter)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Brent Laminack)
    Re: Selling An Interesting Telephone Number (Steve Pozgaj)
    Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (Brent Laminack)
    Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem (Steve Cisler)
    Re: Centrex (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Centrex (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Gremlins in the network (Dave Kucharczyk)
    Re: Gremlins in the network (David M. Kurtiak)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 976-WAKE
Date: Fri,  7-Apr-89 09:37:02 PDT

Regarding the 976-WAKE service in California... I just returned from a
trip to Melbourne, Austrailia. While perusing the local phone book, among
other items, I noticed that TelCom Australia has been offering this
service for about 85 cents a call. Calls can be one time only or on a
standing order basis...

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

From: Repent! Godot is coming soon! Repent! <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Apr 89 09:12
Subject: re: 976-WAKE

It's nice that Americans (or is that Californians) now have access to
such advanced telephone services as an automatic alarm clock, even if
the $2 charge is a bit steep.

I had exactly that service in Sweden twenty years ago for about $0.15
per call.  Of course, my total phone bill was about $2.00 per month,
including unlimited local service.

Martin Minow
[e-mail]

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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 6 Apr 89 16:48:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne Folta)
writes:
> a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area.  If you count DC as
> a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC).

> But is this really a very large area?  How large might a local call area be
> in LA or NY?  Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might
> there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes
> thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people?


To my knowledge, the largest (in terms of square miles) local dialing
area in the United States is the Big Island of Hawaii in, of course,
Hawaii.  It is roughly 4900 square miles in size.

Both New York City (212) and Los Angeles (213) are "full".  This is
the reason that new area codes have been spawned off of them.  These
areas have the most numbers assigned to them.  (Also, Chicago (312) is
probably in the running.

As I mentioned earlier, the Big Island in Hawaii has the largest
geographical area 4900 square miles.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs

Disclaimer -- These estimates are my own and have nothing whatsoever to
do with my employer.


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

From: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 6 Apr 89 17:55:43 GMT
Reply-To: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA



    I am told that the Atlanta, GA area is the largest local-call
area in the US.  From end to end it's an approximate circle, with
a radius of about 50 miles.  A few years ago, Southern Bell tried
to introduce metered service, billing by the distance of the call.
The hue and cry was great.  It was promptly shelved.

        brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent)


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

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 08:23:54 EDT
From: steve (Steve Pozgaj)
Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Pozgaj)
Organization: Digital Media Networks Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A. E. Siegman  [e-mail] asks:

> Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number?  Rumor
> has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got
> $1000 for turning over this number during the Centennial".

I only know of one published sale.  It was the Hyatt hotel chain.
They bought 1-800-243-2546 (CHECKIN) from Hank and Marie Oscar,
of Oscarvision Systems, for $40,000 + $5,000 in credit towards hotel stays.

A heck of a lot better than a few pizza coupons:-)

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

From: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother
Date: 6 Apr 89 17:43:56 GMT
Reply-To: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA



    Indeed Big Brother is watching.  I discussed cellular fraud
with a tech person who works with a cellular provider.  When they
detect a fradulent user (he claimed they could detect such a person
the first time they used the phone), they put their number on a
"fraudlent" list and included the geographic area (cell) where
they were.  Then I guess they look for patterns.

        brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent)


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

From: Steve Cisler <goofy!apple.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem
Date: 8 Apr 89 16:44:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


At the end of March there was some discussion of white page listings on
CD-ROM. US West and Nynex have done this. Both were in attendance at the recent
Microsoft CD-ROM conference in Anaheim, California. Nynex had a hospitality
suite and their product was being shown on the exhibit floor.  Silver Platter
announced a  competing product 'at a fraction of the cost' of Nynex's disc
which runs around  $10,000.

I was very impressed with the speed and the scope of the product. It was
broken in two geographical areas: New England and New York (perhaps just the
metro area  rather than the whole state).  It allowed you to look by name,
address, phone number,  zip code (I think), and by 'neighbors'.  So many
credit agencies call libraries to ask for 'nearbys' --people who live near the
subject of the call--that this was an important feature for the RBOCs clients.

Considering the amount of work that libraries do for the telcos--extended
411 service: they will look up addresses if they have the time--each RBOC
ought to make these available free of charge to the reference desks of
many libraries. Most will find the price way too high.

The RBOCs also want to have a common interface to their discs, and maybe
even one search engine.  Given the compeititve nature, it may not happen.
But it would be to their advantage if it did.

Steve Cisler

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

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 21:00:12 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Centrex

Re: Will Martin - "...the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer..."

At one office, I'm on Centrex, and we have phones from Comdial with a TAP
button.  When you press the switchhook (no matter for how long), the phone
stays on-hook for exactly the time Centrex needs to know you want to hang
up.  When you push TAP, it does a flash.

Maybe you could find a phone that functions similarly; it makes Centrex's
transfer feature pretty painless.





Miguel Cruz

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex
Date: 7 Apr 89 13:43:07 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
> The main fault I find with Centrex, in an operational, user-interface sense,
>is the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer calls and get another
>line.

> I would think that one of the touchtone buttons, like # or *, could be
> sensed during a call to perform the action that is now controlled by the
> switchhook.

There are two reasons why touchtones are not recognized during
conversation.  One is economic: tone-detectors are more expensive
then talking-links in the central office.  If one had to be
dedicated to every conversation, and not (as they are now) only when
dialing is in progress, the central office would cost more.

The other reason has to do with the present state-or-the-art in
discriminating between voice and touchtone.  If you listen to a
conversation with a touch tone detector, you'll detect a number of
apparent touch-tones in ordinary speech.  Even more if there is
background noise consisting of music at either end of the
conversation.

In most of the world outside North America, PBX switches use a
"grounding button" where we tend to use a hook-flash to get the
switch's attention.  The switchhook always means disconnect.  The
momentary ground on one side of the loop begins the "consultation
call/conference call/transfer call" sequence.  While this is good
for PBX use, central office services (including centrex) would
probably be less reliable using this method, as outside plant ground
faults would play havoc with the switching machine.

--
Dave Levenson            /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.            |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA            |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave    \-----------------------------/


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

From: Dave Kucharczyk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network
Date: 7 Apr 89 15:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Kucharczyk <cos![e-mail]>
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA

In article <[e-mail]> Paul Anderson <stiatl!pda@gatech.
edu> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
>>played back her answering machine, and got this:
>> <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
>> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
>>  again later."

>I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta
>once every other day for a week and a half now...   Can anyone take any
>guesses as to what is happening?



   yes, someone with three way calling is having a good laugh now, at
your expense.  just wait till you start getting 'the call you have
made requires a twenty five cent deposit'.

dave


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

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 15:38:27 EDT
From: "David M. Kurtiak" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
>>played back her answering machine, and got this:
>> <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
>> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
>>  again later."
>
>I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta
>once every other day for a week and a half now...   Can anyone take any
>guesses as to what is happening?
>
>paul

I occasionally have had this strange phenomenon happen to me, and
couldn't explain it until one day I was right there when it happened.
It appears that an incoming call rang the phone once.  The answering
machine picked up, but the caller immediately hung up at the same time
(maybe a wrong number?).  The answering machine (being a real el-cheapo
economy model), didn't detect that the 'call' was disconnected.  It went
on playing the outgoing message to the dial tone now being sent by the
telco.  Dial tone timed out, while the answering machine is now listening
for a message to be left, resulting in the telephone company recording
seeming to have called me!

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

"What do you expect?  The truth or the story?  Take the story, it's
always more interesting."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #129
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:55:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Apr 89 01:46:44 CDT    Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I

Today's Topics:                                  Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Introduction: FCC/AOS Regs  (TELECOM Moderator)
    FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 1 of 3 (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:45:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Introduction: FCC/AOS Regs

This three part special edition of [TELECOM Digest] brings you a complete
transcription of the recent ruling by the Federal Communications Commission
regarding Alternate Operator Services.

I am grateful to Blake Farenthold for taking the time to prepare this and
send it to the Digest.

Parts 1 and 2 contain the text of the ruling by the Commission. Part 3 is
the footnotes, referred to in the first two parts with the carot ^ symbol
followed by a number, as in ^17.

Because of software and mailer constraints pertaining to the mailing
of Digests, it was necessary to break this special report into three parts.
[TELECOM Digest] readers will receive three 'special editions' during the
morning hours on Sunday. Readers of comp.dcom.telecom will see four messages
in total; this introduction and the three messages which follow.

This report is being sent as 'special edition' to the [TELECOM Digest]
mailing list so that it can be archived separately as desired, without
causing the digest serial numbers to be out of order in the process. After
you have received all three parts, if you wish to keep this file for
further reference, please take the three parts and combine in your editor
and paste them all together again, minus the header at the top of each.

Again, thanks go to Blake Farenthold for his research on this and his
diligence in submitting the whole thing.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator

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

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:15:37 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC's AOS order

With all the recent discussion in the digest about COCOTS and bum deals, I
figured 'yall might be interested in what the FCC has had to say about the
issue.  Reprinted below is a copy of the FCC's AOS order.

____ cut here ___

                                     Before The
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                               Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                        )                           DA 89-237
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH AND         )
ACTION CENTER AND CONSUMER ACTION       )
                                        )
Complainants,                           )
                                        )
v.                                      )
                                        )
CENTRAL CORPORATION                     )  File No. E-88-104
INTERNATIONAL TELECHARGE, INC.;         )  File No. E-88-105
NATIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICES, INC.;      )  File No. E-88-106
PAYLINE SYSTEMS, INC.;  AND             )  File No. E-88-107
TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC.                )  File No. E-88-108

Defendants.


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
                          ----------------------------

    Adopted February 24, 1989; Released February 27, 1989

By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

                                 I. INTRODUCTION

    1.  We have before us a formal complaint filed by Telecommunications
Research and Action Center ("TRAC") and Consumer Action ("CA") (together
"TRAC/CA"), two not-for-profit consumer advocacy groups, against the above-
named providers of alternative operator services (AOS). ^1  The complainants
request that the Commission find the defendant AOS companies to be dominant
carriers, revoke any operating authority under which the Defendants are
operating, order them to cease and desist from offering service, and find
that the rates and practices of the defendants are unjust and unreasonable in
violation of Section 201(b) of the Act.  For the reasons set forth below, the
complaint is granted in part and denied in part.

                                 II. BACKGROUND

    2.  This complaint grows out of the activities of a new segment of the
partially deregulated telecommunications industry, the "alternative operator
services", or "AOS" providers' industry. ^2  Indeed, Commission policy
encourages the entry of new competitors in interstate and international
service markets.  This open entry policy provides competitive prices and
stimulates the introduction of innovative new service and consumer options.
Generally, AOS  companies lease long distance lines from interexchange
carriers and combine that transport element with their own operator services.
The AOS companies then enter into agreements with client companies, called
"call aggregators", who typically are hotels, motels, hospitals,
universities, airports, and other businesses and organizations that have
telephones available to transient users.  Under these agreements, the call
aggregator's customers are automatically connected to the AOS provider when
they make certain operator assisted long distance calls. ^3  In the case of
such agreements, the telephones on the call aggregator's premises are said to
be "presubscribed" to the particular AOS company.

    3.  An AOS company's operator services are generally associated with
"O+" calls, _e.g._, collect, third-party billed, and credit card calls
(including calls made with telephone company calling cards and major credit
cards). ^4 For the services they provide, each AOS company charges its own
rates, which in addition to a return on investment are allegedly designed to
recover the costs of leasing the underlying long-distance transport, plus
their own costs of providing the operator assistance.  Local exchange
carriers ("LECs") generally bill customers and collect payments for AOS
companies in accordance with contracts between the AOS provider and the LEC
or, in some instances, under intrastate rate schedules.  Calls billed to a
telephone company calling card will often appear on the user's monthly
telephone bill.  Calls billed to a bank or consumer credit card (e.g.
MasterCard, Visa, etc.) appear on that credit card bill rather than on a
monthly telephone bill.

    4.  In the aftermath of the AT&T divestiture and the ongoing changes
in regulation of the telecommunications industry, consumers have
understandably experienced a certain amount of confusion as the traditional
ways of obtaining and using telephone service have given way to the sudden
appearance of new options and alternatives in an increasingly competitive
environment.  So too has the advent of AOS brought with it its share of
confusion and complaints. The Commission has received a large number of
informal complaints involving AOS carriers, many of which involve the
defendant companies.  In many cases, consumers claim they were not adequately
informed by the call aggregator or the AOS provider that their call would be
handled by an AOS company or what charges would be incurred.  In other
instances, consumers complain that they were unaware of the existence of
numerous AOS companies as opposed to traditional service providers.  Since
each AOS company charges its own individual rates, even when the caller uses
another telephone company's calling card, and because of the rate variations
that may result from technical anomalies such as "call splashing", ^5 some
consumers have expressed surprise and confusion over their bills.  Along with
complaints about rate levels and improper billing, other informal complaints
have arisen from the practice of "call blocking". ^6  In short, call blocking
and splashing, coupled with the fact that many AOS companies charge rates
higher than AT&T, have led to consumer dissatisfaction with some of the AOS
providers and, in turn, to complaints such as the instant one.

                                III. CONTENTIONS

    5.  The complainants, relying principally on the Commission's orders
in the _Competitive Carrier_ proceeding ^7 argue that the defendant AOS
companies fit the Commission's definition of a firm with market power and
therefore should be regulated as dominant carriers.  As dominant carriers,
complainants contend, the defendants are providing services without the
requisite authorization pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. section 214 ^8 and should be ordered immediately to cease and desist
from providing such service. Complainants advance two arguments in support of
their claim of market power. First, complainants cite what they perceive as
the inability of market forces to constrain AOS rates and practices.  They
argue that because of a lack of factual information end-users are unable to
make market decisions as to which carrier to use in certain circumstances and
thus the defendants are able to charge prices above those of their underlying
carrier, _e.g._, AT&T, MCI and US Sprint, without losing market share in
these circumstances.  Second, the complainants allege that the ability of the
AOS providers and their call aggregators to control the facilities where
calls are routed (_i.e._, the PBX equipment on the call aggregators'
premises) and engage in call blocking clearly establishes that the defendants
possess market power.  Citing the Commission's _First Competitive Carrier
Order_, the complainants contend that the exercise of control by the
defendants over these bottleneck facilities is _prima facie_ evidence of
their market power. ^9

    6.  As a separate but related matter, the complainants assert that the
rates charged by defendants are exhorbitant [sic] and therefore unjust and
unreasonable in violation of Section 201 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
section 201. ^10 Complainants contend, in effect, that the Commission
established a standard in _Competitive Carrier_ which provides that the
underlying carriers' rates operate as a "just and reasonable" ceiling on the
resellers' rates and that a reseller may not price its services above the
underlying carrier. ^11  Complainants argue that since the rates charged by
the defendants are in excess of those charged by AT&T, they must be found to
be unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of Section 201.

    7.  An adjunct of complainants' market power contention is the claim
that call splashing and call blocking are unreasonable practices.  They
contend that because AOS providers typically fail to identify themselves or
notify consumers that they will pay rates higher than AT&T's, the effect of
these practices is to leave uninformed or captive consumers ^12 with no
practical alternative but to pay the higher rates.  The Complainants argue
that such practices are contrary to the public interest and provide adequate
grounds to revoke the operating authority of the defendants.

    8.  The arguments advanced by the various defendants in response to
the complainants' allegations are for the most part identical in their
essentials. Therefore we will summarize the arguments as if they were part of
the same pleading.  Insofar as individual defendants set forth unique
arguments, they are treated individually.  The central thrust of the
defendants' collective response is that:


        1. they are not dominant carriers, since none of them possess
        market power over any bottleneck facility; ^13

        2. no case has been made that their rates are unjust or un-
        reasonable ^14 and

        3. they either do not engage in the practices that are alleged
        to be unlawful, or in those limited instances in which they do,
        such practices are not unjust or unreasonable. ^15

Moreover, the companies affirmatively assert that their presence in the
marketplace is pro-competitive and that they now provide or are developing
and will soon provide innovative services that AT&T does not provide, such as
the use of bank credit cards, multilingual operators, voice messaging and
voice mail. ^16

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 2:31:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - II
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Apr 89 01:58:05 CDT    Special: FCC/AOS Regs - II

Today's Topics:                                  Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 2 of 3 (Blake Farenthold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:27:54 CDT
From:     Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FCC's AOS Order (Part 2 of 3)


                                 IV. DISCUSSION

    9.  As an initial matter, we note that the defendant companies are
resellers as defined in _Competitive Carrier_ ^17 and as such, are classified
as non-dominant carriers under our current regulatory scheme.  Our decision
to classify resellers as non-dominant was based on our finding that given the
low barrier of entry into the resale industry, resale carriers faced more
actual and potential competition than any other part of the
telecommunications industry. ^18  The policies adopted in _Competitive
Carrier_ are intended to enable resellers and other non-dominant carriers to
respond to the demands of a competitive marketplace without unnecessary
regulatory constraints.  We deny the complaint to the extent that it requests
that we depart from the conclusions and policies established in _Competitive
Carrier_.  The instant complaint, insofar as it seeks the reclassification of
certain types of resellers, is a request for modification of the Commission's
rules as developed in the _Competitive Carrier Orders_.  We cannot, of
course, modify our rules in the context of this complaint proceeding.  In any
event, consistent with the policies set forth in Competitive Carrier, we are
satisfied that our complaint process and the remedial actions set forth
herein fully redress the complainants' grievances.

    10.  We turn next to the issue of alleged unjust and unreasonable
rates.  The complainants have relied solely on the assertion that the
defendants' rates are in excess of rates charged by AT&T, the assumed
underlying carrier. ^19 Complainants have cited no Commission authority to
support their implicit proposition that a carrier's rates can be found
"unjust and unreasonable" solely on the basis that they exceed the rates of
some other carrier.  The quantity and quality of services vary among carriers
as do their underlying cost structures, all of which could support
significant differences in rate levels.  Based on the record, we find no
facts or arguments which would be legally sufficient to sustain a finding
that the defendants' rates are unjust and unreasonable within the
contemplation of Section 201 of the Act. ^20

    11.  Finally, we address the complainants' allegations of unjust and
unreasonable practices on the part of the defendants in their provision of
AOS services. Part of the rationale underlying the Commission's decision in
_Competitive Carrier_ to relieve resellers and other non-dominant carriers
from unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory constraints was the
recognition that competitive forces in the marketplace would ensure
compliance with the Communications Act. ^21  The Commission found that, in
general, carriers with little or no market power were incapable of charging
rates or engaging in practices which contravene the "just and reasonable"
requirements of the Act. ^22  In relieving non-dominant carriers from tariff
filing requirements, the Commission acknowledged that Title II of the Act
serves as a primary means to ensure that consumers are provided access to
necessary information and to ensure that the Act's objective of just and
reasonable rates and practices were met. ^23  The Commission emphasized,
however, that in the event marketplace forces prove to be inadequate,
remedial actions as may be necessary to protect the public may be taken. ^24

    12.  Therefore, in addressing complainants' allegations regarding the
defendants' practices, we place particular importance on those statements in
the record which describe the nature and level of consumer information that
the respective defendant companies have provided to their caller/customers.
We are also aware of the volume of informal complaints the Bureau has
received that confirm the existence of many of the problems that are at issue
here. ^25 We are particularly concerned with the current practices of some of
the defendant AOS companies regarding consumer disclosure, call blocking and
call splashing.  These practices distort and impede the operation of a fully
competitive operator services industry.  After consideration of the arguments
and evidence advanced by the parties to this proceeding, we are persuaded
that the practice of call blocking, coupled with a failure to provide
adequate consumer information, is unjust and unreasonable in violation of
Section 201(b) of the Act.  We recognize that some of the defendant AOS
companies deny engaging in such practices ^26 and find the record unclear
with respect to specific practices of each company.  Nevertheless, we will
require that to the extent that the defendant AOS companies engage in the
practices we find unreasonable herein, they must adopt certain revised
procedures with respect to consumer notice and call blocking.  Moreover,
compliance by any other operator service providers with the requirements set
forth below will constitute an absolute defense to complaints based on the
allegations addressed in this Order.

    13.  In order to carry out the policies of the Commission's
_Competitive Carrier_ decisions and to eliminate the unreasonable practices
identified above, we order three specific forms of relief.  First, the
defendant AOS companies must provide consumer information to their customers
in the form of tent cards, phone stickers, or some other form of printed
documentation that can be placed on, or in close proximity to, all
presubscribed phones.  These materials shall set forth the company's identity
(name, address and a customer service number for receipt of further
information) as well as information to the effect the company's rates will be
quoted on customer request.  Contracts with call aggregators must contain
provisions requiring aggregators to display these materials on, or in close
proximity to, all presubscribed telephones.  In addition, the defendants must
amend existing contracts with call aggregators to reflect this requirement.
The defendants will bear primary responsibility for the implementation of the
above-specified form of notice, and must make reasonable efforts to assure
such implementation within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this
Order.

    14.  Second, we note that at least one of the defendants did not
specify the degree to which it engages in "call branding". ^27  We find,
however, that even the best examples of call branding practiced by the
defendants ^28 convey insufficient information as to the company's identity,
rates, practices, and range of services.  This gap in consumer information
thwarts effective consumer choice and creates the opportunity for any AOS
company to charge excessive rates.  For this reason, we find it an unlawful
practice for operator services providers not to identify the company before a
call is connected, including a sufficient delay period to permit a caller to
hang up and/or advise the operator to transfer the call to the customer's
preferred carrier.  We order this procedure to be implemented by the
defendants immediately with the effective date of this Order.

    15.  While the defendant companies, with one exception, ^29 deny that
they block calls, it is clear from the information available to us that call
blocking in fact occurs. ^30  Frequently, contracts between an AOS provider
and its customer provide or permit call blocking by the customer.  We find
that call blocking of telephones presubscribed to the defendant AOS providers
or other carriers is an unlawful practice.  Accordingly, we order the
defendants to discontinue this practice immediately.  The defendants must
amend their contracts with call aggregators to prohibit call blocking by the
call aggregator within thirty days of the effective date of this Order. ^31

    16.  Call splashing, the process of indirectly routing a call when a
caller requests that the call be handled by a different carrier, often
results in charges that are different than expected because the call has not
been properly rated.  Since the transferred call is often billed from a point
other than its originating location, the consumer will often receive a bill
which appears to be incorrect, either as to the rate charged for the call, or
the location called from, or both. ^32  While the actual levels of call
splashing may vary among the five defendants, we are concerned that its
effects be minimized.  One possible method of addressing this problem is
identified by Payline in its answer to the complaint.  According to Payline,
it attempts to absorb any charges itself which result from call splashing.
^33  Even Payline admits, however, that it has not been able to successfully
address this problem in many instances. ^34

    17.  The problem of call splashing reflects the technological
characteristics of the network for which a solution can best be found through
the cooperation of service providers including the Bell Operating Companies
and AT&T on an industry-wide basis.  Because we are concerned that this
practice may have an adverse economic impact on consumers, we are requiring
the defendant AOS  companies to bring this matter before the Carrier Liaison
Committee of the Exchange Carrier Standards Association.  We understand that
both hardware and software problems may need to be addressed in any ultimate
resolution of this matter and we require the defendants to provide a progress
report within sixty days.  The defendants are required to eliminate
immediately any call splashing that is within their technical capability to
accomplish with their current networks. ^35  The Bureau's Enforcement
Division will closely monitor progress towards a resolution of this
networking problem. ^36

                                  V. CONCLUSION

    18.  In sum, we find in this order that the practices identified in
the paragraphs above, namely, paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 constitute
unreasonable practices in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications
Act.  To remedy these problems, we identify two mechanisms which will assure
that consumers are properly protected--the identification of the primary
carrier and related information on or in the vicinity of the telephone and a
specific identification of the company by the service provider on line prior
to connecting a call.  Further, we order the defendants to give rate
information on request to consumers and declare the call blocking practices
identified in the complaint to be unlawful.  Finally, we have put a mechanism
in place for dealing with the industry-wide technical problem of call
splashing. Implementation of the remedies identified herein by any other
carrier, including AT&T, constitute a defense against similar complaints.

    19. These remedies, taken collectively, should assure that sufficient
 information and options will be made available to consumers in order to
facilitate informed decisionmaking.  The consumer should be the key
determinant of which companies in the operator services industry thrive and
which companies do not succeed.  If the consumer concludes that some or all
of these companies provide services that they want, the industry will expand
and be financially sound.  The steps taken in this Order will permit those
consumer choices to be made soundly and rationally.

    20.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the provisions of
Sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended,
47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 154(j), 201(b) and 208, and pursuant to authority
delegated in Section 0.291 of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. section 0.291,
that the "Complaint and Petition to Revoke Authority to Operate," filed by
Telecommunications Research and Action Center and Consumer Action on July 26,
1988, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER
RESPECTS.

    21.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the "Petition to Intervene" filed on
behalf of the State of Connecticut Office of Consumer Action IS GRANTED.

    22.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies and procedures set forth
and adopted herein shall become effective thirty (30) days from the release
of this Order.


                                        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                                        /S/

                                        Gerald Brock
                                        Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - II
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 3:05:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Apr 89 02:12:49 CDT    Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III

Today's Topics:                                  Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 3 of 3 (Blake Farenthold)

[Moderator's Note: This concludes the special three part mailing. You should
have received two prior sections, each dated about 30 minutes apart from
me Sunday morning.  Now take the three parts in your editor; cut out this
additional header information, and paste the three parts together and save
them out for reference/reading at your leisure.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:29:17 CDT
From:     Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FCC's AOS Order - Footnotes (Part 3 of 3)


Footnotes:

1.     The defendants referred to herein are as follows:  Central Corporation
    ("Central"); International Telecharge, Inc. ("ITI"); National
    Telephone Services, Inc. ("NTS"); Payline Systems, Inc. ("Payline");
    and Telesphere Network, Inc. ("Telesphere").  In addition to
    defendants' answers, other pleadings filed in this matter include:  a
    Motion to Respond in Consolidated Manner and Clarify Pleading
    Schedule, a Motion to File Late Pleading Schedule, a Motion to File
    Late Pleading, a Reply to Answers to Complaint and Petition to Revoke
    Authority to Operate, a Motion to File Corrected Copy, and a Corrected
    Copy of the Reply to Answers to Complaint and Petition to Revoke
    Authority to Operate filed by TRAC/CA; an Opposition to TRAC/CA's
    Motion to Reply in Consolidated Manner and Clarify Pleading Schedule,
    and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Telesphere.  TRAC/CA's Motions were
    granted on September 13, 1988. _Order_, DA 88-1432.  Finally, the
    State of Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel filed a Petition to
    Intervene on August 31, 1988 for the purpose of monitoring the
    proceeding.  We grant the motion.

2.     As the AOS industry has grown, some participants have objected to the
    term "alternative" since it implies, they argue, that their companies
    are defined only in the context of being an alternative to AT&T.  In
    response, they have urged the substitution of the acronym "OSP" (for
    "operator service provider") for AOS.  While noting the concerns of
    those members of the industry who prefer the term "OSP" industry, the
    more prevalent AOS acronym will be used in this proceeding.

3.     AOS providers may also provide operator services for other
    interexchange carriers under contract.

4.    While the complaints only address "O+" calls, the issues and remedies
    are equally applicable to "1+" calls, which include calls from coin
    operated telephones which are paid in cash, so-called "sent paid"
    telephone calls.

5.     Call splashing occurs when a caller requests a transfer from an AOS
    company operator to his preferred interexchange carrier.  Since the
    call is handed off to the preferred carrier in the city where the AOS
    company's operations center and switch are located, the point from
    which the call will be billed will often be different from the
    caller's originating location, and the call may be billed at a rate
    different than the caller may have anticipated.

6.     Call blocking refers to the process of screening the calls dialed from
    the presubscribed telephone for certain predetermined numbers, and
    preventing or "blocking" the completion of calls which would allow the
    caller to reach a long distance telephone company different from the
    AOS company.

7.     _Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier
    Services and Facilities Authorization_:  _Notice of Inquiry and P
    roposed Rulemaking_, 77 FCC2d 308 (1979) ("_Notice_"); _First Report
    and Order_, 85 FCC2d 1 (1980) ("First Competitive Carrier Order");
    _Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking_, 84 FCC2d 445 (1981)
    ("_Further Notice_"); _Second Report and Order_, 91 FCC2d 59 (1982)
    ("_Second Competitive Carrier Report_"), _recon. denied_, 93 FCC2d 59
    (1983); _Fourth Report and Order_, 95 FCC2d 55 (1983) ("_Fourth
    Competitive Carrier Order_"); _Fifth Report and Order, 98 FCC2d 119
    (1984) ("_Fifth Competitive Carrier Order_"); _Sixth Report and
    Order_, 99 FCC2d 1020 _vacated and remanded sub nom._, MCI v. FCC, 765
    F.2d 1186 (D.C.Cir.1985).

8.    Section 214 provides in pertinent part:

        No carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of
        an extension of any line, or shall acquire or operate any line,
        or extension thereof, or shall engage in transmission over or
        by means of such additional or extended line, unless and until
        there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a
        certificate that the present or future public convenience and
        necessity require or will require the construction, or oper-
        ation, or construction and operation, of such additional or
        extended line.

9.    _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 21.

10.    Section 201(b) provides that:
    All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
    connection with such communications service shall be just and
    reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or
    regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be
    unlawful.

11.    _Complaint_ at para. 15.

12.    The Complainants maintain that any suggestion that the informed
    consumer can find another telephone is not feasible.  The Complainants
    state that it is virtually impossible for many consumers (hospitalized
    patients, college students in a dorm where all telephones are
    presubscribed to the AOS service, etc.) to gain access to a non-
    presubscribed telephone.  Complaint at para. 22.

13.    _See_, _e.g._, ITT Answer at 16-17, Appendix A at pp. 20-21; Payline
    Answer at 13; Telesphere Answer at 14; NTS Answer at 16.

14.    _See_, _e.g._, Central Answer at 5; Telesphere Answer at 5-6; ITT
    Answer at 7, 19; Payline Answer at 15.

15.    NTS Answer at 11-12; Payline Answer at 17-19; ITT Answer at 20-21;
    Central Answer at 4-5.

16.    Central makes the additional claim that it is a carrier described in
    Section 2(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 152(b),
    and as such, is not subject to the Commission's Section 208 complaint
    procedures.  No support is provided for their claim that they are a
    2(b)(2) carrier and we find it to be without merit.

17.    The _Second Competitive Order_ defines resellers as those carriers
    which do not own any transmission facilities but obtain basic
    communications services from underlying carriers for resale purposes.
    91 FCC2d at 70.

18.     _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 29.

19.    We note that complainants have not placed any specific information
    into the record regarding the identification of underlying carriers,
    but have assumed in most cases that it is AT&T.

20.    Contrary to complainants' contention, the Commission did not establish
    a standard in the _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ which requires
    that resellers price their services at a level no higher than the
    underlying carrier's rates. Rather, the Commission noted that the
    underlying carrier's rates, which are constrained by Sections 201-205
    of the Act, would effectively discipline a reseller's rates because,
    if "a reseller were to set its price above the rates of the underlying
    carrier or competing carriers, its customers would be expected to
    migrate to these other services."  _Second Competitive Carrier Order_
    at 69.  We find that the basis of the "AOS problem" is not their rates
    per se, but the practices involving lack of notice and blocking that
    restrict a customer's ability to "migrate to these other services [of
    competing carriers]", as we contemplated in the Competitive Carrier
    proceeding.  It is these restrictive practices that we proscribe in
    this Order.

21.    _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 20.

22.    _Id_.

23.    _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ at 70-71.  Section 203(a) of the
    Act requires common carriers, with limited exceptions, "to file and
    keep open for public inspection" schedules showing all charges for
    interstate and foreign wire or radio communications.

24.    _Id_. at 70.

25.    The Bureau's Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch has
    received approximately two thousand complaints and inquiries regarding
    AOS rates and practices since January 1988.

26.    _See_, _e.g._, Central Answer at 5; ITI Answer at 5.

27.    _See_ Central Answer at 5.  Branding is the process or procedure used
by     a carrier, in this case the AOS provider, to identify itself to every
    person who uses its service.

28.    See _e.g._, Payline Answer at 22; Telesphere Answer at 18.

29.    _See_, NTS Answer at 20.

30.    _See_, _e.g._, Telesphere's Answer at 14, where Telesphere states that
    Telesphere "does not control the handling of calls by call
    aggregators" and NTS' Answer at 16, where NTS states that "it does not
    block calls that reach its network" and that it "does not request or
    require call aggregators that are its customers to block calls made to
    other carriers and divert them to NTS."

31.    We note that some companies claim to use call blocking to prevent
    fraudulent use of the network.  Companies who wish to argue that such
    blocking should be permitted are free to seek a waiver of the "no
    blocking" requirement accompanied by the requisite showing that such a
    waiver is warranted.  Absent the grant of such a waiver, companies may
    not engage in blocking.

32.    See, NTS Answer at 18.

33.    Payline Answer at 17-19.

34.    Payline Answer at 19.

35.    We note that NTS filed with the Commission a petition seeking a
    Commission declaration that AT&T be required to establish through
    rates for transferred calls and a division of charges as a solution to
    call splashing.  _See_ "Petition for Order to Require AT&T to
    Establish a Through Rate and Reasonable Division of Charges," File No.
    ENF-89-02, filed November 15, 1988.  We are in no way prejudging our
    review of the positions set forth in that proceeding.

36.    Many of the problems associated with call splashing may be eliminated
    when call blocking ceases, since customers will be able to dial their
    carrier of choice directly.
                      =================================

[Moderator's Note: All the thanks for this effort belong to Blake, who can
be contacted at the addresses below if you wish to drop a note of thanks
to his attention.  PT]

ty!blake
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold        | CIS: 70070,521        | Source: TCX023
P.O. Box 17442          | MCI: BFARENTHOLD      |  GEnie: BLAKE
San Antonio, TX 78217   | BBS: 512/829-1027     | Delphi: BLAKE

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 10 Apr 89 0:56:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #130
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Apr 89 00:41:47 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Telenet Announces New PCP Terms (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Gremlins in the network (Daniel Senie)
    Re: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles (Irving Wolfe)
    Gremlins in the network (Francis J. Haynes)
    Centrex (A. M. Boardman)
    Help please - acronyms and resources [SECOND REQUEST] (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: Demon Dialer (John E Van Deusen III)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 9 Apr 89 22:25:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Telenet Announces New PCP Terms

Early this year, Telenet announced new terms for the PC Pursuit program,
which placed time limits on the use of the service, and set new rates for
usage of the service.

            ***** Most of the deal has been called off *****

In a letter dated March 29, 1989 from Floyd H. Trogdon, Vice President and
General Manager of Network Services announced several revisions in the
earlier plans. His latest letter supercedes all previous memos and usage
agreements, and becomes effective July 1, 1989.

There will be THREE membership plans:

         REGULAR membership will be $30 per month for up to 30 hours
         of non-prime time (evenings and weekend) use. This can be
         used by the subscriber only. No others allowed to use it.

         FAMILY membership will be $50 per month for up to 60 hours
         of non-prime time (evenings and weekend) use. This can be
         used by the subscriber and any immediate family members in
         the same household. If a single person expected to use more
         than 30 hours per month, s/he would still buy this 'family'
         plan, even if the entire 'family' consisted of just one person.

         HANDICAPPED membership will be $30 per month for up to 90 hours
         of non-prime time (evening and weekend) use. To qualify for
         these terms, proof of physical handicap must be provided. Ask
         Telenet for the exact terms.

EXCESS HOURS over 30 (or 60/90) per month during non-prime time hours
will be billed at $3.00 per hour. This is a decrease from the earlier
proposed charge of $4.50 per hour.

PRIME-TIME USAGE will be billed at $10.50 per hour, regardless of how much
time may be remaining on the PCP membership plan.

The billing will be in arrears each month. That is, the July usage
will be billed in August, etc. Call detail will be automatically provided
to any subscriber going over thirty hours per month.

GRACE PERIOD/FORGIVENESS: All calls will be given a one minute grace period
for the purpose of establishing the connection. There will never be a charge
for calls lasting one minute or less. If you disconnect promptly when you
see that your call will not complete for whatever reason, there will
be no charge.

There will be a two minute minimum on all connections (after the first minute
has passed.)  Otherwise, times will be rounded to the *nearest* minute for
billing purposes.

NEW PASSWORDS AND USER I.D.'s  FOR EVERYONE: During April, 1989, all current
subscribers to PC Pursuit will be issued new passwords and new user identities.
On May 1, 1989, all existing passwords and ID's will be killed.

New users after July 1, 1989 will pay $30 to set up an account. Password
changes will be $5.00.  *Existing* users will never have to pay a fee to
adjust their account upward or downward from regular < == > family plans.
Call detail will be provided in June, 1989 to users with more than 30 hours
of usage to help them detirmine which plan they should use; however there
will be no charge for extra hours until July.

Because of the confusion and lack of good communication between
Telenet and its users over the past few months, the official change in
terms from unlimited use to measured use has been postponed from its
original starting date in June to July 1.

These are just excerpts from the letter to subscribers posted on the
Net Exchange BBS. If you subscribe to PC Pursuit I recommend you sign on
and read the full memo, along with the accompanying Terms and Conditions
and price schedules.

Remember, any changes you may have made in February/March in anticipation
of the changeover originally planned for May/June are now void.
Telenet  has stated all users will be defaulted to REGULAR memberships
effective July 1 unless they specifically make changes to this during the
months of May and June.

Telenet Customer Service: 1-800-336-0437
Telenet Telemarketing:    1-800-TELENET

Sign up via modem with credit card number handy: 1-800-835-3001.

To read the full bulletins, log onto Net Exchange by calling into your
local Telenet switcher and connecting to  '@pursuit'.

Patrick Townson


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network
Date: 6 Apr 89 23:10:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail] (Paul
Anderson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
> >played back her answering machine, and got this:
> > <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
> > "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
> >  again later."
>
> I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta

We had a similar problem with the dialup lines at our company. The modems
started answering the phones when there was no call. The result, predictably,
was lots of screaming modems (The "your phone is off the hook" noise).

The problem turned out to be a servicing error at the local #5ESS switching
office. They has replaced some of the line cards and had set them up wrong.
Evidently the line voltage was high enough to confuse some devices into
thinking it was time to go off-hook. The modems in this case were Microcoms,
and they evidently (according to our hardware types) were properly within spec.

--
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: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles
Date: 10 Apr 89 02:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe <happym![e-mail]>
Organization: SOLID VALUE, the newsletter for Benjamin Graham's intelligent
investor (sample on request)


In article <[e-mail]> "t.m.ko" <[e-mail]> writes:
>I am looking for a cordless phone that would work even if the handset
>is away from the base for up to 10 miles.

Amazing!  I'd be grateful to have a cordless phone that would work from one
end of my >house< to the other without buzz or interference as I pass through
the fields of the high voltage power lines outside!  If I could have one that
would let me walk around the block with my dog, that would be magnificent!

--
  Irving Wolfe     [e-mail]             Happy Man Corp, 119 Aloha St
  206/282-9598     tikal!camco!happym!irv        Seattle, WA  98109-3799
  SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors
        (free sample on request: [e-mail])


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

Subject: Gremlins in the network
Date: Fri Apr  7 23:05:43 1989
From: phantom <slinky![e-mail]>

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:
> Is this a new service?  The switch notifies people when high utilization
> occurs?  Was her recorder trying to make calls to its friends?  The
> message (and especially the tones) sounded real, or I would be more inclined
> to expect a joke (it was April 1st.....).

Oh, you have service from Contel.

The year-round April Fool's joke!

I have heard worse sounding intercepts, so it probably is legitimate.
But then, there are ways to 3-way legitimate recordings to
others' numbers. :)(:

Francis J. Haynes
uunet!slinky!fjh


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

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 08:36:41 EDT
From: "A. M. Boardman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Centrex

>There are a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button:
>press it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of
>time for call waiting or 3-way calling.

This can, however, be taken to extremes.  The telephones of Columbia's new
digital CBX have, among a plethora of other buttons, a flash button.
In no detectable way, however, does this button actually flash the line
in any traditional sense; it is instead just another signal to the exchange.
Really flashing will disconnect the line every time.  I'd love to find out
more about how the system works, but, as in everything related to IBM,
the information is proprietary.  (It's an IBM/Rolm 9751 CBX -- a half-
decent buisness system, but totally unsuited for a university environment.
It replaced a vastly more popular Centrex system.)

                       "ROLM is a four letter word"
Andrew Boardman ab4@cunixc.[columbia.edu|bitnet] {backbone}!columbia!cunixc!ab4

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help please - acronyms and resources [SECOND REQUEST]
Date: 9 Apr 89 03:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


In article <[e-mail]> I write:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 105, message 1 of 7
>I would like to compile a list of acronyms and resources for TELECOM
>readers, and I solicit your help.

This is the second (and final) call for your inputs.  I have received
some good responses so far, but I'm sure many other folks could provide
additional pointers.  Please take a moment to read this through and drop
me a note.  Here is what's needed:


    books, magazines, journals, catalogs, etc.
    ====== ========== ========= ========= ====

First and foremost, I need your suggestions for telecom resources.  If
you know of any such things which might help TELECOM readers, please take
a moment and send me a note.  If possible, please include author, publisher,
subscription info, etc. as appropriate.  Also, your subjective comments
are very welcome.


    glossary of terms and acronyms
    ======== == ===== === ========

This is required to a lesser extent.  The goal here isn't to provide a
comprehensive index of terms, but rather to just explain some of the
commonly used lingo to help out new TELECOM readers.  If you have a handful
of items which you believe should be listed, send 'em in.  But also send
in your book/magazine/etc. references at the same time -- that's what I
need the most.


If you responded to my first request -- my thanks.  If you did not receive
a mailed response from me, then I didn't get your message.  Please try
again.  I will compile the list in about two weeks.  Stay tuned...

--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337

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

From: John E Van Deusen III <visdc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Demon Dialer
Date: 9 Apr 89 18:40:07 GMT
Reply-To: John E Van Deusen III <visdc![e-mail]>
Organization: VI Software Development, Boise, Idaho


I read in DATA COMMUNICATIONS a few months back that there was a
"Son of Demon Dialer" product shown at Comdex.  It was a 2400 Baud
modem, matrix switch, mini data PBX, as I recall.  I think it was
about $700.  Does anyone know anything more about this product?
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, [phone]

uunet!visdc!jiii


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #130
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 11 Apr 89 2:39:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #131
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Apr 89 02:21:15 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 976-WAKE - up Service in California (Peter Thurston)
    Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California (Kian-Tat Lim)
    Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California (John Higdon)
    Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Rich Straka)
    Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (John Higdon)
    Re: FCC AOS Order (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: Cellular Radio Hazards (John Wheeler)
    Re: Help please - acronyms and resources (Peter Desnoyers)
    Determining length of country code (Howard J. Postley)
    Dialing with switchhook (Wm Randolph Franklin)
    Shenandoah National Park, Va. (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 18:45:59 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 976-WAKE - up Service in California

Wake up calls are available in Britain for 10pence a time (18c) if you happen
to be connected to a System-X exchange. The service comes free rental together
with Charge-Advice which rings back and tells you how much your call cost.
Both services offer Minutes of endless fun with payphones that have not had the
two services disabled (particularly as payphones return your 10p!)

Peter Thurston

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

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 23:42:31 PDT
From: Kian-Tat Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California

Ummm...  From the description given of the wake-up service ("entering his own
telephone number"), it appears that it would be quite easy to annoy my enemies
(for $2/day), without my having to be awake to place the crank call.  As this
service is presumably provided by a company separate from PacBell, the call
would also be a little more difficult to trace.

This kind of service would be much more secure if Calling Party ID were
implemented for it, and such usage of CPID should not be objectionable to
civil libertarians.

--
Kian-Tat Lim ([e-mail], KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California
Date: 10 Apr 89 20:51:24 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> The charge is $2 for each wakeup/reminder call. You do not have to be in
> California to hear how it works; just dial 213-976-WAKE. From outside of
> California all you will pay is around 25 cents if you call at night, but

The California 976 providers hate it when you do that :-) Pacific Bell
may be the only BOC to not block 976 calls from outside the state. As a
result, providers' call counters click away, but the Pac*Bell
remittance is a pittance. Some of the party line people have literally
been driven out of business because their machines have been busied out
by out of state (and non-remitting) calls.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

[Moderator's Note: You mean like 415-976-4297, which bills itself as the
San Fransisco Hot Conference, where in just a few seconds you will be
connected for up to two and a half minutes of lively adult conversation?
Men from all over the world call that thing for the cost of the tolls. To
heck with any surcharge! That only applies to Californians, and *they* call
the one in New York City to avoid the same surcharges!  PT]

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

From: Straka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 10 Apr 89 13:00:54 GMT
Reply-To: "55223-Straka,R.J." <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> optilink![e-mail].
nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 126, message 1 of 8

|In article <[e-mail]|, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john
|@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:
|| In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail]
|| | (Steve Elias) writes:
|| | I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize
|| | long distance service.  If the pay phones were required to display

|| I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our
|| regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to
|| pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal
|| or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a

|If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an
|issue.  Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an
|ambulance after a traffic accident?

All of this sure sounds like a classic "natural monopoly" to me.  A classic
monopoly is where it is "naturally" too expensive for more than one supplier
to provide a particular service.  This is normally due to some geographic,
supply/demand considerations (applies pretty well to the accident reporting
case, above).

Of course, the airport pay phone is a bit of a different animal.  There is
enough demand to support several suppliers here.  It does appear to the busy
traveller, however, that he is facing a slightly less than competitive
situation.  This is due to a real lack of information about the services the
customer is trying to acquire.

Anyway, is sure sounds to me like the real issue here is the abysmal lack of
consumer information. How can true competition (read that as free consumer
choice) exist without free access AND consumer information?

DISCLAIMER:  I work for AT&T, (and may be slightly biased) but I'll be glad to
let the customers decide, as long as they can freely choose with the necessary
information to make an intelligent choice.
--
Rich Straka     att!ihlpf!straka

MSDOS: All the wonderfully arcane syntax of UNIX(R), but without the power.

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 10 Apr 89 20:45:16 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team

In article <[e-mail]>, optilink!cramer@ames.
arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[Regarding COCOTs]
> If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an
> issue.  Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an
> ambulance after a traffic accident?

In reality *that* call would be free as mandated by tarrifs. What I
really object to is paying $3.50 for a one-minute call from San
Francisco to San Jose to say I'm going to be late. Particularly when
there is no indication that this will be the case.

> If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service)
> that's quite different from "outrageous pricing".

This is a grey area to be sure, but when I call my voice mail for
messages and the tone pad ceases to work midway through the session and
I am forced to simply hang up, leaving my listened-to vs unlisted-to
messages in total disarray, animalistic tendancies come to the fore.
You have to be in this position to appreciate the frustration.

Perhaps if such phones were required to carry a notice e.g.:

"This telephone cannot be used to access voice mail or other DTMF
activated services."

it would save a lot of trouble.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: 10-APR-1989 02:50:42.15
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: FCC AOS Order

After reading the lengthly FCC rulemaking order on AOS outfits
(and THANKS for posting it!), I want to make sure I have the
'timetable' correct:

(I am assuming that as the release date was Feb 27th, the effective
 date was March 27th, as stated towards the end of the order.)

1. The named AOS outfits MUST ID themselves at all times.

2. The named AOS outfits MUST post rate/customer service information
   by May 27th, 1989. (60 days from effective date.

3. The named AOS outfits MUST stop blocking and/or contact the owners
   of COCOTS, dorm phones, etc, and require that they discontinue
   blocking by April 27th, 1989.

4. The named AOS outfits may continue to connect you to AT&T/local Bell
   Operators, but are not required to do so.


So am I correct as to the dates for parts 1-3?

If I find a COCOT, let's say sometime in July (to give them some time...)
that still blocks me from dialing 10288, what recourse do I have?
Do I complain directly to the FCC, or the state Public Service Commission,
or who? (Obviously the FCC assumes all of the 5 named AOS 'firms' will
comply, but what if they don't?)

Finally, what will be the equal access code for the local Bell operator?
In New York (NYTel) it's 10NYT, in PA 10BPA, Jersey 10NJB, etc. Yet
are we going to be required to remember hundreds of local 10xxx numbers,
or will there be one standard one? (Or will just dialing "0" just get
you a local Bell Op., like it did when we had a normal phone system
a few years back? [sorry for editorializing..])

Well, all I can say is I'm glad to be in Connecticut, where we don't
have such problems (at least not from payphones...) (Although what
WAS the State of CT 'observing' down in DC anyhow? Hmmmm....)

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old 'DReuben' to locals! :-)  )

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Radio Hazards
Date: 10 Apr 89 05:14:47 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


In article <[e-mail]> Rob Warnock <amdcad!
amdcad![e-mail]> writes:
>....I was at a breakfast meeting at Coco's in Sunnyvale, when I
>wanted to call a later appointment to tell him the meeting was going
>to run over and I'd be late. Being new to cellular, and still somewhat
>cautious about costs, I dutifully went towards the payphones in the
>back. Uh, oh, COCOTs!

Let me get this straight - COCOTs at Coco's?
This could drive a person COCOnuts!
--
          Turner                                       John Wheeler
     E N T E R T A I N M E N T     ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw
                Networks
     Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports


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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help please - acronyms and resources [SECOND REQUEST]
Date: 10 Apr 89 17:55:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


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

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 130, message 6 of 7

>In article <[e-mail]> I write:
>>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 105, message 1 of 7
>>I would like to compile a list of acronyms and resources for TELECOM
>>readers, and I solicit your help.

At home I have a copy of a SIGCOMM article from about a year or two ago
that has a list of telecom and data network acronyms. I'll try to get
the reference.

                Peter Desnoyers

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

From: "Howard J. Postley" <bambam![e-mail]>
Subject: Determining length of country code
Date: 10 Apr 89 18:32:10 GMT
Organization: On Word, Inc.; Santa Monica, CA


Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits
in a country code is.  From the U.S. there are 1, 2, and three digit
codes.  When I am parsing international phone numbers, I am having a
tough time figuring out where the country code ends and the phone number
starts.

Thanks in advance,

//hjp

--
Howard Postley      usenet:    uunet!bambam!hjp
On Word             internet:  [e-mail]
                    phone:     [phone]
                    snail:     2434 Main St; Santa Monica, CA  90405

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

Subject: dialing with switchhook
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 16:48:56 EDT
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>

In the 60s pay phones were designed with mercury switches on the hook so
that  if you tried  to dial with  the hook  the  splashing mercury would
defeat you.  Otherwise you  could make local  calls for a nickel instead
of a dime, or some such thing.
                                     --------
                           Wm. Randolph Franklin
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

Date:     Mon, 10 Apr 89 15:47:23 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Shenandoah National Park, Va.

I just travelled down the Skyline Drive in Virginia, from Front Royal
to Waynesboro, and have the following data regarding phones along it
(notice several phone prefixes not in use outside the park?):

Public phones available along it (mileposts southbound from Front Royal):
Dickey Ridge Visitor Center, 4.6; use Front Royal exchange, 635 or 636
   in 703 area
Mathews Arm Campground, 22.3
Elkwallow Wayside, 24.1; use 703-420, on phone bill as Elkwallow
Panorama Restaurant, 31.5; use 703-421, on phone bill as Panorama
Skyland Lodge, 41.7; use 703-422
Byrd Visitor Center, 51; apparently use 703-423, on phone bill as
   Big Meadows (see the pattern forming with use of 42x? comments?)
Lewis Mountain Campground, 57.6; apparently use 703-424
Swift Run Entrance, 65
Loft Mountain Wayside, 79.7; I saw pay phone on 804-823 Crozet,
   the name of a town which is RATHER far away.

Also, 703-999 is used for official phone numbers in this park;
it appears on phone bill as Shenandoah Park.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #131
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 11 Apr 89 3:01:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #132
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Apr 89 02:43:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Text of HR971 - AOS (Martin Weiss)
    Cellular eavesdropping in the press (Will Martin)
    E-mail Clearinghouse (Andy Roth)

[Moderator's Note: Martin Weiss has kindly made available to the Digest
the text of a bill pending in Congress regarding the AOS industry, and
although it is longer than most articles, I am devoting most of this
issue to presenting it in full. It is intended to compliment the special
three part posting over the weekend of the FCC ruling. Thanks, Martin! PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 14:12:01 est
From: fac martin weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Text of HR971 - AOS

Attached is the text of HR 971, a bill submitted by Rep. Jim Cooper
(D-Tenn) regarding the AOS industry.  I would like to make it available
to the telecom bulletin board.  BTW - thanks for posting the text of
the FCC decision

--Martin Weiss
University of Pittsburgh
[e-mail]


============================ Cut here 8< ============== 8< ============

101st Congress
1st Session

                         H.R. 971


To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules to
protect consumers from unfair practices in the provision of operator
services, and for other purposes.



              IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     February 9, 1989

Mr. Cooper (for himself, Mr. Swift, and Mr. Leland) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce


                          A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules to
protect consumers from unfair practices in the provision of operator
services, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

      This Act may be cited as the "Telephone Operator Service
Consumer Protection Act of 1989".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

      The Congress hereby finds that --

             (1) the divestiture of AT&T and decision allowing open
      entry for competitors in the telephone marketplace produced a
      variety of new services and many new providers of existing
      telephone services;

             (2) the growth of competition in the telecommunications
      market makes it essential to ensure that safeguards are in place to
      assure fairness for consumers and service providers alike;

             (3) a variety of providers of operator services now
      compete to win contracts to provide operator services to hotels,
      hospitals, airports, and other aggregators of telephone business from
      consumers;

             (4) the mere existence of a variety of service providers in
      the operator services marketplace is significant in making that
      market competitive only when consumers are able to make
      informed choices from among those service providers;

             (5) however, often consumers have no choices in selecting
      a provider of operator services, and often customers' attempts to
      reach their preferred long distance carrier by a telephone billing
      card, credit card, or prearranged access number are blocked;

             (6) a number of state regulatory authorities have taken
      action to protect consumers using intrastate operator services;

             (7) from January 1988 through February 1989, the Federal
      Communications Commission received over 2000 complaints about
      operator services;

             (8) these consumers have complained that they are denied
      access to the interexchange carrier of their choice, that they are
      deceived about the identity of the company servicing their calls and
      the rates being charged, that they lack information on what they
      can do to complain about unfair treatment by an operator service
      provider, and that they are, accordingly, being deprived of the free
      choice essential to the operation of a competitive market; and

             (9) a combination of industry self-regulation and
      government regulation is required to ensure that competitive
      operator services are provided in a fair and reasonable manner.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION

      As used in this Act:

             (1) The term "Commission" means the Federal
      Communications Commission.

             (2) The term "the Act" means the Communications Act of
      1934.

             (3) The term "consumer" means a person initiating any
      interstate telephone call using operator services.

             (4) The term "operator services" means any interstate
      telecommunications service that includes, as a component, any
      automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or
      completion, or both,  of an interstate telephone call through a
      method other than automatic completion with billing to the
      telephone from which the call originated.

             (5) The term "aggregator" means any person, that, in the
      ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the
      public or to transient users of its premises for interstate telephone
      calls using a provider of operator services.

SEC. 4. RULEMAKING REQUIRED

      (a) INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. - The Commission shall,
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate a
proceeding pursuant to title II of the Act to establish regulations to protect
consumers whose use operator services to place interstate telephone calls
from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure that consumers have the
opportunity to make informed choices in making such calls.

      (b) TIMING AND CONTENTS OF REGULATION. -  The
regulation required by subsection (a) shall --

             (1) be prescribed not later than 180 days after the date of
      enactment of this Act;

             (2) contain provisions to implement each of the
      requirements of section 5;

             (3) for purposes of administration and enforcement, be
      treated as regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to
      title II of the Act; and

             (4) take effect not later than 270 days after the date of
      enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

      The regulations required by section 4 shall, at a minimum --

             (1) require that the provider of the operator services
      identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer prior to the
      consumer incurring any charges and permit the consumer to
      terminate the telephone call at no charge;

             (2) require that the provider of operator services ensure, by
      contract, that each aggregator post on or near the telephone
      instrument, in plain view of consumers --

                   (A) the name, address, and toll-free telephone
             number of the provider, and

                   (B) a written disclosure that consumers have a
             right to obtain access to the interstate common carrier or
             their choice and may contact their preferred interstate
             common carriers for information on accessing that carrier's
             service using that telephone;

             (3) require that the provider of operator services disclose
      immediately to the consumer upon request --

                   (A) a quote of its rates or charges for the call;

                   (B) methods by which such rates or charges will
             be collected; and

                   (C) the methods by which complaints concerning
             such rates, charges, or collection practices will be resolved;

             (4) require that the provider of operator services --

                   (A) neither require nor participate in the blocking
             of any consumer's access to the interstate common carrier
             of the consumer's choice; and

                   (B) assure, by contract, that its aggregators neither
             require nor participate in the blocking of access to such
             interstate common carriers;

             (5) require that the provider of operator services charge
      rates which are just and reasonable as required by title II of the
      Act, which requirement shall include, at a minimum --

                   (A) prohibiting the provider of operator services
             for knowingly charging for uncompleted calls;

                   (B) ensuring that, in charging for distance, the
             provider of operator services charge for no more than the
             distance, in a straight line, between the points of
             origination and termination of telephone calls; and

                   (C) ensuring that any consumer billing a telephone
             call on a billing card provided by an interstate common
             carrier is billed at the rate of that common carrier for that
             call;

             (6) establish minimum standards for providers of operator
      services to use in the routing and handling of emergency telephone
      calls; and

             (7) establish a policy for requiring common carriers to
      make public information about recent changes in operator services
      and choices available to consumers in the market.


[Moderator's Note: Regrettably, I am not certain if this was the intended
ending of Martin's submission, or if it got truncated en-route. As Milton
Berle used to say, "...a funny thing happened on the way to the Telecom
mailbox today...." It seems an abrupt ending. Hopefully I got it all. PT]

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

Date:     Mon, 10 Apr 89 14:14:20 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cellular eavesdropping in the press

The following item appeared in RISKS Digest V8 #52 and is of interest
to Telecom and Hams. Please note there is no mention of the ECPA in this,
except fo a slight allusion to it at the end. Also note that the equipment
being used is not a high-end 800 MHz-coverage scanner, but a simple TV
audio tuner or radio. Obviously a continuous-tuned TV will work as well.
(Maybe the bandwidth on this simpler equipment is wide enough that the
listeners get multiple cellular frequencies without retuning, and
therefore are not impeded by the frequency-hopping during handoffs
within conversations? That would mean this low-tech method was actually
better for surreptitious eavesdropping than using more sophisticated
equipment. Certainly makes fools of the scanner manufacturers who
program out cellular coverage!)  -- Will Martin

***Begin included item***
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 89 20:27:24 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular telephones

From the 4/7/89 Boston Globe:

"Some Bostonians are having the time of their lives eavesdropping on Nynex
Mobile Communications cellular phones. With the help of their trusty Radio Shack
Portavision 55s, designed to pick up the audio portion of UHF television
signals, these naughty people claim to have heard Secretary of Finance and
Administration Edward Lashman discussing a press conference with his wife and
Boston Mayor Ray Flynn checking in with his office. "It makes for a great day,"
says one listener who calls in sick at his job to spend the day with his ear
pressed against the radio. "At 7 a.m. you hear the construction people
complaining that their suppliers delivered the wrong stuff. At 9, it's the
lawyers telling their clients how to lie in court. After noon the risque stuff
starts..."

The article goes on to say that Radio Shack no longer sells that model, and
that the FCC says such eavesdropping is illegal.

Steven C. Den Beste,   BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge MA
***End of item***

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

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 10:47:45 edt
From: Andy Roth <[e-mail]>
Subject:  E-mail Clearinghouse

We have heard of a service, that for a nominal monthly fee, will interface
with a local UNIX host (ostensibly uucp) and other subscribed email services
acting as a clearinghouse.  This service will poll your commercial mailboxes
(MCI, EXLINK, etc.) and mail them to your local system.  Outgoing mail is
sent to the service and automatically diverted to MCI or whatever as
required.  If anyone has used or is familiar with wuch a service, I would
appreciate a reference.  Thanks in advance.

Andy Roth
EDO Corporation
Virginia Operations
814 Greenbrier Circle Suite U
Chesapeake, VA 23320
[phone]
uucp: ...xanth!edo!andy

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #132
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 12 Apr 89 0:50:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #133
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:35:09 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AOSs and the H.R. bill (Bob Langford)
    Local Calling Area For Hawaii (Mike Newton)
    Telephone wire (Steve Bellovin)
    Re: CLID for 911 - who pays?  (Ron Natalie)
    Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Dr. T. Andrews)
    RE: Determing country code length (John R. Covert)
    Re: Caller ID (Dave Levenson)
    Submission for comp-dcom-telecom (Trevor Zion Bauknight)
    Re: Diverstiture was not a mistake (Steven A. Minneman)

[Moderator's Note: Just this one issue of the Digest today!  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:44 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AOSs and the H.R. bill

It seems to me that the reason we have the problem with high AOS fees is that
normal market forces aren't at work, not so much because of uninformed
customers, but because the person making the choice of which AOS is used is
not the person who _uses_ it, and the two people have different goals.
As I understand it, a hotel or airport (or other property owner) signs up with
an AOS and receives a cut from the revenue generated by the phones at that
location.  Thus, the incentive for both the AOS _and_ the property owner is
toward _increased_ prices and/or kickbacks, whereas the user, who pays the
bill, would have chosen the exact opposite.  There's no negative feedback
built in---in fact, it's positive feedback, guaranteed to go out of control.
(I discount such indirect effects as complaining to the manager, which can
in fact act as a control, and complaining to the FCC, which seems to have
had a major effect on the situation.)  Maybe all that's needed is to require
hotels or airports (or whoever) to use the same AOS for their own business
lines as for the pay phones---that gives them the right economic incentives.

With regard to the posting of the bill before the House of Rep., did you
notice that it requires AOSs that accept my MCI calling card to bill the call
at the MCI rate?  Even if their network is resold AT&T lines, perhaps at
a higher rate than MCI?  I'll bet that if this passes intact, these AOS
companies will stop honoring calling cards from the "discount" long-distance
companies (and maybe even AT&T, if the specific call computes as a "net loss").
They could always route you straight to your favorite carrier, after all, and
let _them_ carry it at their own rate.

Reminds me of the Chinese curse:  "May you live in interesting times."

          Bob Langford
          Medical College of Virginia
          [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 01:05:46 HST
From: Mike Newton <kahuna![e-mail]>
Subject: Local Calling Area For Hawaii
Reply-To: kahuna!csvax.caltech.edu![e-mail]


In V9#115, Wayne Folta asks about large calling areas.  Well we have
a rather large/unique calling area (someone else mentioned it, but
had slightly wrong figures):
    [] Large local calling area: 4038 sq miles as of 1980.
    [] Growing calling area: the volcano adds more area each day.
    [] One of the widest (?) variations in altitude: 0 to 13800 feet
        (there are many phones at the observatories "up top").
of course, there are some disadvantages:
    [] Every non-local call is "overseas", and of poor quality.
    [] Its cheaper for me to call the mainland (ROM) than
        Oahu (another island), yet every mainland call goes
        through Oahu!
    [] it reaches very few people (125,000) (roughly 10 exchanges)

I strongly suspect areas in Alaska, Montana, Nevada,... have larger
'local' areas.

- mike

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:35:03 EDT
Subject: Telephone wire

Is special telephone wire required for outdoor use?  Specifically, if I
wish to run the wiring for an extension outside the house -- in genuine
telco style! -- should I get different wire?  I'm concerned about the
effects of weather and sun on the outer jacket.  I know that these are
of concern for ordinary electrical wiring.

        --Steve Bellovin
        att!ulysses!smb
        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1989 8:54:49 EDT
From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays?

Everytime I think about telephone company price gouging I snicker about
the 30 cents, indoor wire maintenance plan, I am paying on my lines (they
snuck it in on me when I moved).  Someday I'm going to have to have them
come out and take a look at my wiring (I've got 25 pair cable running to
each room of the house with 66 blocks on each end).

_Ron

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun Apr  9 21:18:13 1989
Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays?

You're right; it is not right to come down too hard on the local BOC
for excessive 911 charges.  Since the charge here is set by the county,
and goes from the BOC to the county gov't, it is probably best to not
blame the local BOC at all.

Still, I wonder how much use my modem lines get from the "service"
for which they are charged (it's not called a tax -- there's an extra
10% tax on the lines but it doesn't get you anything).

                    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


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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Apr 89 06:05
Subject: RE: Determing country code length

Howard J. Postley asks:

>Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits
>in a country code is.  From the U.S. there are 1, 2, and three digit codes.

There is no formula; you must do a table lookup.  I provided the table of
country codes from CCITT E.163 in Telecom V9#55.

/john

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 11 Apr 89 20:41:47 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed
Wells) writes:
>
>   How does the caller ID work (technically)?  Is it a DTMF code before
> the phone rings?  Some other kind of digital code?  What ESS switch
> does this feature start on?

Caller*Id service is offered by NJ Bell using 1ESS and 1aESS
switches.  The calling number is delivered to the called party by a
short blast of 1200 bps fsk data (similar, but not identical, to the
modulation pattern used by 202 (half-duplex) 1200 bps modems).
This occurs immediately after the first ring.  It is not repeated
after additional rings, nor is any ACK expected.  In other words,
it's simplex analog transmission, using 1960's modem technology.

--
Dave Levenson            /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.            |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA            |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave    \-----------------------------/


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

From: Trevor Zion Bauknight <hubcap![e-mail]>
Date: 10 Apr 89 18:26:15 GMT
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 10 Apr 89 18:26:14 GMT
Organization: Clemson University


I read somewhere that Atlanta, GA has the biggest Local Dialing Area in
the country.  Of course...you can't believe everything you read...

-Trev

--
Trevor Zion Bauknight          Clemson University - Clemson, South Carolina

"walking down the mystery road             ...{backbone}!gatech!hubcap!trev
 following the light that shone"                  "You connect the dots..."

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

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 09:20:10-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Diverstiture was not a mistake
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail].
il.us> writes:
>[...]
>>I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize
>>long distance service.

>The services should be required to connect through the lowest priced LD
>service unless otherwise directed (by dialing the access code) by the caller.
>Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest
>rate.  Then they could only gouge you for local services.


Not at all true -- its a lot easier to bill for a call than to find the
cheapest route available.  Billing only involves deciding what you want
to charge -- its my understanding that many of the AOSs including some
of the largest, bill all long distance calls at one rate.

Finding the cheapest route would involve having V&H coordinates (to determine
the call distance) and also tarriff information from every telephone company in
the country.  Each call would then have to be costed using all the different
carriers.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #133
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 13 Apr 89 0:30:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #134
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 13 Apr 89 00:10:37 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    National Computer Network? (Steven J Owens)
    Re: FCC AOS Order (John Hood)
    Re: Determining the length of the country code (Steven A. Minneman)
    Re: Make/break ratios (Charles Bryant)
    Automatic hook-flash (Mark Brader)
    Bell Canada can't find AT&T Canada (Mark Brader)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Scott Barman)
    Re: E-mail Clearinghouse (Dave Levenson)
    Cordless Telephone Range (Hector Myerston)
    Extra service offered by a COCOT (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven J Owens <idis!cisunx![e-mail]>
Subject: National Computer Network?
Date: 12 Apr 89 21:36:50 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys



I'm doing a paper for a mass-media class on the possibilities of a national
computer network accessible by anybody... sort of like Usenet with a lot more
support and cash flow, I suppose.

I'd appreciate any suggestions or information for this paper, as well as
suggestions of where I could _look_ for information :-).  One person I asked
said he recalled a post somewhere/somewhen that gave estimates of how much
a nationally available, non-commercial computer network would cost.  Does
anybody remember that?  Are the figures still available?

I'll outline some of the stuff I'm thinking about below, but if you don't want
to read it, please don't let that stop you from replying right now! (I know
I get longwinded sometimes :-)

I'm sort of basing my paper on the French Minitel computer network.  In case
you've never heard of it, a quick summary:

    France had a minor problem with their telephone directories.  They
were becoming outdated as fast as they were printed and distributed.  So, in
order to correct the problem, they set up a national computer network and
gave EVERYBODY who had a phone a computer terminal.  The terminals weren't
fancy, and they couldn't do a lot, but they were produced at rock bottom
price and distributed at cost (about $165, I think, with the price taken in
phone bills in small chunks...)

    As anybody who's ever used compuserve or the source, or other computer
services could predict, it wasn't long before the services available via
terminal "mushroomed" into areas like newsgroups, etc.

    Naturally, this is all very inaccurate on my part, esp. since most of
it's based on a few magazine articles about Minitel.  Does anybody know more
about this?  Does anybody know how quickly and/or easily it could be done here?
And how much it would cost if the target was NOT an attempt to suck as much
cash off of the customers as possible?

    I was thinking that the advantages of a really professionally supported
network with commercial interests added would outweigh the costs.  If that
great "evil", advertising, was used, much of the network would pay for itself.
I'm not talking about heavy advertising, but would you mind living with maybe
one thirty second commercial per hour of online use in order to get the
service free?  It should work, since the network could "narrowcast" commercials
to only those who would have an interest (thus thirty year old black females
wouldn't get suntan oil and kiddie-toy commercials, for example).

    Any ideas?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven J. Owens |  Scratch@Pittvms |  Sjost1@Pittvms | (UUCP? Good question.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Not to say I didn't like this story (and other Brunner works);  just
 that a Brunner story is usually not exactly a ray of sunshine in your
 day.  Unless he's talking about the hole in the ozone layer..."
      - Larry Wake, rec.arts.sf-lovers, McGuffin Discussion
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


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

Date: Wed Apr 12 14:32:57 1989
From: John Hood <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC AOS Order
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Hood)
Organization: Biar Games Inc., Ithaca, NY


In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes:
>After reading the lengthly FCC rulemaking order on AOS outfits
>(and THANKS for posting it!), I want to make sure I have the
>'timetable' correct:

Well, I don't know if it is or not, but...

>3. The named AOS outfits MUST stop blocking and/or contact the owners
>   of COCOTS, dorm phones, etc, and require that they discontinue
>   blocking by April 27th, 1989.

This isn't quite correct.  In the appendix, there is an escape hatch
that allows AOS companies to continue blocking as necessary to prevent
people from abusing the network.  Now I ask, who decides what blocking
is necessary...?


  --jh
--
John Hood, Biar Games snail: 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 BBS: 607 257 3423
domain: [e-mail] (we hope) bang: anywhere!uunet!biar!jhood
[food for disclaimer readers]
[special dessert tidbit for broken mailers]


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

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 10:39:16-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Determining the length of the country code
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> bambam![e-mail]
(Howard J. Postley) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 131, message 9 of 11

>Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits
>in a country code is.  ... When I am parsing international phone numbers, I
>am having a tough time figuring out where the country code ends and the
>phone number starts.

Country codes are set forth in CCITT Recommendation E.163.  There is no
pattern.  There are one, two, and three digit country codes.  If the first
digit is "1" or a "7" it is a one digit code.  Otherwise, it is a two or three
digit code depending on what the first two digits are.

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

Date: 12 Apr 89 21:02:34 GMT
From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make/break ratios
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 122, message 4 of 7

>The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio
>isn't terribly critical (at least in US).  I discovered some years ago
>that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly.  One time I even
>dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method.  Obviously my
>fingers weren't carefully figuring out whether I was using a 39/61
>ratio or 33/67, so I suspect there is a high tolerance in the system
>for slop.

The ratio can be wildly wrong and stil work. I once tested a modem that had the
make and break reversed and it still worked fine.
--

                Charles Bryant.
Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd. (Modem manufacturers)

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic hook-flash
Date:     Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:09:54 EDT

> Will's problem is not with Centrex, it is with his telephone!  There are
> a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button:  press
> it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of time
> for call waiting or 3-way calling.

I've also seen the button called "Link".

But this doesn't solve Will's problem.  Will's problem wasn't that he had
trouble flashing the hook for the right length of time -- it was that the
system accepted an on-hook period longer than that length as being a flash.
False positive, not false negative, so to speak.

--
Mark Brader        "VAX 3 in 1 carpet care -- now 129.95 pounds"
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada can't find AT&T Canada
Date:     Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:10:31 EDT

A while ago I posted an item to comp.dcom.telecom / the Telecom Digest
about some alphabetization issues in telephone directories.  I pointed
out in particular that Bell Canada treats corporate names that consist
of a string of initials in a special way, which generally results in
them appearing at the front of the listings for their letter, in a
sequence that isn't the one that most people would first think of.

It turns out that normal users of the directories are not the only
ones who may be confused by this.  Two recent articles in our local
area newsgroup "tor.general" have cited instances of Bell Canada
directory assistance (411) operators being unable to locate listings,
which actually existed, for so-named companies.  (Of course, the fault may
lie with badly designed database-query software rather than the queriers.)

One of the companies was AT&T Canada!

--
Mark Brader        "A computer[']s view of the world is analogous [to] a
SoftQuad Inc.         flashlight in the dark.  What they can see, they see
Toronto             well.  What they can't see, they see not at all."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                    -- M. Valvo


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

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 14:28:38 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(K.BLATTER) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne Folta)
>writes:
>> a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area.  If you count DC as
>> a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC).
>> But is this really a very large area?  How large might a local call area be
>> in LA or NY?  Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might
>> there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes
>> thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people?
>To my knowledge, the largest (in terms of square miles) local dialing
>area in the United States is the Big Island of Hawaii in, of course,
>Hawaii.  It is roughly 4900 square miles in size.

When I moved to the Atlanta Metro area, the Southern Bell representative
told me that the Atlanta area is the second largest "toll free" calling
zone in the United States.  From what I understand, the Georgia Public
Service Commission refuses to listen to reason when trying to change the
way rates are charged (as it is I pay over $25 for service before long
distance charges are added and the only "extra" I have is touch-tone
service).

My question is where is the largest?  I think the woman at SoBell ment
the number of available phones that I could call toll free when the
statement was made (I don't know, just an impression).  If so I think
it would be interesting to find the largest.

--
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E-mail Clearinghouse
Date: 12 Apr 89 18:41:29 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy
Roth) writes:
> We have heard of a service, that for a nominal monthly fee, will interface
> with a local UNIX host (ostensibly uucp) and other subscribed email services
> acting as a clearinghouse.  This service will poll your commercial mailboxes
> (MCI, EXLINK, etc.) and mail them to your local system.  Outgoing mail is
> sent to the service and automatically diverted to MCI or whatever as
> required.  If anyone has used or is familiar with wuch a service, I would
> appreciate a reference.  Thanks in advance.


There is at least one commercial e-mail service which is uucp-based,
and can communicate directly with your favorite uucp site.  It is
called AT&T Mail, and provides e-mail to fax, e-mail to paper-mail,
and other related services.  You can register yourself for logins
from a dumb terminal (they provide a text-editor and other
user-friendly covers for the UNIX shell) or you can register your
UNIX machine and receive your mail on your own system.

--
Dave Levenson            /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.            |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA            |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave    \-----------------------------/


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

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 10:08:02 PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Telephone Range


    Phones sold in the US are limited by the FCC to freq/power
combinations which equate to 700 to 1000 feet free-space ranges. As
someone pointed out, actual ranges tend to be much worse and transmissions
highly subject to interference.  There is a "Range Extender" passive
antenna made by Valor which inmproves range but only marginally.
    Overseas, more powerful transmitters are used and ranges up
to 50 Km are common.  There ARE place in the US which sell them for
"use outside the US".  One such is Phone Masters in LA. I do not
recommend trying then here, you will probably interfere with someone
and the FCC will eventually track you down.
    Telcos also use various narrow-band microwave sets to save
stringing wire to remote locations.  These sets are not available
to the public.

    [I tried to reply to [e-mail] but the net
         didn't like the address]



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

Date:     Wed, 12 Apr 89 11:08:44 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Extra service offered by a COCOT

I used a COCOT on 703-261 prefix in Buena Vista, Va. last Saturday,
and after I had punched in credit card number (and waited for verifi-
cation), I got (before my call went thru, which it did) a recording
saying (this should be pretty much exact):  "Thank you for using ITI.
If busy or no answer, press 1 to leave a 1 minute message.".

This suggests that this particular COCOT does indeed offer extra service
not available with some other carriers.  Also, it reminds me of that
MESSAGE SERVICE note I copied off a phone at Finksburg, Md. recently.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #134
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 14 Apr 89 2:16:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #135
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Apr 89 01:59:42 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Reflections on Ethics (poem) (Roy A. Crabtree)
    Re: Flash vs. hangup (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Centrex (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: Question on system made by TIE Communications (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: Dialing with switchhook (Dave Fiske)
    Call Histories For Sale? (Daniel Faigin)
    24 volt loop (Gerry Wheeler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Roy A. Crabtree" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reflections on Ethics (poem)
Date: 13 Apr 89 12:18:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T


    Reflections on His Way


We all know now the Chairman of AT&T
Has passed this way, and gone along His Way
I felt, within, the need because of this to say
A cantry which expresses feelings raised in me
In hopes that those who read these words will also see
And find perhaps some things, within, to live by day to day

A former note which came from one of us among
Our group whose feelings here are seldom, softly, sung
Which pointed out someone who Brashly dared to say
That Naming Products *we* build here, if not His Way
Indeed could lead us to the loss of well made sales
And bring on all of us the things which that entails
For by our deeds - or Things *Not* Done - from day to day
AT&T, you see, _our_ Company, succeeds or fails

It isn't very hard to sum the sales we lost
Because in former years we raised the user's cost
Just look and see, the tools we use in company
They are not cheap, but costly to AT&T
For by our deeds - or Things *Not* Done -  our soul's embossed
And dreams within us, shackled tightly, slowly struggle free

So while at work, what e'er you do, please do it well
Remember when we once had Pride in Old Ma Bell?
With words pejorative, but maybe true, I say
As we do business, building, selling, day to day
Just do it right: Let's get out there & give'm hell!
(to have some fun AND make a profit while Along The Way)

I must say this with words which may sound dialectic:
It may be true the Job we face will be Quite Hectic
To meet the Goals which in our products we have set
We must scale Heights, and look towards Sights we've seen Not Yet
I think you know that You must be A Soul Eclectic:
From Life's Confusions, Face it: Choose Your Ethics: *the*best*set*

I'm sure that all of us who work here truly see
That UNIX OS software doesn't come for free
The users of our hardware pay a lot of cash
To buy a system from us, folks, Which Shall Not Crash
And if it does, not one of us should seek to flee
It is _Our_ job to fix it then, and do it in a flash

I'm sorry, Folks, this cantry took so long to write
I didn't want to say it wrong, or too polite
It should be written down just right, with verse that's true
Without a phrase which Paeans meanings trite or blue
For if some phrasing does amuse it may bring light
and Reach Out, Touching, gently, inside _each_and_all_ of you

As long as all of us each day intend to grin
By punning try to tap each other on the chin
With each jibe said by each of us with fuss and finicks
To prod and poke and gently heal in humor's clinics
As long as we can jest in fun and find no sin
With in a sense: we won't become, at heart, just jaded cynics

In naming, daily, products of our Company
The trade mark "UNIX", granted by AT&T
When written down must have at end an English noun
Or else perhaps Someone upstairs (you know!) will frown
And so, by day we shouldn't from the challenge flee
Or nightly speak with gloom and act the frowning, cynic clown

It's hard; I know the verse above would phrase much better
Were I not held, by metric rules, hard to the letter
Because in prose:  Adjective, noun is hard to meter
By breaking form it could perhaps be said the sweeter
Though form at times may seem to badly bind and fetter
You may find soon the syntax will march on in step much neater

To keep AT&T from growing stiff and pompous
(or else competitors around will surely stomp us)
Perhaps We should begin each day again anew
By gently chiding all within which isn't true
And if we gently _cull_it_all_ we could go far
Since, after all, I hope you know, you guys, it's OUR Death Star!

From quality (in quantity) we must not budge
Through sleepless nights and lonely days, yes, grind & drudge
We should in selling Tell no Tall Tales with Our Voice
For in the end, If We Build Right We Shall Rejoice:
When we sell goods, our Customers will *always* Judge
And having done so, promptly *do* make _the_ Right Choice

It's time to look around yourself, and stop to think:
"Just what is it that _I_ will write with my Life's Ink?"
It sometimes seems we never will make any gain
And all we build is lost, with lack, or loss, or pain
As day to day we stumble, halting, brink to brink
If _each_of_us_ give _all_ we have, you'll know it's not in vain.

So look around, and find your way; be not frenetic
And should you _lose_ once, don't become an Apathetic
Since in the end, it's you Yourself you do protect
For those of you who do demur, on this reflect:
It's true that those who Doom Say *will* become Prophetic
Though Life Abounds, it _does_ become, in deed,  What You Expect

royc

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Apr 89 13:13
Subject: Re: Flash vs. hangup

In Telecom Digiest V9I134, Mark Brader <[e-mail]> says,
>Subject: Automatic hook-flash
>But this doesn't solve Will's problem.  Will's problem wasn't that he had
>trouble flashing the hook for the right length of time -- it was that the
>system accepted an on-hook period longer than that length as being a flash.
>False positive, not false negative, so to speak.

Some sets will solve this problem!  There are two different type of
implementations of the timed-flash telephone.  The one sold by Northern
Telecom under the trademark "link" has a timed red flash button and an
untimed hookswitch.  But the ones sold by Comdial and Alcatel Cortelco
have timed hookswitches too, typically around 2 seconds.  (Comdial, then
Stromberg-Carlson, made the Rolm Flashphone.  Unless I'm confusing them
with Cortelco, then ITT.)

So the timed switchhook guarantees hangup.  This could, I suppose, be
viewed as a disadvantage; if you're used to flashing, you'll lose a few
calls until you break yourself of the habit.  But it's worthwhile.

It was especially worthwhile for Rolm owners!  Y'see, Rolm uses a
different set of rules for feature-flashing.  If you have a call on
flash-hold and hang up a second call, the first call rings you back.
(On most switches, like AT&T and NT, hanging up the second also
disconnects the first; you flash to get back the first.)

The upshot was that with ordinary untimed switchhooks, users would dial
busy signals, press the switchhook, get dial tone, yak for a while, hang
up, and the phone would ring back with a busy signal!  Rolm's trainers
didn't know why it was happening, either.  Flashphones fixed it, since
the switchhook guaranteed disconnect of that busy.  (The flash tied up
WATS trunks too, and the spurious call showed up on call detail billing.)
    fred

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

Date:     Fri, 14 Apr 89 1:53:37 CDT
From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (A. M. Boardman) writes:
> The telephones of Columbia's new
> digital CBX have, among a plethora of other buttons, a flash button.
> In no detectable way, however, does this button actually flash the line
> in any traditional sense; it is instead just another signal to the exchange.
> Really flashing will disconnect the line every time.

Our phone system is the same -- the flash button sends some digital code
to the electronic equipment, which then flashes the CO line being used.
In ours, the duration of the flash is programmable.  The default is, I
think, 1.5 or 2 seconds, which actually disconnects the line.  However,
it can be reset to very short intervals which would perform a real
flash.

The button serves a dual purpose, though.  When making an internal
(intercom) call, the flash button *always* terminates the call and
provides new internal dial tone.  Since we don't have any need for a
hookflash on the outside lines, it seems reasonable to have the button
disconnect the call in both situations.

--
     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: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 13 Apr 89 21:24:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Question on phone system made by TIE Communications
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.
Lines: 19

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeff Kitson) writes:
> we want to run
> both the phone and RS232 lines through the same 25-pair cable into
> offices.  My question is if anyone out there has a similar setup and
> has successfully or unsuccessfully done this?

We did that in our offices, but found that the data lines induced noise
into the voice lines, so you would hear a funny ZZZiiippp noise each
time the screen of a terminal was rewritten.

We eventually changed phone systems anyway, and expanded our terminal
wiring so much that we had to run separate cables, so it is no longer a
problem.

--
     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: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialing with switchhook
Date: 13 Apr 89 18:58:09 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
> In the 60s pay phones were designed with mercury switches on the hook so
> that  if you tried  to dial with  the hook  the  splashing mercury would
> defeat you.  Otherwise you  could make local  calls for a nickel instead
> of a dime, or some such thing.

Here's a related anecdote.

I saw an interview with Walter Cronkite once, where he spoke of his
eary career as a newspaper reporter.  One day the editor called him
into his office, to ask about a reimbursement form Walter had put
through for calls from pay phones.  "What's this?" said the editor.
"Well, I had to make some phone calls to the newspaper, and I  want to
be reimbursed."  At this point the editor laughed and shouted out to
another staff member "Hey, show this guy how to make a call from a pay
phone," at which point the other person took two straight pins from the
underside of his lapel, and stuck one into each of the wires leading to
a pay phone in the hall.  He then touched the wires together and the
phone was powered up.  Obviously, pay phones simply used a simple
coin-activated switch to enable the connection in those days.

--
"FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW           Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 07:43:10 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call Histories For Sale?

I was listening to a "talk-radio" program on the way home yesterday, and
they were discussing a new FCC ruling that allows telephone companies to
sell to anyone the calling history and payment patterns for an individual
account, unless specifically requested not to do so by the customer.

Does anyone on [Telecom] know any more about this?

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

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 13 Apr 89 21:39:31 GMT
Subject: 24 volt loop
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.

I need some advice, and perhaps one of the readers can help.

We have a new electronic phone system which includes several "single
line jacks" -- jacks that emulate a normal loop to be used with modems,
FAXes, answering machines, etc.  The biggest difference is that these
loops are powered with 24 volts, rather than the more normal 48 volts
one would expect.  Most of our equipment is quite happy with this,
except for a credit card validation machine with an autodialer built in.

I did some tests on this device (using several nine-volt batteries in
series with the line!) and determined that it really is the low voltage
causing the problem.  As near as I can figure, the dialer tests the line
voltage before going off hook, to avoid connecting to a line that is
already in use.  I presume they use a zener diode or something to
provide a reference voltage.  If the line voltage is higher than the
reference, it will dial.  If not, it gives an error message.

I can see two different solutions.  1) change the zener diode, or 2)
provide some sort of black box to convert the 24 volt loop to 48 volts.
I can't really do option 1, because we don't own the machine.  (Still,
if anyone has a short list of part numbers for zener diodes that are
about 30 volts, I may have a look for it.) So, does anyone know of a
simple way to accomplish option 2? As I see it, this box would have to
terminate the 24 volt loop, and provide power for a 48 volt loop, and
patch the audio from one to the other.  It would also have to sense the
off hook condition and handle that appropriately.

Any leads, or any ideas for other options I haven't considered, would
be most appreciated.
--
     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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #135
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 17 Apr 89 1:29:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #136
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 17 Apr 89 01:00:04 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    1989 ADCU National Conference (TELECOM Moderator)
    Mexico's Phone System Going Private? (TELECOM Moderator)
    Information Needed on Connecting Speakerphone (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: How to use Caller*ID? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (John Wheeler)
    Ringback Numbers in the USA (Bill Gerosa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 17 Apr 89 0:56:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  1989 ADCU National Conference

1989 ADCU National Conference
Marriott Copley Place Hotel
Boston, MA    June 11 - 14, 1989

The Association of Data Communications Users invites your participation
in this three day conference and exhibition.

Selected events for Monday, June 12 (many others to pick from):

"Building a 21st Century Telecommunications Infrastructure: How to Get There
from Here". This will focus on the development and maintainence of an
adequate infrastructure for information age businesses.

The Local Infrastructure: Developing Alternatives to Local Exchange
  Facilities.
        1) case studies from Teleport Communications of Boston
        who will soon provide high-capacity leased transmission facilities.

        2) a panel of large users will discuss how they chose alternative
        local carriers.

Disaster Planning: This will focus on the plans of major carriers and service
providers to insure continued service. A panel will discuss the well
publicized service interuptions of 1988.

Communications By Land or By Air will focus on the latest developments and
advantages of fiber optic versus microwave versus satellite for the data
communications manager and designer.


Some of the presentations for Tuesday, June 13 are:

Regulatory and Legislative Developments in Data Communications.

Standards Developments in Data Communications. This will be a review of
all standards programs and committees now in operation and a forecast of
how these will impact your data network.

International Network Design will focus on the many issues unique to
international data networks.

Major Vendor Integration will discuss the efforts of U.S. Sprint and Illinois
Bell to meet the requirements of their joint contract with the Illinois
Department of Central Management Services for the State of Illinois. Over
40,000 data terminals and 130,000 telephones are involved. This presentation
will discuss the data capabilities and statewide network in the integrated
CMS strategy.

Wednesday, June 14 will be largely devoted to communications software
presentations and discussions of network management issues facing most
companies that have integration objectives for their data networks.

Presentations will be given on X.400, X.25, and point-to-point networks
which have expanded into multiple technologies such as LANs, satellite,
underwater cable and fiber optics.

The conference fee, giving admission to all exhibits and presentations over
the three day period is $350 for ADCU Member Companies and $450 for Non-
Member Companies. In addition to the several exhibits and partial list of
presentations mentioned above, the NIU Forum ISDN sessions will continue
through the remainder of the week and are included in the above fee.

For more information and to receive a complete schedule of activities at
the 1989 ADCU National Conference, June 12-14 in Boston, call their
offices at 612-881-6803, or write ADCU, Box 20163, Bloomington, MN 55420.

Reservations with the Boston Marriott Copely Place are made at 1-800-228-9290.



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

Date:     Mon, 17 Apr 89 0:17:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Mexico's Phone System Going Private?

The Mexico Telephone Company, a/k/a Telefonos de Mexico, a/k/a Telmex,
is likely to go private in the next year or two. The Mexican
government is giving serious consideration to selling its controlling interest
in that nation's communications network, despite very stiff opposition from
the local unions which would prefer to see the existing bureaucracy
stay in place.

The proposed sale, which is part of a move to upgrade the phone system
there -- and it *does* need upgrading -- by allowing more private investment,
is part of a growing trend in Mexico to privatize heretofore nationalized
industries.

The Mexico Telephone Company has spent more than a year planning a $14 billion,
five-year restructuring plan which will probably give AT&T and the Bell
regional holding companies a role in the improvements.

One plan being discussed by the Mexican government is a complete break-up
of Telmex. similar to the court-ordered divestiture of AT&T a few years
ago. Under this plan, there would be one central long distance company in
Mexico, with the government retaining control of it, but privately owned
regional firms providing local and auxiliary services.

I'm told representatives of the Mexican government have talked on more
than one occassion with some folks at Southwestern Bell about making a formal
proposal. Likewise, Pacific Bell has been making some overtures to the
Mexicans. It will be interesting to see what develops.

About two years ago, [Teleconnect Magazine], in a humorous article on the
divestiture, presented a bogus map of the territories assigned to each
BOC, with Texas, New Mexico and Arizona grouped under an entity called
"Taco Bell".  :)

Any phone company which takes over the Mexican system will be an improvement
over the current operation, which has been slowly deteriorating for several
years.

Patrick Townson



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

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 16:19:42 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Needed on Connecting Speakerphone

I have an old Western Electric/AT&T 2-piece speakerphone that I would
like to be able to use.  The larger part has a speaker and most of the
circuitry, and has a 20-pin plug that looks like it would fit into a
50-pin cable from an old 5-line key system.  The other part has a
microphone, on-off switch, indicator lamp, and volume control, and an
8-pin connector.

Is it possible to connect this to an ordinary phone line?  What additional
circuitry is needed (I assume at least some kind of power supply).  Does
anyone know the connections for this?

Thanks,
Miguel Cruz
Univ of Michigan
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri Apr 14 21:18:09 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  How to use Caller*Id?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: The Linton Technology Group - SwitchView

(replying to the item about the mysterious caller looking for the health
club who always winds up reaching the same wrong party.  pt)

A sixth and even more likely possibility; an incorrectly programmed
speed call number.

-vances


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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 16 Apr 89 16:03:48 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


In article <[e-mail]> hubcap![e-mail]
(Trevor Zion Bauknight) writes:
>
>I read somewhere that Atlanta, GA has the biggest Local Dialing Area in
>the country.  Of course...you can't believe everything you read...
>

Well, those of us who live here may tend to be boastful (grin) but we
DO have over 6 inches (of phone book, thick, that is) in two white-page
and two Yellow Pages volumes, weighing in around 12 pounds.
What's metered service, anyway? (hee hee)
I have heard rumors of another area code for us, which we currently share
with the rest of North Georgia...
--
          Turner                                       John Wheeler
     E N T E R T A I N M E N T     ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw
                Networks
     Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports


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

From: Bill Gerosa <bucsb![e-mail]>
Subject: Ringback Numbers in the USA
Date: 13 Apr 89 22:05:51 GMT
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.



  Does anybody have a list of the ringback numbers used in the states?
There was some talk about this topic a while ago, but I don't think
anyone posted a list.  I don' even know if the public is allowed to
have access to these numbers.  Any replies would be apprecaited.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I do not believe there is any standardization in this
at all. Every area, indeed probably every telco within a given area, has
its own 'ringback codes'. They are intended for installation/test purposes,
and the numbers are rarely given out just because someone asks for them.

In Chicago, a/c 312, the codes vary from exchange to exchange, but always
take the form 1-571-xxxx through 1-577-xxxx, where xxxx is the last four
digits of the telephone number being rung-back.  For some prefixes, or
exhanges, it would be 1-571, while others are 1-572, 1-573, 1-574,
etc. The only way I found what works on my home phones (1-573-xxxx) was
by trial and error. If you select one of the above which is not correct
for your exchange, or put in incorrect digits for the last four, it
returns re-order (a rapid busy signal). If you get it correct, it returns dial
tone. You click the hook once, and get a high pitched tone, then hang up. It
will ring back for five minutes, or until you go off hook, whichever
comes first.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #136
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 18 Apr 89 0:31:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #137
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 18 Apr 89 00:12:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Voice Management Courses (TELECOM Moderator)
    More on Cellular Eavesdropping from Risks (Will Martin)
    Charges for Busy signal when using modem? (Timothy Stark)
    Prefix duplications near Washington, DC (Carl Moore)
    Good Supply Sources (TELECOM Moderator)
    CRT code: NK (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 18 Apr 89 0:04:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T Voice Management Courses

The Education and Training Division of AT&T has announced its second quarter,
1989 course schedule. Classes are given at various AT&T facilities around
the United States during May and June.

The courses all award CEU's (Continuing Education Units), and most are in
multiple locations at various times over the next two months. Most range
between 2-4 days in length, and while not inexpensive, I suspect they do
offer very high caliber instruction in telecom related fields. The two day
courses range in price from $500-800, and the four day courses typically
are priced $1000-1300.

A *free* one day course being offered is "Network Management", at numerous
locations around the United States and Canada on April 21, including Toronto,
Atlanta, Lexington MA, Southfield MI, Washington DC and Ft.
Lauderdale. The same course will be given April 20 in Itasca IL (suburb
of Chicago) and Birmingham AL. It will then be offered on May 9 in Tucson
and Phoenix AZ, and San Fransisco. On May 10 it will be offered in Englewood
and Colorado Springs CO; also in Boise, ID.

Other courses include --

  Introduction to Telecommunications (2 Days)
  Voice Communications: A Management Perspective (3 Days)
  Voice Communications I: Analysis of Services and Applications (4 Days)
  Voice Communications II: Voice Theory and Design Analysis (4 Days)
  Voice Switching Technology (3.5 Days, only in Cincinnati beginning 5/22)
  5ESS Switch Elements Seminar  (3 Days, Lisle IL beginning 5/22 and 6/26)
  5ESS Switch ISDN Seminar  (2 Days, Lisle IL several sessions in 5/89 - 6/89)
  5ESS Switch Translations Seminar (2.5 Days, Lisle IL various dates 5/89)
  System 85 Concepts/Technology (4 Days, Cincinnati beginning 5/1, 5/22, 6/19)
  System 75 Concepts/Technology (4 Days, New York 5/15 and Atlanta 6/26)
  Premises Distribution: Applications Design (2 Days, various dates, cities)

  and a big, national one day seminar on fiber optics, price just $150 --
  "Fiber Optics: Issues and Trends"

  This presentation will be given in 25 cities across the United States
  and Canada, mostly on June 15 or June 16; a few cities will have seminars
  on June 20 or June 21.

For more specific information, a complete copy of the schedule of instruction
for each course/city, and to register for classes, call the AT&T Education
and Training Division at 1-800-554-6400, Ext. 4116. Or, you may write to --

                  AT&T Education and Training
                  Post Office Box 6991
                  55 Corporate Drive
                  Bridgewater, NJ 08807 - 9964


Patrick Townson




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

Date:     Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:17:58 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  More on Cellular Eavesdropping from Risks

This is a follow-up posting from the Risks Digest on the Boston cellular
eavesdropping subject; being sent to Telecom to keep its archives
complete on the subject.

***Begin included item***
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 10:22:10 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Eric Roskos)
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones

(Re: Thayer, RISKS-8.53)
> Has the law changed? I was led to understand that the FCC does not ban
> the reception of any signal.  Of course, banning the reception of
> certain signals is going to be tough to enforce anyway.

[I originally wrote the following posting in response to the first
cellular telephone posting, then decided not to send it because (a) I'd
already made several RISKS postings recently and (b) I'm reluctant to
comment on legal matters when many legal people seem to get upset by
lay-persons doing so.  However, in response to the above question I
decided to send it in anyway.]

(Re: Den Beste, RISKS-8.52)
> The article goes on to say that Radio Shack no longer sells that model, and
> that the FCC says such eavesdropping is illegal.

Intentionally listening to cellular communications is a violation of PL 99-508,
"The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," and the violator is
subject to a $500 criminal fine if the interception was of cellular telephone
and not for one of the "bad purposes" defined in the legislation (other types
of violations have penalties up to $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for
an organization).  Accidentally encountering such a broadcast while tuning this
model of receiver is not a violation if you do not intentionally listen to it,
i.e., if you just pass by it in the course of tuning the radio; this issue was
specifically addressed in the ECPA.

The cellular telephone frequencies are adjacent to and overlap part of the UHF
TV band, so it is also possible to tune them on older, continuous (as vs.
discrete)-tuning UHF TV sets.  It was reported in the press that the FCC
recently stated that it is not illegal to manufacture and sell radios that tune
the cellular frequencies, and in the past the FCC has allegedly declined to
enforce the ECPA as applied to cellular telephones.  On the other hand, the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association recently used legal measures
to force Grove Enterprises, a small dealer of radio equipment in North
Carolina, to stop enabling a disabled feature of Radio Shack scanners that
allowed reception of cellular telephone.  It's interesting to note that Radio
Shack was one of the companies listed in the Senate Report 99-541 as
"support[ing] the principles involved in the [ECPA] legislation," and they
manufacture a radio which has an option jumper that enables reception of these
communications.  It is currently sold with this option disabled.

There is currently an ongoing debate between radio hobbyists and various
sections of the government on application of the ECPA to cellular telephone
communications.  Recent issues of the monthly periodical _Monitoring_Times_
contain a good bit of editorializing and news items on the subject; there was
also a recent book specifically about how to intercept radio telephone
communications released by a publisher oriented towards "communications
monitoring" topics.  It also appears to be the case that a lot of scanners are
sold and modified to receive cellular communications, and that the popular
opinion is that the ECPA will not be enforced with regard to cellular
telephone.  From a practical standpoint, this suggests that it is wise to
assume that any cellular telephone communications are probably being listened
to.  From the viewpoint of the potential listener, like the types of
unauthorized computer access discussed here recently, in the absence of strong
enforcement it is probably largely an ethical consideration: whether or not it
is technically legal or illegal, one has to consider whether it is ethical.
And, as I've argued in the past, Ethics per se doesn't say whether this sort of
activity is "ethical." It's a difficult problem to address, other than simply
to realize that the problem exists, and act in an informed manner.

Disclaimers: The above comments result from reading published documents on the
ECPA, and are *not* the opinions of a legal professional.  My interest in the
subject is solely in the area of keeping up with security and privacy issues,
and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone else.

Eric Roskos ([e-mail] or [e-mail])
***End item***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 12:41 EST
From: Timothy Stark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charges for Busy signal when using modem?

[Moderator's Note: Due to some errors in transmission, the message which
follows was received somewhat garbled. I have reconstructed it. PT]

Hello Telecom Users:

   Last weekend, at RELAY server, Phantom talked with me about charging
for busy signals when using modem. Phantom was hit by a high bill because
of busy signals. He told me that: If voice-to-voice, they will not charge
busy signals; If modem-to-modem, they will charge busy signals. I get
very angry with Phantom's telephone company. At my local company they do not
charge me for voice or modem for busy signals. What are the FCC regulations
about busy signals? Is charging for busy signal unlawful? I will appreciate
any responses. Thanks!

-- Tim Stark

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Timothy Stark          |   Bitnet:      [e-mail]           VMS
Gallaudet University   |   Internet:    [e-mail]    UNIX
P.O. Box 1453          |   GEnie:       T.STARK1
Washington, DC 20002   |   People/Link: OCS130
U.S.A.                 |   QuantumLink: TimS18
Earth                  |   "Gallaudet University is the only university for
Solar System           |    the deaf in the world."
Milky Way              |
The Known Universe     |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

Date:     Mon, 17 Apr 89 11:07:38 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  prefix duplications near Washington, DC

I came across a few new prefixes in Va. just beyond Washington calling
area; these are in 703, and I will list them and show the duplications
between them and the Washington calling area:
330 Manassas (301-330 Gaithersburg)
878 Dale City (301-878 Fort Ritchie, with DC and Baltimore area
    service?)
497 Occoquan (301-497 Laurel)--same already existed regarding 490

Also, I know of (703 area): 882 Waterford, 822 Lovettsville, 668
Hillsboro, 554 Bluemont (sp?), all in or near western Loudoun
County, and duplicating prefixes in DC.  When you proceed into
703 area beyond DC suburbs, you don't hit a big metropolitan
area that you encounter in Maryland (Baltimore); in the latter
case, there are many prefix duplications between Balt. area and
DC/Va. suburbs.  How tight is 703 area nowadays, anyway?  (It was
split in 1973 to form 804 area.)


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

Date:     Mon, 17 Apr 89 23:25:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Good Supply Sources

I seem to be on a lot of interesting telecom industry mailing lists;,
and two recent mailings are worth describing here. Unfortunatly, one of
the two has now gotten away from me and I cannot tell you the complete address
for that firm. Both arrived about a month ago, but the digest was too full
at the time to include any additional messages.

1. US West Business Resources, Inc., through the Brokerage Services Division,
5095 Dahlia Street, Denver, CO 80216 offers an interesting bulletin
from time to time describing what is in stock. They seem to have literally
hundreds, maybe thousands of different types of phone equipment, including
very specialized phones with multiple lines; headsets; speakerphones; various
signalling devices; intercoms; you name it. Lots of AT&T/Bell System stuff
from years past.

Dials, both rotary and touchtone; cords of various colors/lengths for handsets;
terminal blocks; more. The catalog is free, and the last one I received
was about 100-125 xeroxed pages stapled together. I guess they might send
you a copy if you indicated you were reselling that stuff/consulting with
business clients.  Phone [phone].

2. The other catalog of interest was from the 'Hello' people in California.
And that is the one I unfortunatly lost sometime in the last week or
so. They offered a number of interesting devices including headsets, answering
machines and assorted telephone related electronics. Someone posted a message
here about them three months ago or so, and shortly thereafter I got their
nifty little catalog. I have looked *everywhere* for it; my bedroom; bathroom;
under my desk where I am always finding old printouts and unanswered letters;
at my other office, etc. No where to be found.

Maybe whoever posted the original message about them will post it again;
and when they do, I urge you all to get on the mailing list for that one
also. 'Hello Direct' is the name which sticks in my mind. San Fransisco
or environs is the location, I think.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Bob Frankston <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: CRT code: NK
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 16:11:31 EDT

In ad for "nikko hotels international" it has the line:

   PHONE: 1-800-NIKKO-US or use CRT code: NK

Does anyone know what a "CRT code" is?  Is it a private system for travel
agents?


Bob Frankston


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #137
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 19 Apr 89 0:55:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #138
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Apr 89 00:27:46 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New and Exciting Developments at AT&T (TELECOM Moderator)
    Can $4,000/mo cross country T1 be for real? (Brian Jay Gould)
    Bell claim to cable in my building (Steve Swingler)
    CRT Codes (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re:  Good Supply Sources (Will Martin)
    Re:  Good Supply Sources (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 19 Apr 89 0:22:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New and Exciting Developments at AT&T

Tuesday, April 18 was opening day for the transpacific fiber optic cable
developed by AT&T,and installed by a consortium of communications companies
including AT&T, MCI and Sprint.

This new cable, which presently terminates in Tokyo, can handle 40,000
calls at once. In addition to connecting with land-based cables in the United
States, a portion of the cable has been assigned to handle connections
between Tokyo and the capitals of Western Europe.

A transatlantic fiber optic cable was installed between the states and
Europe late last year. Future plans for international fiber optic cables
include connections to Australia and the Carribean in 1991.

It is certainly true that the rapid pace of technological advancements in
telecommunications is causing some exciting changes in the way we communicate
around the globe.

As one who remembers well the time when you made a *reservation* to place
an overseas call to London, and you were called back by the international
operator at White Plains, NY when a circuit was free, I am amazed by the
speed with which calls are placed now. And there was a time when calls to
Africa were first routed to London, and then on the British Telecom cables
to Cairo *when they chose to extend calls from the United States* -- typically
three or four days per week during the early morning hours.

Calls to Antarctica are still handled in a round-about way; via the overseas
operator in Oakland, CA to Australia, then via a radio link from that
country to the South Pole; but given the speed with which AT&T is covering
the globe with fiber optic, the land at the southernmost tip of our planet
may someday be direct-dialable.

=========================================

And then there was MultiQuest. AT&T bills it as 'a powerful new way for
you to make valuable information available to your customers...'

Multiquest, according to AT&T, is the first national, interactive 900
service for businesses. According to an AT&T spokesperson, "Customers
nationwide can obtain information, services or advice from you more
easily than they ever could before."

And at more expense to the customer, I might add. AT&T notes, "..unlike
800 service, where you pay the bill, your customers pay for calls to
900 numbers....you select the price, and AT&T will handle billing and
collection from your customers."

AT&T is promoting MultiQuest as a way to market your services, run a
promotion and reach customers 'cost-effectively' (you bet!). For more
information about MultiQuest, installation pricing and procedures, call
1-800-222-0400.

If anyone gets specifics on this regards pricing and how it is installed,
etc, please write it up for publication here.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can $4,000/mo cross country T1 be for real?
Date: 19 Apr 89 02:30:37 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


Someone has offered a satellite T1 (I still have to buy
the local loop) to or from any combination of New York,
Miami, Los Angeles, and San Francisco for about $4,000
per month.  They are also planning to offer Houston,
Dallas, Chicago and Detroit.

I'm giving serious consideration to using these links in
a couple of networking and supercomputing proposals.

I've never heard of these guys (I won't post the name
because I don't want to be advertising for them, but I'll
provide the name on individual request).

Can someone really do this?  AT&T is asking $30,000/month
for a T1 from NY to LA.


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

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

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 09:40 CDT
From: Steve Swingler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell claim to cable in my building


My local BOC say that they own the feeder cable that is completly within one
of my dorms.  They plan to remove it.  I was under the impression that this
cable now belongs to us.

Can someone give me the exact ruling in this type of situation.

Thank You.

Steve Swingler
Center for Computing and Information Systems
Baylor University


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: CRT Codes
Date: Tue, 18-Apr-89 09:54:30 PDT

CRT codes probably refer to the airline computer reservation
system used by most travel agents. Though there are several
such systems in use, many of the nonairline booking codes
are similar on each system.

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

Date:     Tue, 18 Apr 89 8:25:06 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Good Supply Sources

HELLO DIRECT
2346 Bering Drive
San Jose, CA  95131-9749   (*)

1-800-HI-HELLO  (800-444-3556)

Local phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]

(*) Strange thing: This is the 9-digit ZIP on their business-reply-mail
card to ask for a catalog. In their catalog, the address is the same,
but the 9-digit ZIP is "95131-1121". I suppose one is wrong, but don't
know which one. The catalog is Spring '89, the card is also recent.

Regards, Will

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Good Supply Sources
Date: Tue, 18-Apr-89 09:52:31 PDT

Pat... Hello Direct is the company name. Their number is 1-800-HI-HELLO.
(Seriously! Don't blame me, I dislike names for numbers. AT&T used to
discourage that when they controlled the yellow pages. Takes forever
to dial such numbers.)


[Moderator's Note: In any event people, *do* call and get on their mailing
list. Their catalog is full of neat phone equipment. And tell them I am
sorry I lost my copy.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #138
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 20 Apr 89 0:35:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #139
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 20 Apr 89 00:21:10 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Where am I calling from? (Sharon Tres)
    Finding out that phone number (TELECOM Moderator)
    ANI Backfiring Already (from RISKS) (Will Martin)
    AT&T Cited on Illegal Service (David Gast)
    Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California (Dave Horsfall)
    $4K T-1 for real? (Scott Statton)
    Hello Direct ZIP code (Sam Ho)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 89 08:47:43 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Where am I calling from?
From: [e-mail]

Is there a way to determine the telephone number you place a call from?  I
know, I know...look at the number on the phone...but what if that is
wrong??  Then what?

Any info would be appreciated.

Sharon

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

Date:     Thu, 20 Apr 89 0:15:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Finding out that phone number

Sharon (see above message) asks how to find out the number on the telephone
being used if the number on the dial is wrong or is not there at all.

I think we all know asking the operator for the number will almost always
result in the operator telling you its none of your business. Either you
are the subscriber and know your own number, or maybe you are just trying
to find out the unlisted number of the phone you are using.

In some communities, a recorded announcement is available which will give
you the number you are calling from; but this does not seem to be very
common. Here in Chicago, quite a few (not all) exchanges have the ability
to recite your number to you -- if you know where to call to get it.

The numbers are always 1-200-xxx-yyyy, but they change from one prefix to
another, and they seem to get changed on the same prefix about once a
month or so, perhaps out of spite by the technicians; who knows. I knew
one of them for phones in the Chicago-Franklin office, and had great fun
listening to it recite the numbers on the various outgoing trunks on the
Rolm PBX I was using when I called it. A week later it was not in service.

If you know for a fact the number you are on, you can verify it (but who
needs to verify a fact, right) by dialing 1-200-that number. You will get
a high pitched tone with a break in the tone every two or three seconds.
1-200-any other returns re-order tone. Bear in mind, this is Chicago; I
can't speak for other communities.

This still does not resolve the question of how to find out the number
being used. There are two approaches: Make a collect call (or credit card
call) to your home number or some phone under your control. When the bill
comes, note where it says the call came from. If you do not want to
wait a month for the bill to arrive, and need the information now, there
is another, less forthright approach, which will probably interest the
{Risks} readers among us.

The other technique involves making a person to person call, and asking
the operator to leave word for your party. For example, if your friend
Joe Doakes was en route to New York City, and was going to be staying at
the Waldorf Astoria, you'd probably call 212-355-3000 person to person, and
have the operator leave word with the hotel operator. They used to
call it an 'Operator 8 leave word'. When the operator asks where
should Mr. Doakes call you to return your call, tell the operator "just
give this number, I will be right here". So in her effecient way she will
instruct the Waldorf Astoria operator to have Mr. Doakes return the call
to Mr. Smith at 312-xxx-yyyy. Thank you operator!  Thank you indeed.

The operator who thinks twice about it -- which most of them don't --
will split the connection while she passes the number. The reason I say
it never occurs to them to cut the calling party out of the line is
because I frequently get collect calls from people and I want to bill it
to my AT&T Calling Card to take advantage of Reach Out rates late at
night. Before I pass the card number to the calling operator, I always
have to tell her to split the connection so the caller will not hear
my PIN.

Of course this latter approach, of calling a non-existent person and
leaving word for a call back is quite simply, fraud. I would suggest the
former approach, where you at least pay something for a phone call.

Patrick



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

Date:     Wed, 19 Apr 89 14:43:26 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ANI Backfiring Already (from RISKS)

Here's another telecom-related item from the RISKS Digest:

***Begin Included item***
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 15:53:18 EDT
From: USER=[e-mail]
Subject: Companies mask ANI to calm callers

The following condensed from Bob Wallace, Network World v6#7 2/20/89 pg 1.

Fear of alienating customers has encouraged some companies to rethink the way
 they use ISDN's automatic number identification (ANI) capability.

American Express Travel Related Services Co. (TRS), AT&T's first commercial
 ISDN user, reportedly found that customers were startled when some of its
 agents greeted them by name.  TRS has since prohibited the practice.
 Richard Zatarga [TRS employee], in a presentation at a "Preparing for ISDN"
 conference in Toronto (12/88), said TRS now avoids identifying callers by name.
 "We have changed the way we answer the [telephone].  We know who they are, but
 we still hunt for information" from callers as if we had to identify them.

Although TRS has since denied that it used ANI to identify callers by name and
 that it received negative feedback from cardholders, sources close to the
 project who requested anonymity said numerous users reacted unfavorably to
 personalized greetings.  TRS "learned that you don't answer the telephone with
 the customer's name."

American Transtech, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T (and the first company to
 test ISDN Primary Rate Interface [32B+D]), processes one million calls a day,
 making it the nation's fourth largest telemarketing company.  The company does
 not, however, greet callers by name. "We could do it, but we don't want to let
 customers know we can capture their telephone number," said a spokesman. "We
 don't use [specialized greetings] because it would intimidate callers."

Besides the RISK of alienating customers with ANI, there is a pervasive fear
 among prospective ANI implementors that callers will raise legal objections to
 ANI once they know how it works.  People with unlisted phone numbers are
 expected to spearhead that movement.

According to Huel Halliburton, a communications manager with Centel Electric,
 central office switches equipped to support equal access deliver the phone
 numbers of callers with both listed and unlisted telephone numbers to
 companies that use ANI.
***End of item***

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

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 12:48:14 PDT
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Cited on Illegal Service

Our moderator who is always finding great new AT&T and BOC services
seems to have missed this story about AT&T.  (If it had been an AOS,
I feel we would have received a long story about it).

Capping a two-year investigation, the FCC unanimously ruled last week
that AT&T illegally offered customized telephone networks to large
business customers at special prices.  The FCC ordered AT&T to make
these networks available to all customers.

The tariff under which these networks are offered is called Tariff 12
service.  The FCC found that AT&T currently restricts this service to
certain geographic areas.  Such restriction is illegal under the
communications act of 1934.

I and others have pointed out that the 70% market share controlled
by AT&T makes this type of abuse possible.  Due to the cost nature
of the telephone business (high fixed costs, almost zero marginal
cost), subsidizing large firms is likely to occur.  Providing
fair telephone service to all is one reason that I and others do
not favor deregulating AT&T.  Allowing AT&T to behave like an AOS
is not going to solve our telephone problems.  A much better solution
is to regulate the AOSes.

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

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

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California
Date: 19 Apr 89 03:50:50 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:
|
| You don't have to be a hotel guest to get a wake-up call anymore.
| People in California can now dial a service called '976-WAKE' and arrange
| a telephonic alarm clock/reminder service for the next day.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but Australia has had this
service for years.  However, it is a manual service (you speak to a
Real Person), and I presume the cited service is automatic.  This has
its advantages, since you are called back within a minute or so, to
confirm it (you have to say what number the call is to go to), and this
obviously reduces the potential for abuse.  Of course, this is easily
circumvented by methods I need not go into.

Does the California system perform any such checks?  Or does it immediately
know the number you are calling from?  Suppose you really want the call to
go elsewhere?  Is this comp.risks material?

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

Date:  Wed, 19 Apr 89 21:21:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: $4K T-1 for real?


Well, I'm no expert in x-continental T-1 pricing (I just have to
figger out how many I want ... not how much they'll cost), but I
suspect that sattelite based circuits will get cheaper and cheapr.
They're all but useless for voice communications, because of delay
(and related echo) problems, but for hacker-based networks, they'd be
really winning.  With more and more traffic being moved to fiber based
networks, I see sattelite channels being given away in boxes of
cereal.

Scott

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

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 10:20:20 PDT
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hello Direct ZIP code

A minor note, but Hello Direct's 9-digit ZIP code is 95131-1121.  The
9000-series endings are used to route business-reply mail for reverse
charging the addressee.

(Yes, this list is about the telephone system, not the post office.)
Sam Ho / [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #139
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 21 Apr 89 0:45:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #140
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:25:45 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Tariffs -- First Minute Costs More (Kenneth Selling)
    Finding your phone number (Kenneth H. Lee)
    Phoney for Rent (Scott Statton)
    Call Waiting Deluxe service names (Bill Cerny)
    Telephone Extender ?? (Bill Gerosa)
    Re: Telephone Extender (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20-APR-1989 03:29:12.35
From: Kenneth Selling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tariffs -- First Minute Costs More

Some new AT&T long distance rates puzzle me.  In the new April 1989, tariff,
certain short-haul rates (around 80 - 100 miles, night rates here) are:

        First  Minute = 11 cents    (e.g., Middletown, Conn, 203 - 344  to
        Addtl. Minute = 12 cents     NYC 212 , or Springfield, Mass 413)

Note the first minute costs LESS.  I thought that the reasoning in the past for
having the initial minute *more* expensive than the rest was to theoretically
charge for making the connection.  Operator-assisted calls still tack a hefty
charge on the initial minute, then charge direct-dial rates for addtl. minutes.

Does anyone out there have ideas as to what strategy AT&T is following here?
I can only think of one reason, which is to end up being more competitive with
other interstate carriers in 1 - 3 minute comparison tests used in advertising.

The pattern above seems widespread with AT&T.   For some longer distance calls
(e.g., coast-to-coast), AT&T rates are now the same for first and additional
minutes.  Ignoring competitive strategy for a moment, perhaps AT&T now
considers the cost of "making the connection" negligible.

Interestingly, it is only on relatively short-haul rates that AT&T is slightly
more expensive than major competitor US Sprint.  On some long-haul rates, I
have found that AT&T is now less expensive than Sprint.  Not surprisingly,
Sprint's advertising features almost exclusively short-haul rates.  In the
opinion of the informed TELECOM reader, why might this be the case?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                                           /------------------------------\
Ken Selling                                |  The Scholar on the Schwinn  |
                                           \------------------------------/
Organization:   Wesleyan University
Internet:       [e-mail]
BITNET:         [e-mail]
Local:   :-)    kselling
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1989 14:23:01 EDT
From: "Kenneth H. Lee" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding your phone number

In New York City, one can easily find out the phone number for most
phones by dialing "958" and waiting for a synthesized voice which
recites the number.  This works most of the time.  If it didn't work
you'll just get a fast busy signal.  I'm not sure if this works for
all phones in New York State, even though all phone service is handled
by New York Telephone.

This a good for those times when you aren't sure about the accuracy of
the number listed on the pay phone.  I'm not sure if this works on
"third party" pay phone, i.e. those pay phones not maintained by New
York Telephone.

/k

Kenneth H. Lee                [e-mail]
Columbia University            ...{topaz|rutgers}!columbia!cunixc!khl
209 Watson, 612 West 115 Street        [e-mail]
New York, NY 10025            [phone]

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

Date:  Thu, 20 Apr 89 23:12:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phoney for Rent


Greetings!

As many of you may know, I've been employed with my current employer a
little over a year now.  I currently live and work in Metro Boston,
and would like to relocate to California, preferably San
Jose/Peninsula area.  Since there may very-well be people in a hiring
position on this list, I thought I'd give a very brief description of
my current job, in case your firm has a position, or you know a firm
that does.

My official job title is "Chief Hacker", but that doesn't look good to
people with a non-MIT point of view.  The job I hold is the
combination of three other jobs, "Switching Supervisor", "Transmission
Supervisor", and "Facilities Manager".  I am responsible for
day-to-day operation and maintenance of a Northern Telecom (Danray)
CTSS-4000 digital tandem switch.  I handle both software and hardware
maintenance.  I'm also responsible for QC on all VF transmission
facilities, ordering, turnup, and acceptance of facilities.  I would
like to find a position with a firm using this switch, or perhaps it's
cousin, the DSC DEX-400.

If you have any leads, you'd make me a happy hacker indeed!


     From the Terminal of Scott Statton, N1GAK
     [e-mail] previously [e-mail]
     also [e-mail]
     [phone]


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

From: Bill Cerny <toto![e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting Deluxe service names
Date: 20 Apr 89 14:30:55 GMT
Organization: Telecomm Research Associates, St. Marys, KS


I'm compiling a list of the various service names for the *70 feature
that disables call waiting for the duration of a call.  Please tell
me the service name, and the phone company/ies using it, e.g.:

    "Cancel Call Waiting" - Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell

I'll post a summary later.
--
Bill Cerny
[e-mail]  (fax: [phone])

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

From: Bill Gerosa <encore!bucsb![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Extender ??
Date: 20 Apr 89 23:12:57 GMT
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.


Does anybody know what a telephone "extender" number is?  My friend has one of
these numbers.  It is (an 800 number), and when he calls it all he gets is a
strange tone.  Does anyone know what this type of number is used for?  Any
help would be appreciated.
Thanks.


Bill

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

Date:     Fri, 21 Apr 89 0:19:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Telephone Extender

Bill (see prior message) asks about the nature of 'telephone extenders'.
Actually, they are more correctly called 'WATS extenders', since their main
purpose is generally to permit the use of an outgoing WATS line by someone
calling in on another line.

Let's say you are an outside sales rep for some company, or an executive
who travels a lot in the course of your business. You need to make many
long distance calls, and making them by putting coins in a phone or by
charging each call to a calling card or third number gets expensive. You
certainly wouldn't call collect to your customer either! :)

The thinking is that the cost of an incoming call via an 800 'toll free'
line added to the cost of an outgoing call via the company's WATS lines
is still less expensive than a directly routed call on which a surcharge
for calling card or coin collection is imposed.

The tone your friend is hearing when he dials the 800 number is most likely
the internal dial tone for the phone system at the company he is reaching.
In all probability, an access code, or password is required at this point
to go further. Once the proper password has been entered, the caller is
given use of the company's phone system remotely, the same as if he were
in an office at the company using an actual extension phone. He *is* on
an extension of the company's phone system actually, since the incoming
line is answered and electronically connected to an extension at the company.

After entering the appropriate password, the caller can then proceed to
dial an outgoing call as if he were calling from his office. He would enter
whatever access code is required to get an outside line, then dial the
desired number. Although there are now two links in the connection instead
of just one, had he dialed direct to the other party, the line degradation
is not usually too bad. Both parties can hear each other and talk okay.

When he is finished with his call, he will press a touch tone button on the
phone, typically the octothorpe (#), to tell the 'WATS extender' that
the outgoing line can now be disconnected. The company's internal dial tone
will return to the line, and he can place other calls or he can simply
hang up if he is finished with his calls.

The use of these devices by persons not authorized to make calls through
the connecting phone system is considered fraud. The company which owns
the device can prosecute you, and generally the phone company is more than
willing to assist in the prosecution.

Here at [TELECOM Digest] we talk about anything and everything related to
telephone systems and communications with a couple of exceptions: We don't
print passwords/authorization codes; nor do I print telephone numbers which
could concievably be used by someone reading the message who has less than
honorable intentions. I'm sure you understand. :)

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #140
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 22 Apr 89 2:08:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #141
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Apr 89 01:37:50 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Canadian Phone Monopoly Attacked (Gerry Wheeler)
    Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Kurt A. Geisel)
    Ringbacks Revisited (Kevin Lightner)
    MCI Telecommunications Needs Phone Switch Hacker (Jon Solomon)
    Followup Report on MultiQuest Service (Richard Edell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Subject: Canadian phone monopoly attacked
Date: 21 Apr 89 13:52:56 GMT
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.


Well, it looks as though the Canadian phone system might be undergoing
the same upheaval as the US system has.  The following item appeared in
the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on Thursday April 20.  It is reprinted
without permission.

=================================================================
Rogers, CNCP Will Challenge Bell Monopoly

By Karen Lewis
The Canadian Press

Toronto -- Long-distance telephone service will no longer be the
preserve of Bell Canada and the provincial phone companies if cable king
Ted Rogers and CNCP are successful in an alliance announced Wednesday.

"Soviet-style telecommunications monopolism is out of date," Rogers, a
colorful entrepreneur and president of Rogers Communications, told a
crowded news conference.

"Even in Russia they are allowing some competition, which improves
people's standard of living."

Rogers Communications and CNCP Telecommunications, both based in
Toronto, said they are joining forces to forge a new company.  It will
fight to offer an alternative long-distance telephone network that would
lower costs and provide innovative services, they said.

Bell Canada and provincial phone companies like SaskTel -- through their
affiliation with Telecom Canada -- have a monopoly in the long-distance
business.

Under the deal announced Wednesday, Rogers Communications Inc.  would
pay up to $275 million for 40 per cent of CNCP.  A final agreement is
being negotiated and will be subject to regulatory approval, the
companies said.  The new company will get a new name.

CNCP reiterated its intention to apply to the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission for permission to offer long-distance
services.  The application will be made within six months, the company
said.  CNCP's first application was denied in 1985.

At that time, CNCP had said the new service could result in average rate
reductions of 10 to 20 per cent from consumers' bills.

CNCP president George Harvey said he couldn't say how much comsumers
would benefit if the Rogers and CNCP alliance breaks the monopoly.
Rogers said there would be some lowering of cost "but the real thrust of
the application will be innovative new services."

But Bell Canada spokesman Linda Gervais reiterated the company's
argument that consumers will suffer because the any reduction in
long-distance revenues will result in larger bills for local service.

"We're not convinced it's in the interest of our customers," she said in
an interview.

A spokesman for the Consumers' Association of Canada also said it would
be bad news for consumers if the monopoly is broken.

"Some subscribers will not be able to afford phone service any more due
to the rise in local rates," David McKendry said from Ottawa.  In the
United States, where there is competition, only 93 per cent of household
have telephones; 99 per cent have them in Canada.

In a fiery defence of the competition, Rogers said Bell's argument "is
preposterous.  It's nonsense."

And Harvey said CNCP will try to "explode the myth that local rates
would have to rise if long-distance rates come down."

CNCP, which uses microwave and satellite technology to send voice and
data signals across Canada and around the world, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Ltd.

"The sale will create a strategic alliance that will strengthen the base
on which CNCP intends to build a major second force in tthe Canadian
telecommunications industry," said William Stinson, president of
Canadian Pacific.

Rogers would become the chairman of the new venture with CNCP.  Rogers
Communications owns the Cantel cellular telephone network as well as the
Rogers cable television service.

CNCP's application for a long-distance licence could take up to a year
to review, including hearings, said Pierre Pontbriand, a spokesman for
the CRTC in Ottawa.  Rogers said a new long-distance service could be in
place two months after approval.


--
     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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 10:47:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Kurt A. Geisel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work

An unnamed acquaintance of mine at an unnamed university [not this one]
kept telling me about this trick he was using to make all his long distance
phone calls.  At first, I didn't believe him at all because it sounded like
there was no way it would work.  But, he is quite persistant at boasting about
this trick and a friend confirmed that he is actually doing it.  Then,
I began to tell him it was a dangerous anomoly and he should stop
now before it catches up with him.  Anyway, here is how it goes:

1)  Place a call from a pay phone, but go through the long distance
operator and tell them that you want to charge to number x.

2)  Give them the number of another payphone.

3)  Have friend answer the payphone and agree to accept charges.

4)  The call goes through (!) and presumable the payphone gets "charged"!

Now, it would seem to me that the operator would be able to see right
away that the number to charge to was a payphone.  It shouldn't work
unless this service branch is surprisingly ignorant.  Furthermore, after
doing for months, the phone company should eventually realize
that this bills are going into the ether...

Is this for real?  Will they ever find out?  Will this misguided person
get a mysterious bill at the end of his college education for $50,453.23?
Has anyone heard of such trickery working?

- Kurt
Kurt Geisel                       SNAIL :
Carnegie Mellon University            65 Lambeth Dr.
ARPA : [e-mail]           Pittsburgh, PA 15241
UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel  "I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped,
BIX  : kgeisel               briefed, debriefed, or numbered!" - The Prisoner

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

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 11:35:50 CDT
From: Kevin Lightner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ringbacks Revisited

I once read about these ringback numbers in a magazine called Phrack Inc.  I
have recycled the information here.  Below is a partial listing of the ringback
numbers for people in the St. Louis, Missouri (314 NPA) area.  To get your
phone to ring;

1.  Lets say your phone number begins with 432.  Find the CODE for 432, in this
    case the CODE is 575.

2.  Dial 575-XXXX (where XXXX = the last four digits of YOUR phone number).

3.  Wait for the other end to answer.  You should hear a low pitched tone at
    this point.

4.  Flash the switch hook of your telephone and wait for what sounds like a
    faint dial tone.

5.  Hang up your telephone.

6.  <Ring> <ring>   :-)


                     Prefix  CODE            Prefix  Code
                     ------  ----            ------  ----
                      432     575             867     552
                      521     557             868     573
                      522     452             869     574
                      524     557             872     571
                      567     574             921     972
                      569     978             991     552
                      694     972             993     952
                      831     552             994     573
                      837     557             997     977
                      838     573             227     852
                      839     952             527     877

Enjoy!

:Kevin Lightner ([e-mail])
                ([e-mail])

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

Date:  Sat, 22 Apr 89 01:55:20 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI telecommunications needs phone switch hacker

Scott: this one's for you. You already know about it tho,
and it is probably not in California.

When I had a business, I had [phone]. I had MCI install an
in-wats line (that's what we used to call them before they started
calling them 800 numbers). I got 1-800-666-9633. When the business
went under, I transferred the 800 number to my residence line. (617)
354-8676. Recently I decided to cancel the 800 number. I called MCI.
They told me I had to write them a letter explaining that I wanted a
disconnect. I did this. They called me and said they wanted to know
why I was disconnecting. I told them why. This after much telephone
tag. Finally, I got the contact person and she explained that "due to
a problem, beyond their control, they are unable to disconnect the
number." They assured me that if I sent them a copy of my Bill,
they would gladly issue me a credit each month until this gets
resolved.

Meanwhile, I disconnected the line. If you call 1-800-666-9633 you
will get a recording saying 354-8676 is disconnected (until they
reassign it).

I actually have two 800 numbers, but the second one is connected to my
home phone number, and I won't tell you what that is. MCI can't disconnect
that 800 number either. The number is pretty dear to my heart, so I don't
want to disconnect it too.

--jsol


[Moderator's Note: Jonathan A. Solomon was the founder of {TELECOM Digest}
and the moderator of this news group for the first several years of its
existence.   PT]

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

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Followup Report on MultiQuest
Date: 21 Apr 89 19:50:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>If anyone gets specifics on this regards pricing and how it is installed,
>etc, please write it up for publication here.

Installation is similar to 800 service via dedicated access (leased T-1 or,
not cost effective, leased voice grade lines).  This service will not be
available from every AT&T point-of-presence.  It does appear (from the tariff)
that they intend to include at least one point-of-presence in each LATA.

Costs - *FROM TARIFF*:
  Non-Recurring Charges:
    Service Arrangement* (one 900 number)               $1,200
    900 Number Added or Changed                            175/number

  Monthly Charges:
    Service Arrangement*                                 1,000
    Each additional 900 number                             125

  Usage Charges:
    Initial Minute (or fraction)                             0.30
    Each Additional Minute (or fraction)                     0.25

  Note that these charges do not include the access arangement (T-1 or
  voice grade lines) which, here in Pacific Bell teritory, costs $400/month
  for a "local" (0 miles) connection.  I don't know the current installation
  cost for a "local" connection.

  * Service Arrangement includes up to 960 access lines (this isn't mentioned
  in the tariff but is mentioned in the service description I mention below.)

The tariff does not have specifics regarding "Premium Billing" but a service
description sent to me in early February gives some details.

  Caller charges will be based upon the office code (NXX) of the 900 number
as given in the following table:

      NXX     1st Min    Addit Min
      ---     -------    ---------
      344      $0.00       $0.00
      342       0.75        0.00
      786       1.25        0.00
      773       2.00        0.00
      370       0.75        0.50
      420       1.00        0.50
      740       1.25        0.75
      820       1.50        0.75
      860       2.00        1.00

If the "sponsor" selects premium billing then AT&T will charge the
sponsor a "Billing Service Charge" of 10% of the retail price (the amount
the caller pays) in addition to all the tariffed charges mentioned above.

>Multiquest, according to AT&T, is the first national, interactive 900
>service for businesses.
Maybe they were very clever in how they worded this but Telesphere/Media 4
have been offering 900 service for about 2 years.  Perhaps Telesphere doesn't
cover every LATA for inbound service.

It is worth noting that while 900 service is implemented in a fashion similar
to 800 service (except for billing), the per minutes charges ($.30/.25) are
about 150% higher.

A general note about AT&T 900 services:  MultiQuest is diferrent from Dial-It
in that the program is supplied at the sponsors site, allowing interaction
(if the sponsor wishes it).  Dial-It 900 is a mass announcement service
allowing only outgoing messages, all the same.

-Richard J. Edell
 ([e-mail])
 (415-882-7133)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #141
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 22 Apr 89 22:01:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #142
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Apr 89 21:33:57 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Bell claim to cable in my building (Richard Edell)
    Re: Finding your phone number ([e-mail])
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (Kevin Lightner)
    What is the "busy signal number"? (Evelyn C. Leeper)
    Re: Good Supply Sources (Brent Laminack)
    Re: ANI Backfiring Already (from RISKS) (D. W. James)
    Tariffs (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Looking for Houston internet access... (Brian Jay Gould)
    Phone company double billing (Leonard P Levine)
    Telephone Extender (Kevin Lightner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell claim to cable in my building
Date: 21 Apr 89 20:24:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> SWINGLERS%BAYLOR.BITNET
@mitvma.mit.edu (Steve Swingler) writes:
>My local BOC say that they own the feeder cable that is completly within one
>of my dorms.  They plan to remove it.  I was under the impression that this
>cable now belongs to us.
>
>Can someone give me the exact ruling in this type of situation.
>
Unless you've paid for it (either installed it at your expense or bought it
from the RBOC) the cable (I believe it's called House Wire) belongs to the
regional bell operation company (RBOC).  Pacific Bell (in California) has
tariffs filed listing prices for purchasing existing house wire.  These
prices are broken down to things like punch-down blocks, cable feet (by
number of pairs), etc.  The price is based upon the condition of the cable.

If the RBOC owns the cable only the RBOC is allowed to use it (i.e. phone
lines before demarkation point).  You're not supposed to use the wire for
your PBX, computer terminals, or LAN.

If you own the cable you can put your PBX, computer terminals, or LAN on it.
If you want the RBOC to put thier phone lines on your cable then you're
not supposed to have non-FCC registered equipment on the cable.

At my former employer we had a pre-divestiture (AT&T manufactured, RBOC
owned) PBX using house wire for distribution.  This PBX became AT&T property
when the RBOCs were prohibited from leasing customer premise equipment.
So a situation was created where non-RBOC equipment was using RBOC wire.
When we replaced the equipment one of the questions raised by the new
equipment vendor (Pac Tel Info Systems) was the ownership of the house
cable.  We ended-up not buying the cable, just-removing the old PBX and
installing the new on the old cable.  Later we started wireing computer
terminals through the house wire.  It was only after I left this employer
that I learned about the house wire regulations.  I don't know that if
I knew the regulations at the time if it would have changed how we
wired things.

-Richard J. Edell
 ([e-mail])
 (415 882-7133)

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

Date: 21 Apr 89 15:41 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Finding your phone number

>"I'm not sure if this works for all phones in New York State, even though
>all phone service is handled by New York Telephone."

It doesn't and it isn't.  Rochester Telephone Corp. serves the city of
Rochester and an area from Lake Ontario on the north, and roughly half-way
to Buffalo on the west, Syracuse on the east, and well into the Southern
Tier on the south.  The number here is 511.

            - Michel

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

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 11:03:29 CDT
From: Kevin Lightner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number

In the St. Louis (314 NPA) area, you can dial 410-XXX-XXXX (Where the X's are
any phone number that is real in the area) and it will tell you the number
you are dialing from.  In Columbia, MO (also 314), you can dial 530 and it
will do the same.  Both of which by a computer generated voice.

St. Louis is under Southwestern Bell and Columbia is handled by GTE.  Does
anyone else know of more of these?

:Kevin Lightner  ([e-mail])
                 ([e-mail])

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

From: "Evelyn C. Leeper" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the "busy signal number"?
Date: 21 Apr 89 15:07:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ


Does anyone know what the number is that you can dial to get a busy signal?
(Yeah, it's a weird question.)  I believe the exchange doesn't matter, so
it's just the last four digits.

Evelyn C. Leeper   |   [phone]   |   att!mtgzy!ecl or [e-mail]
--

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

From: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good Supply Sources
D).  Apparently they want to increase rates in Mass
for all customers.

What I am wondering, both for Mass. customers and for outside of Mass,
is how the flat-rate/measured-rate fight is going. I now live within
local calling of all the computers I could ever want (;-), and I don't
need metropolitan service and don't have it on any of my lines. That means
if I dial outside of Cambridge, Boston Central exchange, Somerville,
Charlestown, Brookline, Brighton, or Watertown, I incur message units.
Since I don't make any data calls to those areas, and don't talk long voice
on most of my calls, I don't see a problem with that. However, if flat rate
goes away entirely, my phone bill is going to be large.

I remember Patrick telling me that his calls to telenet were message unit
calls, and he was paying about $300.00/month. I think I use the phone far
more than that for data, so my bill in his area would be more like $600.00.
Patrick, can you tell us what the message unit charges per unit are like
in Chicago and what the call to Telenet was (# of message units). Also, is
there a discount for calling at night?

If they take away Metropolitan service, I won't be sorry unless I find
myself moving away from the Cambridge/Boston area. I moved to Cambridge
because I needed direct access to Boston; but now that we have a microwave
to MIT, I can move into Somerville (which doesn't have local calling to
Boston Central -- where the BU dialups are), I can still call MIT and
net over from there. Phew.

On the other hand, if I were to move beyond that small area, I would
incur message unit charges. We have a 3-tier message unit scale. One
message unit calls are 5 minutes long. Each additional message unit is
another 5 minutes, but only for one and two message unit calls (I
think -- Scott ... correct me if I am wrong). Three message unit calls
are expensive. I wouldn't want to make data calls at three message
units.

Something of interest (Carl Moore, you are going to like this one):
Calls from Cambridge to Lynn, Mass are within the metropolitan area,
but are toll for flat rate and measured rate (incl business)
customers.  That means they appear itemized on the bill just like any
other toll call, but you don't have to dial 1 to get them.
Interestingly enough, when you have toll restriction, you can call
Lynn just by dialing the 7 digits, but it's billed as a toll call. The
idea is if you want a toll restricted residential line to be for
public use, get metropolitan service to protect yourself totally.

Cambridge, ex: (617) 354.
Lynn, ex: (617) 599.

The phone book says with metropolitan service you can call any
area which is listed on a certain page (which is all the areas which
are measured service rates), plus Burlington, Lynn, and Saugus. I think
these areas are all toll if you don't have metropolitan service.

It's alot of fun planning for your phone calling needs in Boston.
There are alot of options (including pay phones in nearby locations).

That's it for now.
--jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon was the founder of {TELECOM Digest} and
the moderator of this forum for several years. In a message tomorrow,
I will describe the unit billing scheme used here.  PT]
------------------------------

Subject: WPM and Baud
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 15:50:12 PDT
From: "Willis H. Ware" <[e-mail]>

Perhaps some of you can clarify with certainty a question that I have
asked many telecommunicators and gotten unsure and/or waffling answers.
It concerns bits and baud rates, and units.

In careless usage, I notice (especially among computer types) the use of
baud and bits per second synonymously - which I believe to be a corruption
of the units.  I'm familiar with the old mechanical TWX machines and their
mechanical commutators, so I know that they transmitted a start pulse, 5
data pulses (a Baudot character) and a stop pulse per rev of the commutator
and thus, per character transmitted.

I also know where the name Baudot code comes from and the derivation of
Baud from the proper name.

My hunch is that Baud, in a rigorous sense, ought to be used only in
connection with a character group of the telecom system in question and to
designate the rate of transmission of such character groups, be they the
7-bit groups of the old TWX, or the 8-bit groups of byte-oriented systems.
Thus the relationship between Baud and bps (I'll assert) will be variable
and dependent upon the system under discussion, if the term is used with
rigor and precision.  In elaborate systems that incorporate error-control
and other things, the bps and (for example) the bytes per sec will not
differ by 8 but some larger number dependent on various technical details
of the transmission format, including extra bits added for error control.

OR maybe the accessory (so to speak) bits are never counted?  Maybe
a Baudot character is really 5 bits - ignoring the start and stop.  Maybe
error checking bits are never counter?

Can you confirm any of this or point me to a precise definition of Baud?
Of is this one of those things that the technical field is generally
careless about?

Incidentally, I occasionally run across someone that would like to
use "elements per second" but it's a careless synonym for bits per
second.

On a related topic ..

It seems to me that the "word" of Words Per Minute has always taken to  be
5  characters  which  would make (say) 65 WPM equate to 325 characters per
minute.  If my argument above  for  meaning  of Baud is accurate,  then
dividing by 7 (1+5+1) would yield a baud rate of about 46.  OR maybe the
divisor is 5 in which case the baud rate would be 65.

I will appreciate any comments that you care to make.  Thnx for your
thoughts.

                    Willis H. Ware
                    RAND Corp
                    Santa Monica, CA 90406
                    willis @ rand.org




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

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 17:41:42 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: speaking of ringbacks

My family has a house in Litchfield, CT.  Up there the ringback works a little
differently.  All you have to do to get one is:

1. Dial YOUR OWN number.

2. Listen for a "beep beep beep...." tone (not a reorder.....about twice as
   fast as a reorder).

3. Hang up

4. Wait about 10 seconds and your phone starts ringing.  You can then pick up
   and hang up and it'll still keep ringing.

5. To stop the ringback, pick up, wait about 10 seconds with the line off hook.
   The beeping will stop.  Then hang up and all is well again.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\******/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Gabe Wiener -- Columbia University   \****/ "It doesn't matter how sincere it
                      \**/   is, nor how heart-felt the spirit.
INTERNET: [e-mail]  \/    Sentiment will not endear it.
BITNET:   gmw1@cunixc                  /\    What's important is the price."
COMPUSERVE: 72355,1226                /**\           - Tom Lehrer
WUI: 650-117-9118                    /****\                  on gift giving
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/******\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

From: [e-mail] (John Menges)
Subject: Automated Telephone Calls
Date: 23 Apr 89 00:29:01 GMT


I'm looking for a box to do the following:

- Initiate and receive voice telephone calls (one at a time is ok).
- Speak messages (from arbitrary text, not pre-recorded) well enough
  for a small number of experienced users to understand.  Better speech
  preferable, of course.
- Interact with user by speaking messages, receiving responses via
  DTMF tones, and determining its sequence of actions accordingly.
- Interact with a computer (preferably via TCP/IP, but serial line
  or file system (TOPS or NFS) is ok).  Can send call progress
  and DTMF responses to computer, can receive call initiation info
  (phone numbers, arbitrary messages, interaction scripts, etc.)
  from computer.  Preferably can do so during a conversation and
  determine its sequence of actions accordingly.  Can notify computer
  when it is busy.

Immediate application is network/host monitoring by computer (UNIX),
which notifies operations personnel via email, syslog, and/or telephone
of abnormal events and receives authorization code and "what to do"
commands via DTMF.  Alternatively, operator can call in to request
certain status or that certain actions be taken.

The more direct the connection between the controlling computer and
the voice line, the better.  E.g., it would be best if the box
only speaks and decodes DTMF tones, and the computer makes decisions,
tells the box what to speak, etc.

Does anybody have experience with such a box?  How about the Teleflex
from Information Systems International Inc.?  A big disadvantage
of this box is that the connection to UNIX is less than direct, as
it communicates with a MacIntosh.  Ideas?  Is there a better newsgroup
for this?

I'm interested in all such systems, regardless of cost, but what I put
together will probably have to be < $10K.  Primary consideration is
how easy it will be to put together.

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $4K T-1 for real?
Date: 22 Apr 89 08:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


[e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 139, message 6 of 7
>Well, I'm no expert in x-continental T-1 pricing [...]
>but I suspect that sattelite based circuits will get cheaper and cheaper.

The bottom is falling fast on terrestrial T1 lines.  AT&T dropped
their rates a little while ago, and MCI just followed suit.  From
the April _Data_Communications_

    Fixed Term Plans:

            1year    2years    3years    4years    5years
    Per circuit:    5880$    5880$    5880$    5880$    5880$
    Per mile:     171$     142$     142$     123$     123$

Personally, I think anybody who signs on the line for that 5-year
plan must be nuts.
--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337

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

From: Doug Krause <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Date: 23 Apr 89 11:18:56 GMT
Reply-To: Doug Krause <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Irvine



If nothing else, the phone company could contact the person that
you called and say, "Who called you at 9:16pm on the 23rd of June?"

Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!

University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: [e-mail]
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

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

Reply-To: toto![e-mail]
Subject: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT?
Date: 22 Apr 89 14:02:40 CST (Sat)
From: Bill Cerny <toto![e-mail]>

Do you have this service in Illinois Bell?  One of our associates
tells me this service is called "Modem Call Privacy," but I haven't
been able to confirm that yet.  And does IBT charge extra for this
feature?  Pac*Bell provides it free with Call Waiting; a logical way
to sell Call Waiting in the Silicon Valley I reckon.  8-)

--
Bill Cerny
[e-mail]  (fax: [phone])


[Moderator's Note: Suspend Call Waiting is available throughout area 312
with the possible exception of the Morton Grove CO. It was not available
on those prefixes as of a year ago, but that may have changed. We use *70
to turn it on, and it disconnects itself when you hang up the phone. You
turn it on prior to dialing your call, as in '*70-123-4567'. If you have
three way calling you can also use it on calls you receive as well as at
anytime in the middle of a call. Just flash, get dial tone, and dial *70.
It clicks and you are automatically reconnected to the call in progress.
Obviously, without three way calling there is no valid reason for flashing
in the middle of a call (short of receiving another call), so flashing
won't work, ergo, turning on *70 in mid-conversation or for an inbound
call won't work without three way calling also installed.

One oddity here is that if you have two lines which hunt each other on
busy/no answer as I do, they will never hunt if you also have call-waiting,
since hunting requires that the line test busy, which it won't do. But
when I turn on *70, presto the line appears 'truly busy' and subsequent
calls get forced over to my second physical line. Neat!   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #143
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 24 Apr 89 1:58:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #144
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Apr 89 01:34:01 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Unit Billing in Chicago (TELECOM Moderator)
    Speaking of Starline... (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 24 Apr 89 0:14:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Unit Billing in Chicago

For quite a few (like sixty) years, Illinois Bell offered several options
for unit billing. The choice was yours, depending on the community you lived
in and a few other factors. Units could be purchased in blocks of zero,
thirty, eighty, one-hundred forty and two hundred at a time. These had to
be used up during the month. You pre-subscribed for the number you thought
you would need, taking care not to oversubscribe and waste any. If you used
up your entire pre-paid package, additional units were billed to you, but
at a price slightly more expensive than pre-paid. The more units you bought
in advance, the cheaper they were. Units ranged in price from five and a
half cents (the person who bought zero to begin with) to as little as three
and nine-tenths cents each for the purchaser of two hundred who ran over
and had to pay for more.

Calls within your city or town were one unit, regardless of how long you
talked. Five minutes or five hours, it was still just a single unit. Calls
to other towns were billed on a time/mileage basis. Rates were typically
three or four units to start with, and another unit every minute or two.
You were free to use your prepaid units in any combination you desired between
local (in your town) calls and calls to other nearby northern Illinois
communities.

For heavy users, three additional plans were available: 'call pack unlimited'
permitted calling anywhere within a twenty-eight mile radius of downtown
Chicago without regard to units. Calls beyond twenty-eight miles from downtown
were billed as coin-rated calls. Obviously the cards were stacked in favor
of business places in the downtown area. People on the outer edges of
the ring, twenty-eight miles from downtown could call *into the city* as
often as desired; let them call as little as a mile outside of town to the
west/north/northwest/southest of them, and the coin rates kicked in.

A second plan called 'extended call pack unlimited' resembled the other
bulk plan, but allowed calling up to forty miles from downtown with no
regard to units. The third bulk plan was 'metro call pack unlimited' which
allowed unlimited calling throughout all of area 312, along with parts of
area 815 and a single prefix from area 414.

People in Chicago proper loved the call packs, obviously, especially if
their calls were mainly to suburbs where the time/milage factor was present.
But for suburbanites in the outer suburbs, the whole thing sucked, because
their choices were limited to local (within their town, all six blocks of
it) local calling - or - get the metro call pack unlimited in order to
call even a few miles away, if they were unfortunate enough to sit on the
outside of the 28 or 40 mile ring which circled downtown Chicago. Bell did
offer a service called 'Pick-A-Point' which allowed a special discount on
calls to pre-selected exchanges for a small monthly fee, but there were
problems with that also.

The people who wanted to get rid of the call packs and 'untimed local calls'
(although local calls *did* cost one unit each) were in organizations like
CUB -- the Citizen's Utility Board -- and similar consumer activist groups.
They wanted a pay-as-you-use-it system for everyone, based on calculations
which were obviously stacked in favor of the suburbanites. Don't forget,
Chicago is thirty miles from one side of town to the other, and we could
call a million phones over a twenty or twenty five mile area 'locally'
on an untimed call basis. The suburbanites could not do that.

Illinois Bell put a new plan into effect in March, 1987 which applied to
everyone in their service territory in northern Illinois. The plan eliminated
*all* unlimited call pack arrangements and prepaid unit packages. The new
plan gave untimed calls for one unit to everyone within approximatly an
eight mile radius of yourself. Each CO can call the CO's on any side of
it as a local, untimed call. The political and geographic boundaries between
the various towns no longer matter.

Calls outside the eight mile area are charged multiple units, based on time
and distance *and time of day*. Your local calling zone is always
Zone A. Zone B is 8-15 miles away; Zone C is 15-40 miles from you;
and Zone D is anything more than 40 miles away (from wherever you happen
to be).

In Zone A, a distinction is made between residence phones and business phones
as follows:
                 8 AM - 9 PM    9 PM - 8 AM
First minute:        1.0            0.7        Residence
                     0.7            0.4        Business
Additional Mins      0.3            0.2        Business
Additional Minutes do not apply on local Zone A calls from residence phones.

Zone B calls:

First Minute:        1.6            1.1        All phones
Additional Mins      0.6            0.4        All phones

Zone C calls:

First Minute:        2.1            1.4        All phones
Additional Mins      0.8            0.5        All phones

Zone D calls:

First Minute:        3.6            2.4        All phones
Additional Mins      1.3            0.9        All phones

Calls made during the nighttime hours are given a thirty-three percent
discount *in the number of units used* as can be seen from the above chart.

The cost of units goes down as you consume more. Of course by making most
of your calls during the overnight hours, it takes longer to use the
required number of units. At the end of your billing period, the number
of units you have used are tallied, and priced thus:

From 1 - 50        units  x  .052 cents each  =  2.60
From 51-100        units  x  .050 cents each  =  2.50
From 101-200       units  x  .048 cents each  =  4.80
From 201-500       units  x  .045 cents each  =  13.50
From 501-1000      units  x  .043 cents each  =  21.50
From 1001-2000     units  x  .040 cents each  =  40.00
In excess of 2001  units  x  .035 cents each

As an example, 500 units would cost $23.40, with a certain number purchased
at each of the intervening price steps shown above. 2000 units would cost
$84.90. To this, you add the 'network access fee', plus other charges for
non-pub service or additional listings, 'wire maintainence', if you choose
to have it, and of course, custom calling fees. Uncle Sugar gets his portion
as well.

When we city people could call 'locally' for one unit and talk all
day, I had a call-pack unlimited and was going through 2000+ units per month
with my modem. When the changes went into effect I quickly quit making modem
calls outside my local 8 mile area (zone A) with the exception of calls
to the Telenet switch which is in Chicago-Lakeshore, a *zone B* place. I
called via Telenet/PC Pursuit to (a) Portal Communications in San Jose,
CA; and to the (then) home-base for [TELECOM Digest] in Boston. Despite
the fact that I cut out virtually all modem calling outside my local area
except for the call to Telenet, I was still on line there for two to three
hours per day and still going through 2000+ units per month! The first few
months of my moderation of this digest brought me telephone bills of
$300 or more per month as a reward. Granted, that included my AT&T long
distance calls and the various charges associated with my Starline service,
but it was still eating me alive.

I dropped Portal in February this year, and began using Chinet for local
access to Usenet. Chinet, located in Chicago-Kildare is zone A. The digest
moved to Northwestern University, Evanston, IL which is now a local, zone
A call for me also. In the old days, Evanston would have been timed, with
the clock running on all my calls there. My March phone bill had slightly
over 700 units on it, a considerable drop from the months before.  And
even though the units cost me slightly more since it takes me longer to
cross the threshold of 50/100/200/500 units consumed, the overall bill is
probably less since I rarely use the modem until after 9 PM at night, or
on weekends when the one third discount on *usage* (not price, mind you!)
also applies, as of a couple months ago.

When IBT dumped the old, unlimited call-pack plans, the loudest screams
came from the modem users and the work from home telephone solicitors,
needless to say. Where before unlimited call pack cost me about $80 per
month and I would stay on the modem for literally hours at a time to far-
away suburbs, the same calling practices now would run me hundreds of
dollars. But, the new plan is fairer to all concerned. After all, modem
users are still a small minority of the total customer base of the phone
company. The people who rejoiced in the new arrangement were those folks
who lived in the suburbs (about 50 percent of our metro population) who
*had* to take unlimited plans based around downtown Chicago or else pay
through the nostrils to call a mile or two from their home 'locally'.

People on fixed incomes who make little use of the phone for outgoing calls
also love the new arrangement. The old plan cost them on an average about
$12-15 per month; under the new plan they pay $8.50 for the line and
and the network access fee, but only pennies for the few outgoing
calls they might make each month.

Suffice to say, the modem users raised plenty of hell though!   :)


Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Mon, 24 Apr 89 1:31:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Speaking of Starline...

I briefly mentioned Starline in the last message, and have had a few other
inquiries about how it works, so I might as well cover that today also.

Starline is a 'residential centrex' offering from Illinois Bell. Other telcos
also offer it under various names. It combines existing custom calling
features with several additional features which give the user a tremendous
degree of control over the use of his phone lines.

Starline can be installed on 2-6 lines at the same residence. Each line
receives its own CO number, so if you have a roommate, or other members of
the family who need to make/receive calls independent of your own,
they can have their own number.

Under Starline, these additional custom calling features are available:

Answer any incoming call from any phone. If it is not the phone near you,
then use that phone and dial *9. Call is automtically switched over to your
line.

Transfer inbound or outbound calls to any other line. Flash, dial the
desired intercom code, announce call and hangup. Call is transferred. You
can also transfer incoming or outgoing CO calls to another CO number if
desired. Unlike three way calling, where you must be a party to the call
between two outside points, under Starline you can transfer an outside call
to another outside point then disconnect; leaving them connected.

Intercom calling between various phones. Not to be confused with speed dialing,
which is also available. Intercom numbers #2 through #7 are assigned
to the (up to six) phone lines. No charge for intercom calls.

Distinctive ringing between intercom calls and CO calls. CO calls have a
short, double ring sound. Intercom calls have a single longer ring. You
can identify the source of the call to detirmine the desired answer phrase.
There are also distinctive call waiting tones.

Call forwarding of course transfers incoming CO calls to some other place.
Under Starline, intercom calls override call forwarding, and ring through.
Call forwarding can be straightforward on all calls, or it can be done under
a provision called 'forward on busy or no answer' (after three rings). The
forwarding can simply be to another number in your group, or to some other
CO line.

Call Hold and Call Parking is accomplished by flashing, then dialing *8.
At that point, simply leave the phone off hook. The call remains on hold
and can be retrieved from some other line by going off hook and dialing
*9. Or the original line can pick the call up by hanging up for a second,
waiting for the phone to ring, then answering.

Call Waiting does require an extra step not required in conventional custom
calling. Ordinarily you hear the tone and simply flash, to bring the other
party on the line. Repeated flashing switches between parties. Under Starline
there are several things one can do when flashing, so the additional step
of dialing *8 to put the existing party on hold is required; then dialing
*9 to retrieve the new call if it is on some other line than your own.

Under Starline, you can process call-waiting calls from either end of the
stack. That is, you can 'pop the stack' and take the one on the bottom
and transfer it elsewhere all the while leaving the latest caller on hold.
Under conventional custom calling, one cannot start a three way call while
a call-waiting condition exists, since flashing the hook simply
switches  between callers. One can answer a call-waiting condition
while a three way call is in progress, but you still have problems getting
a new three way call going until the call-waiting person is gone. All these
manipulations are quite easy under Starline, due to the additional
step of entering *8 which is required to force a party on or off hold,
leaving the switchhook free to do other things.

Starline automatically comes with a 30 number speed dial repretoire. The
speed numbers can be programmed from any line in the system and accessed
from any line in the system using access codes *20 through *49. They are
programmed using *75.

Units charged on any line are billed to a master account for the purpose
of accumulating them for volume discount purposes; however they can be
billed individually if desired. Likewise, on long distance calls, your
long distance carrier can show the various numbers in your group under
one account if desired for the benefits of whatever bulk pricing options
are available; however the calls will show up on your bill broken down
by actual line they were made from.

All in all, I like Starline. It gives me *tremendous* control over the
phone, and the way calls are answered and disposed of. IBT charges $5.50
per line/month in addition to what the custom calling features would
normally cost.

Patrick Townson
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #144
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 25 Apr 89 0:20:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #145
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Apr 89 00:04:30 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Missouri: PSC Bans Operator Companies (Rich Zellich)
    Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth (Scott Statton)
    Flash! (Was: Re: Centrex) (Otto J. Makela)
    Southwestern Bell's QuickSource (Bill Cerny)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Linc Madison)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Neil Ostroff)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Tim Pozar)

[Moderator's Note: You would have to be an old man to remember a famous
radio news broadcaster, Gabriel Heater. Very much a cynic, Heater seldom
had anything good to say about anyone he didn't like. But about once
every six months or so, something would happen which he really enjoyed,
and on those days he would always begin his broadcast by saying, "There
is good news tonight...". And I start this issue of the Digest in the
same way: Good News! for folks in Missouri, at least. Read our first
article, submitted by Rich Zellich.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 24 Apr 89 21:46:44 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Missouri: PSC Bans Operator Companies

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 Apr 89.
---
          P S C    B a n s   O p e r a t o r   C o m p a n i e s
By Jerri Stroud
Of the Post-Dispatch Staff
  The Missouri Public Service Commission voted 4-1 last week to ban providers
of so-called alternative operator services in Missouri because allowing the
companies to operate is "not in the public interest."

  Alternative operator services companies contract with hotels, motels
colleges, hospitals, airports, restaurants and other facilities to provide
operator assistance to customers using pay telephones or house phones.
Consumer groups have complained about price-gouging by the companies
nationwide.

  Mark Wheatley, a lawyer for the Office of Public Counsil [sic], praised the
commission's decision.

  The Office of Public Counsel has received numerous complaints about excessive
rates and surcharges by alternative operator services companies, said Wheatley.
Some alternative operator services companies also have accepted other
companies' credit cards without authorization from the companies issuing the
cards, he said.

"We feel that it's an extremely important decision by the commission." said
Wheatley.  But he said he expects the companies affected by the ruling to
appeal.

  Lawyers for the alternative operator services companies could not be reached
for comment.

  In it's ruling, the commission said many consumers aren't aware of the rates
charged by the alternative operator services companies until they receive "a
bill for operator services at prices higher than those to which he is
accustomed."  Consumer groups say the rates often are twice or three times the
rates charged by better-known long-distance companies.

 Even if an operator service company identifies itself when a consumer makes a
call, the commission said many consumers don't understand the significance of
the identification.

 "If the end user is not educated as to the intricacies of using an alternative
operator services provider, he does not truly have a meaningful choice..." the
commission said.

  The ruling only affects intrastate calls handled by alternative operator
services companies, but it may effectively prevent the companies from providing
interstate service as well.

  The commission specifically denied tariff requests from International
Telecharge Inc. and American Operator Services Inc.  The commission also
directed three other companies - Teleconnect Inc., Dial US and Dial USA - to
file new tariffs consistent with the ruling.

  The ruling allows companies to operate who provide operator services in
connection with their business - long-distance carriers and local telephone
companies, for example.  But the commission also placed limits on these
companies.

  Under the ruling, operator services companies must:
  * Identify themselves to the caller as well as to the party being billed by
    the call (in the case of a collect or third-party call).
  * Quote rates to the caller or billed party on request, without charge.
  * Use calling card verification procedures acceptable to the companies
    issuing the cards.
  * Post in a prominent position the company's name, detailed complaint
    procedures and instruction on how to reach the local telephone company
    operator and other long-distance carriers.
  * Transfer emergency traffic to the local telephone company or American
    Telephone & Telegraph Co. until the alternative services provider can show
    that it can handle emergency calls adequately.
---

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

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 20:34:18 EDT
From: Scott Statton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth


In a recent digest, Willis H. Ware writes asking questions about the
relation between baud rate and bit rate.  There's a lot of hand-waving
about Baudot and character length and the like, but the basic question
was "what is baud rate vs. bit rate".

Definition #1:  Baud rate is the reciprocal of the duration of the
shortest signalling element.  Or, "elements-per-second".

Definiton #2:  Bit rate is the number of data bits transmitted from
point A to point Z in one second.

Take the case of a Bell 103 FSK modem, (0 - 300 baud, asyncronous) at
300 baud/bits-per-second.

A one bit is transmitted as 3.333 mS of "mark tone" and a zero bit is
transmitted as 3.333 mS of "space tone" (where mark is either 2225 or
1270 for Answer or Originate respectively, and space is either, 2025
or 1070 for Answer/Originate).  In this case, the "signalling element"
for either tone is 3.333 mS, for a "baud rate" of 300.

Now, for example, let's consider the Bell 212A 1200 bit-per-second
modem.  This uses a carrier of 1800 Hz Answer, and 1200 Hz originate,
that is not frequency shift keyed, but instead is phase shifted.
There are four phase shifts (it's either { 0, 90, 180, 270 } or { 45,
135, 225, 315 } I confuse formats in my head ) each shift representing
two bits.   For sake of argument, assume the following table (but I'm
sure it's wrong)

 00 = 90 shift
 01 = 180
 10 = 0
 11 = 270

In other words, each signalling element sends TWO bits, for a BAUD
rate of 600 (1200 bps / 2).  In a APSK system, such as 9600 bd.
half-duplex, there are several phase/amplitude combinations,
representing 8 or 16 states, ergo 3 or 4 bits, and thus a baud rate of
3200 or 2400 (depending on complexity of the format).

In a transmission system, there are two constraints to "information
speed".  These are (1) Bandwidth, and (2) Signal-to-Noise ratio.  The
maximum BAUD rate is related (directly and linearly) to Bandwidth.
The maximum number of bits per baud (signalling element) is related
(logarithmically) to the S/NR.  This is what prevents the development
of high-speed modems.  The bandwidth of a phone line is hard limited
to approx. 2700 Hz.  (300 Hz - 3.0 kHz) and there is a finite amount
of S/NR.  (I'm at jsol's house, so I don't have my notes on all of
this).

For a more detailed discussion of the topic, go to your local library
and look up Claude Shannon, who pioneered the field of "information
theory" and proved mathematically why all of this works.



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

From: [e-mail] (Otto J. Makela)
Subject: Flash! (Was Re: Centrex)
Date: 23 Apr 89 21:52:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Otto J. Makela)
Organization: Grand Hall of Justice, Mega-City One

Well, talking about flash buttons that are not the same as "flashing" the
handset... over here at the other end of the galaxy, there are two types of
flash buttons existent: the red ones and the white ones.  The Red Button
does the same as "flashing" the handset, but it's timed.  The White Button
shorts the "3rd cable" (all our phone plugs are three-pronged) with the, er,
"ring".  On a normal 2-wire telephone line you of course need the red one.
Many small exchanges however use 3-wiring, so the flash signal is a kind of
a offband signal, albeit a simple one...

Otto J. Makela (with poetic license to kill), University of Jyvaskyla

InterNet: [e-mail], BitNet: [e-mail]
BBS: [phone] (V.22bis/V.22/V.21, 24h/d), Phone: [phone]
Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE

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

From: Bill Cerny <toto![e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell's QuickSource
Date: 24 Apr 89 16:15:09 GMT
Organization: Telecomm Research Associates, St. Marys, KS


SWBTCo is running a one year trial (Mar 89 - Mar 90) of two information
services: QuickSource (audiotex) and Sourceline (videotext).  The
latter requires a terminal of some type, but the former only requires a
touch tone phone for access.  The QuickSource number is 323-2000, but
cannot be accessed via 1+713+; SWBTCo has blocked access to "the
Houston metro area served by SWBTCo," according to the script the woman
reads to you when ask for help (713-865-5777; not blocked).  The help
desk will send you a free QuickSource directory though.

I understand that QuickSource is a free call.  If so, is there a Houston
reader who'd volunteer to call forward to QuickSource on a "trial"
basis?  8-)

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

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 23:02:58 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work

When I was in Australia in 1987, I placed a couple of calls to the US
billed either collect or third-number.  The Australian operator called
a US operator to do a "coin phone check" on the number billed.  My
impression was that this was a specific check not automatically done.
In short, the trick of calling from a pay phone and billing third-number
to another pay phone will work unless the operator does a coin check.
The most likely route to apprehending the person using this trick would
be to inquire of the person called whom they know in the area of the
origin of the call.  The closest it could come to airtight would be to
call from a payphone to a payphone billed to a third payphone.

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

From: N Ostroff <nvuxh![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Date: 24 Apr 89 15:10:07 GMT
Reply-To: Neil Ostroff <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore (Red Bank, NJ)


In volume 9, issue 141, message 2, [e-mail] (Kurt A. Geisel)
describes how to make free long distance phone calls by calling collect
from pay phone A to a friend waiting at pay phone B.

About two years ago this scheme made headline news in New York
City.  It worked so well that NY Telephone disabled incoming
calls to pay phones while the problem was solved.  What made the
fraud possible was a change in pay phone NXX codes.  When fewer
pay phones existed, they all shared the same NXX codes.  Only pay
phones were assigned these numbers.  In this way, an operator
could immediately tell whether a collect call or third-party
billed call was being directed to a pay phone by checking
the NXX code - obviously the operator would say something
clever like, "I'm sorry, your call can not go through." when a
caller tried this trick.  However, NY Tel started numbering pay
phones with arbitrary NXX codes making it impossible for an
operator to differentiate between pay phones and regular phones
in NYC.  At least this was true until phone companies installed a
database to identify all phones unwilling or unable to accept
collect and third-party billed calls.  I'd be surprised if your
friend can still call from pay phone A to another person at pay
phone B.

Neil Ostroff
Bell Communications Research
UUCP : bcr!maestro!nao


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

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 14:29:50 PDT
From: Tim Pozar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Reply-To: Tim Pozar <hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kurt A. Geisel) writes:
>1)  Place a call from a pay phone, but go through the long distance
>operator and tell them that you want to charge to number x.
>
>2)  Give them the number of another payphone.
>
>3)  Have friend answer the payphone and agree to accept charges.
>
>4)  The call goes through (!) and presumable the payphone gets "charged"!
>
>Now, it would seem to me that the operator would be able to see right
>away that the number to charge to was a payphone.  It shouldn't work
>unless this service branch is surprisingly ignorant.  Furthermore, after
>doing for months, the phone company should eventually realize
>that this bills are going into the ether...
>
>Is this for real?  Will they ever find out?  Will this misguided person
>get a mysterious bill at the end of his college education for $50,453.23?
     In this area, pay fone numbers used to start with a '9'
(ie. xxx-9xxx).  Operators would be able to identify pay phones
in this manner.  I imagine in this day and age of ESS systems,
that there must be some indication that a number is a payphone
since when I try to charge calls to another number from
payphones, the operator needs to get an ok from the charged
number, and when I do this from a private phone the operator
just puts the call through.

      I do know that when fradlent billing occurs, the phone
company will call the numbers that the caller called and ask the
people who called during those times to track the person down.
If this guy that is doing this, only did once or twice, he may
get away with it.  If he is doing this all the time, he will get
caught.

              Tim


--
 ...sun!hoptoad!\                                     Tim Pozar
                 >fidogate!pozar               Fido:  1:125/406
  ...lll-winken!/                            PaBell:  [phone]
       USNail:  KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #145
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 25 Apr 89 2:02:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #146
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Apr 89 00:45:56 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Finding out that phone number (John Wheeler)
    Re: Finding out that phone number (Davin Milun)
    Re: Finding out that phone number (Linc Madison)
    Cancel-Call Waiting (Scott Statton)
    Automatic Box (Scott Statton)
    Re: ANI Backfiring Already (Torsten Dahlkvist)
    Dialed Number Readout and MATCO (Bill Gerosa)
    Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Peter da Silva)
    "Natural monopoly" on airport pay phones (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding out that phone number
Date: 25 Apr 89 02:56:03 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


That number in Atlanta (yes, this is a weird one) is 940-222-2222.
(Nothing happens until the 10th digit is entered.) You get a computer
voice telling you your number.

John


--
          Turner                                       John Wheeler
     E N T E R T A I N M E N T     ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw
                Networks
     Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Finding out that phone number
Date: 25 Apr 89 03:39:45 GMT
Reply-To: Davin Milun <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science


In most of the New York metro area (212,718,516,914), simply dialing
958 will have the NYTel computer read back your number to you. This has
worked from all private and business phones that I have tried it on; but
it only seems to work on some public (coin) phones (which is of course
when it is useful!)

Davin.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davin Milun    Internet:  [e-mail]
               uucp:      ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!milun
               BITNET:    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:57:41 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding out that phone number

Patrick Townson (Telecom moderator) suggested placing a collect call to
a number you control and checking the bill as a way of finding out the
number you were calling from.  Time lags aside, there is one other snag
to this plan: if you happen to live in Pacific Bell territory, the call
will be listed as "From WhateverCity" with no telephone number listed --
only the city of origin for collect, third-number, and calling-card calls.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: I think that is more a matter of how they get the tickets
from the podunk telco rather than any set policy at Pacific Bell. Chances
are the operator who originated the call did not bubble in the calling number
and the ticket went through without it. Many small telcos still have no
way to identify the phone number which is connected to the operator unless
she asks for the number (and the person tells the truth). When I get them
with only a city listed and no number, I call the Business Office. They
will investigate, and get back to me 2-6 weeks later with an actual number
in most cases. If they cannot locate the calling number and you continue
to dispute the call, IBT will write it off. The funniest one I ever saw
came after I once accepted a collect call from someone calling me from a
toll station in Nevada. The bill said 'From Other Place, NV 702-181-0002'.
Seriously.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 20:49:41 EDT
From: Scott Statton <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cancel-Call Waiting


Is the "generic" name for this service.

It is avaliable on all 1A and 5 ESS, and on DMS100 with the expanded
memory option.


I thought that Call-Forward-Busy or Hunting (They're actually slightly
different features) and Call-Waiting were mutually exclusive.

My question is:  If you con the person at RCMAC to put them both on
one line, which takes precedence in which software versions?

Patrick:  What kind of CO do you have?

[Moderator's Note: I think Chicago is all digital ESS now. I know my
local office, Chicago-Rogers Park is an excellent, very neat switch. How I
came to get hunting and call-waiting on the same account is this: I have had
these two phone numbers for about 15 years. My grandparents had the numbers
before me, so I guess that's 70 years in the family. My grandparents were
the first subscribers on the Sheldrake exchange in 1919, literally, they
were 'Sheldrake 1'. The first line hunted to the second longer than I can
remember. In 1984 when we got ESS and custom calling, I asked for call-waiting
and they said they would put it on the second line, but not the first. When
Starline came out two years ago, I ordered it. I think I was one of the
first people here to get it. *Nobody* at Bell knew how to program it
correctly. I still have the 'old style' hunt; which they forgot to remove,
along with everything else. It was always free, so they are not out any
money because of it.

The order of priorities is this: If call forwarding is on, then calls dialed
*direct* to that number are forwarded. Intercom calls and calls which hunt
to that line ring through, despite forwarding.

If call forwarding is not turned on (either line) then incoming calls first
attempt to get through on call-waiting. If they cannot get through on call-
waiting because both 'sides' of the call-waiting are busy or the phone is
merely off hook, dialing, or being rung on an incoming call, then busy signal
is returned to the caller. The only time the 'old style' hunt is activated
is when *70 has turned off call-waiting. Then a second call to that line
hunts to the other physical line. If I dial my own number, I get a busy
signal unless I dial *70 my number, in which case I hear the other line
start ringing.   Clear on tbat?  PT]
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 20:45:35 EDT
From: Scott Statton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic Box


You're looking for a Dialogic card and a PC.

Things a Dialogic card does:
 1)  Record/playback messages from the disk (approx. 3kbytes per
second of pretty natural sounding speech).
 2)  Send/receive DTMF signalling.
 3)  Detect "precise" call-progress tones.
 4)  Easy to use from C, Basic, Assembly, with lots of good examples.
 5)  Costs approx. $1000
 6)  Handles 4 phone lines independantly.
 7)  Is FCC Part 68 compliant.

Watch this space for where they are located and a phone number (once
again, if I were at HOME, I'd have this info).

P.S.  I'm STILL looking for a job in California.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ANI Backfiring Already
Date: 24 Apr 89 08:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


In article <[e-mail]>
various quotations are given on the "undesiredness" of the ANI service
provided by ISDN. Having worked on the Swedish ISDN project (run by Swedish
State Telecom and ERICSSON) for several years, I would like to claim that
the problem is mostly one of information and education.

The users who have seen the ANI service (we call it Calling Party Number
Identification or A-number transfer but yout term ANI is shorter) have so far
reacted favourably. Partly this may be because we haven't as yet reached beyond
the engineers and tech-happies with our demos, but I don't think this can be
the whole answer.

The service, as we've implemented it, where the received numbers are stored
in the terminal for easy call-back has been very well received so far, but I
think the need for information to the users is paramount. The potential for
*very* user-friendly facilities lies within our reach if we don't scare the
users away. This means that the phone-company staff, especially those dealing
with customer contacts and information, must be educated on the possibilities
and consequences of ISDN.

>Besides the RISK of alienating customers with ANI, there is a pervasive fear
>among prospective ANI implementors that callers will raise legal objections
>to ANI once they know how it works.  People with unlisted phone numbers are
>expected to spearhead that movement.


Once users and journalists REALLY find out how ANI works, they will also know
that the subscriber who so wishes can elect to have his number NOT sent to
the other subscriber. This is normally a fixed value, set in the exchange
according to the wishes of the subscriber. Subscribers with unlisted phone
numbers are an obvious example of users who should automatically be set as
"No ANI". As a matter of fact, according to the CCITT spec. the service should
be implemented in such a way that the caller can specify FOR EACH CALL whether
he wants to send ANI or not. The default (to send or not to send) is a central
setting, set by the administration. Then the subscriber can order an individual
setting for his line, which becomes his own default (overriding the central)
and then he has the opition to counter his own default, on a call-by-call
basis, if he desires. So the secrecy-minded user will have his line blocked
against ANI and that's it. If public opinion against ANI becomes strong enough
the default can be set to No ANI and only those specifically wanting it will
get it.

At least, that's the way ERICSSON has implemented it. Maybe AT&T doesn't
offer these choices to the users (heh, heh, heh...)?

Maybe I should have sent this to the RISKS forum, but this is where I read
it. Sorry it grew so long.

E-mail questions on ISDN services welcome.



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

From: Bill Gerosa <bucsb![e-mail]>
Subject: Dialed Number Readout and MATCO
Date: 25 Apr 89 02:45:15 GMT
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.



  Does anyone know where I can obtain a DNR (Dialed Number Readout) that operates with pulse and tone dialing?  MATCO Electronics used to sell a DNR kit a few years back, however I have not been able to locate them recently.  Does anyone know if they are still in business?  If see please post the address.

  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

  Bill

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

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 22:06:24 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?

I suspect 713, Houston, is in the running as the largest local calling area.
Don't have figures offhand.
---
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, [e-mail], [phone].
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, [e-mail].


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

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:53:05 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Natural monopoly" on airport pay phones


Rich Straka wrote recently:
>Of course, the airport pay phone is a bit of a different animal.  There is
>enough demand to support several suppliers here.  It does appear to the busy
>traveller, however, that he is facing a slightly less than competitive
>situation.  This is due to a real lack of information about the services the
>customer is trying to acquire.

It may also because the traveller is facing an enormously less-than-competitive
situation, because the airport may have signed a contract with an AOS to give
them exclusive rights to all public phones in the airport.  If that particular
AOS is nasty about connecting to other carriers, you have no competition.  We
can only hope that the recent FCC ruling will make a tiny dent in this
practice.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #146
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 26 Apr 89 2:41:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #147
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 26 Apr 89 02:34:52 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Washington DC & suburban calling areas (John Boteler)
    Re: Automated Telephone Calls (Ken Levitt)
    1-800 ABC DEFG vs 1-800 123 4567 (Geoff Rimmer)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (George Pell)
    Unlocking Those Payphone Riches (TELECOM Moderator)
    Carte Blanche Card (for pickpockets) (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Washington DC & suburban calling areas
Date: Mon Apr 24 11:23:59 1989
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

Summary: Washington Metro service ain't everywhere!

[e-mail] says:
/*
I came across a few new prefixes in Va. just beyond Washington calling
area; these are in 703, and I will list them and show the duplications
between them and the Washington calling area:
330 Manassas (301-330 Gaithersburg)
878 Dale City (301-878 Fort Ritchie, with DC and Baltimore area
    service?)
497 Occoquan (301-497 Laurel)--same already existed regarding 490
*/

Neither 330 nor 49X are in the Washington metropolitan calling area.

330 is in the Washington-Gaithersburg (Maryland suburban)
calling area and cannot be reseached from Northern Virginia.

490, 497, 498, 776, etc. are in the Washington-Laurel
calling area (Maryland suburban), suffering similar restrictions.

878 comes out of Silver Spring for Uncle Sam; no further comment
necessary! BTW, Silver Spring has the widest calling area of the
Maryland suburban exchanges with Washington metro calling; it
can reach outlying exchanges on both sides of the line
dividing the Gaithersburg side and the Laurel corridor.

For those outlying Virginia exchanges which have Washington calling,
these restrictions are necessary. Each Washington metropolitan
suburban calling area actually is mapped into 202; this is
how the calls are actually routed as 'local' calls. Only one
of the duplicated exchanges can coexist with its nearby corresponding
'long distance' exchange in order for the translation to
be unique.

This means that I can call Laurel from the Washington metro
calling area as a local call, but in Virginia it is
charged at long distance rates. Further, if that same 703 exchange
has Washington calling area, my call will end up there,
not in the Maryland suburbs. (Yes, this leads to confusion among
callers who don't know this.)

Check out the 'Regional Calling Area Map' on p.23 of the October 1988
Montgomery County white pages. It shows the logical dividing
lines between Washington metro and the suburban exchanges,
as well as the Washington regional calling area and some
of the community FXs, like La Plata.

/*
How tight is 703 area nowadays, anyway?
*/

Must be tighter than ever; haven't you seen all those rich folks over
there? But seriously folks, 602, 603, 818 each come out of NorVa
offices. The bulk of these "no-no numbers" are being assigned
in suburban Maryland, because of the proximity to Baltimore, as
you mentioned.


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


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

Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 11:43:03 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Telephone Calls


In Vol 9, Issue 143, John Menges asks about a box that talks and understands
DTMF.

Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) sells a box called DECtalk.  I believe
that it does everyting that you specified.  It has a several voices
that you can select.  The speech is clear and can be understood by almost
anyone.  It interfaces to the computer via standard RS-232.  It will do OK on
about 99% of the text that you send it.  If it really messes up a word, you
can change the spelling fo the word to make it come out correctly.  I think
that you can also add words to its dictionary.

DECtalk comes in single line and multiline versions.  The single line version
has a list price of $4200 and can be ordered from their mail order service
(DECdirect 800-DIGITAL).  They have a technical assistance line for questions
(800-343-4040).

I do not work for DEC, but I have played with this unit and was very satisfied
with the quality of the speech.

--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 01:48:59 BST
From: Geoff Rimmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1-800 ABC DEFG vs 1-800 123 4567


I have some comments and questions about the common practice in the US
of using letters for phone numbers, for example 1-800-ABC-DEFG

How long has this been going on?  Have you always had letters as well
as numbers on your phones?

Here in England, we used to have letters on the dials as well as
numbers, and these were mainly used for area codes ( eg to call
Stourbridge you would dial "STO" followed by the number ).  You could
also find out the time by dialling "TIM".  However I think they phased
this out more than 15 years ago, possibly more! (before my time you
understand!)

As far as I am aware, you can no longer buy a phone in the UK with
letters also printed on the buttons, and so it would not be wise for a
company to advertise their number as letters! :-)  If a company wants
people to remember their phone number, they apply for an
easy-to-remember one (usually with a recurring pattern), or they just
have a jingle on the radio that drums the number into you:

Two competing taxi services here have phone numbers 555555 and 666666.

Jingles from radio:
    "Mountrange Bedding's the place to be, phone 7 8 6 1 2 1 3"

    "Style-a-home, phone double-3 1 4 1 4 1"
        (chanted 3 times during the commercial!)

Myself, I find it easier to remember a number than words (the above
examples have been written into my brain and I cannot forget them!!!)
What about everyone else?  Do you find words easier to remember?
Doesn't it take longer to find which button to push?  Or do you get
used to it eventually?

I have seen 1-800 and 1-900 numbers make use of mnemonics - do
companies ever use letters even with regular phone numbers, and if so,
do they get their entry in the phone directory printed with letters?

Finally, can 1-800 and 1-900 numbers in the USA be accessed from overseas?
If so, I need to know how to translate from [A-Z] -> [0-9] !

Geoff
    /---------------------------------------------------------------\
    |    GEOFF RIMMER  - Friend of fax booths & ANSI C & PCBH &    |
    |            phone *numbers*                |
    |    email    : [e-mail]            |
    |    address : Computer Science Dept, Warwick University,    |
    |          England.                    |
    |    PHONE    : [phone] (10 lines)            |
    |    FAX    : [phone]                |
    \---------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Date: 25 Apr 89 22:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kurt A. Geisel) writes:
>
>1)  Place a call from a pay phone, but go through the long distance
>operator and tell them that you want to charge to number x.
>
>2)  Give them the number of another payphone.
>
>3)  Have friend answer the payphone and agree to accept charges.

In most of the places I have visited, pay phones have numbers with
at least two 9's in the last four digits, allowing an operator to
instantly recognize that the number is from a pay phone.

I learned this because a phone number I used to have was
639-9000, and the operators would mistake the "double 9's"
as being from a phone booth, and would refuse to charge to
my home phone.

geo

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

Date:     Wed, 26 Apr 89 2:22:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Unlocking Those Payphone Riches

Pay telephone thieves may have bigger things in mind than merely
ripping off coin boxes. According to an article in [Payphone Exchange]
for March, 1989, a deft crook with a key and ten minutes to spare can
steal between $500 - $800 worth of parts from your run-of-the-mill
payphone.

Before deregulation, all GTE Automatic Electric coin phones sold to non-GTE
local telcos had the same lock in the box's upper housing. And those
devices -- called 'BJ locks' -- all take the same key.

John Lilla, who wrote the article in [Payphone Exchange] (and whose company
makes some of its money replacing those locks) says there are about
150,000 of those GTE coin phones still out there.


Patrick Townson


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

Date:     Wed, 26 Apr 89 2:32:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Carte Blanche Card (for pickpockets)

People who are tired of sorting through all their credit cards will love
this one. It's a credit card, automatic teller card and telephone calling
card all in one. That's because it's from Master Card, People's Bank and
Southern New England Telephone, all of whom are cooperating on this new
slice of plastic.

They are doing it as a joint venture as a 'convenience' to the consumer.
That's you!  ha ha!

And how convenient! It even has your phone number on it so you won't have
to bother writing it down on all those nasty transaction forms everytime
you charge something. Real convenient, huh?

Now with one card only, you can call halfway around the world, buy a suit
of clothes and a nice dinner, and draw all your money out of the bank.

I call it a Carte Blanche Card for pickpockets.  You may call it a
convenience, but I think not, and I expect Southern New England Tel and
the others involved will have to learn their lesson the hard way.

See you tomorrow!


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #147
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 27 Apr 89 2:27:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #148
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Apr 89 02:06:11 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New Jersey area code split (David M. Kurtiak)
    New Jersey area code split (Mark Robert Smith)
    Cancel Call Waiting (David Tamkin)
    Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? (Paul Anderson)
    Call Waiting Beep (Steve Robiner)
    Is there a version of 5500 cordless phone w/220v charger? (Tsz-Mei Ko)
    Omni-card doesn't have to be bad (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Results of LBOC Cable Ownership Question (Steve Swingler)
    Re: What is the "busy signal number"? (Lang Zerner)
    Re: Overseas 800/900 Access (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Ed Boston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 08:50:40 EDT
From: "David M. Kurtiak" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Jersey area code split

I just heard on the radio this morning that New Jersey Bell will be
announcing an area code split for the north Jersey (201) calling area.
Appearantly, details are still being worked out, and a formal announcement
will be made this upcoming Monday, May 1st.  I'll post a summary once
this is made available.

Does anyone out here know of any details that can be passed along
*before* the official announcement??  (such as what the NPA will be,
cutover dates, boundaries?)  Thanx for any info. that can be shared!

Enjoy,

----
David M. Kurtiak
Internet: [e-mail]
BITNET: [e-mail]
UUCP: [e-mail]  (rutgers,gatech)!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk


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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 14:12:39 EDT
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Jersey area code split

In 1991, area code 908 will be allotted to Central New Jersey.  The area
affected, according to the Star Ledger of 4/26/89, will be Union, Warren,
Middlesex, Hunterdon, Somerset, and Monmouth counties, along with part
of Morris County, and the part of Ocean County in the 201 area code now.
All of these areas are in the 201 area code.

This change will require 1+AC+number dialing between the 201 and 908 areas,
but the rates for these calls will not change.  This dialing change
includes local calls between area codes, which will be free, but will
require all 11 digits.

This will certainly affect UseNet, as many of the numbers for ATT sites and
Rutgers will be changing to the new area code.

An interim step, to alleviate the number shortage until the new area code
can be implemented, will be that beginning in October, calls to New York
and Pennsylvania from New Jersey, which can now be dialed with just 7 digits
will be required to use the full 1+AC+number.  Customers affected by this will
be notified in June.  This measure will free 24 exchanges, which should
suffice until the new area code is implemented.

Mark

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cancel Call Waiting
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 17:21:05 CDT

Patrick Townson wrote in volume 9, issue 143:

| Moderator's Note: Suspend Call Waiting is available throughout area 312
| with the possible exception of the Morton Grove CO.

Call Waiting altogether is not available on six of the eleven suburban
prefixes in the Des Plaines CO.  A customer with any of the six prefixes who
wants Custom Calling features has to accept a new telephone number on one of
the other five prefixes.

| We use *70 to turn it on, and it disconnects itself when you hang up the
| phone.

In the Centel part of 312, it is 70#.  From rotary phones, I believe 70 plus
a four-second pause will do, since that is how 72#, 73#, and 74# are
implemented: rotary phones can replace the octothorpe with a four-second
pause.  Illinois Bell uses the more common *70 to disable Call Waiting, and
its rotary line substitute is 1170.

| If you have three-way calling you can also use it on calls you receive as
| well as at anytime in the middle of a call.

There's another difference: Centel enables flashing on all lines with Call
Waiting so that it can be disabled during a call, even if the subscriber
does not have three-way calling.

| One oddity here is that if you have two lines which hunt each other on
| busy/no answer as I do, they will never hunt if you also have call-waiting,
| since hunting requires that the line test busy, which it won't do.  But
| when I turn on *70, presto the line appears 'truly busy' and subsequent
| calls get forced over to my second physical line.  Neat!

Reverse oddity here!  In Centel's switches hunt supersedes Call Waiting.
Call Waiting will never get a chance to function on any line that has
another to hunt from it, because hunt will catch the incoming call first.
As a result, Call Waiting works only on single lines or on the last line of
a hunt group.

And there's also the toll-free calling area I have here: six hundred
fifty-seven prefixes.  Remember the good old days, Patrick?

David Tamkin  POBox 567542  Norridge IL  60656-7542 ...killer!jolnet!dattier
GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  BIX: dattier  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: Paul Anderson <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT?
Date: 26 Apr 89 15:28:02 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Anderson <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., a teeny little company in the existance of creation...


In article <[e-mail]> toto![e-mail]
writes:
>[regarding how to get the call-waiting disable feature]
>And does IBT charge extra for this
>feature?  Pac*Bell provides it free with Call Waiting; a logical way
>to sell Call Waiting in the Silicon Valley I reckon.  8-)

Funny how I first found out about it.  When I was in Florida, I had call
waiting but had not been using a modem.  Then one day I started using
a modem & had call waiting problems.  I got really hot under the collar
about it.  I also had 3 way calling, call forwarding and speed dialing.
None of which I was using.  SO, I called Ma Bell and said 'I want all
those <expletive> special features disconnected'.  And the response was,
"But why Mr. Anderson.  Don't you find those features extremely help-
ful?"  "No. I don't.  I am tired of my modem hanging up when call waiting
beeps!"  "Oh, Mr. Anderson, for special people like you, we have a code
that you can dial to keep call waiting from interrupting your modem
use.  Would that help?"  Would that help?!  Well, suffice it to say, that
upon threat of disconnecting all special features, Ma Bell was only
too glad to give me a 'free' extra service.   So, I guess my response to
you would be that you shouldn't have to pay for it.   :-)

paul
--
Paul Anderson                           "But Why?"
gatech!stiatl!pda                       "Because they tried to make it
[phone]                           secure..."


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

From: Steve <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting Beep
Date: 26 Apr 89 23:05:35 GMT
Reply-To: Steve <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Hi -

Can some knowledgable person out there tell me exactly how long
in milliseconds, the call waiting beep tone lasts for?  A friend
of mine is trying to set up some software to recognize this tone
and deal with it.

Please respond via E-mail, as I don't normally read this group.

Thanks,
=steve

[e-mail]

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

From: "t.m.ko" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is there a version of 5500 cordless phone with 220v charger?
Date: 26 Apr 89 15:32:55 GMT
Reply-To: "t.m.ko" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T, Middletown, NJ


A friend of mine is planning to buy a 5500 and a 4410 cordless phones
and bring them to Europe.
Does there exist a 5500 or 4410 that uses 220v power supply to charge it?

Thanks in advance!
Please email:


******************************************************************************
Tsz-Mei Ko
ARPA:    bentley![e-mail]            AT&T Bell Labs
UUCP:    [e-mail]            LC 3N-P08
                        184 Liberty Corner Road
{att-ih,decwrl,amdahl,linus}!ihnp4!bentley!tmk    Warren, NJ 07060-0908
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 14:08:50 EDT
From: Jerry Glomph Black <black@ll-null>
Subject: Omni-card doesn't have to be bad---
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Patrick, the combination Mastercard/Calling Card/ATM card doesn't HAVE to be
a disaster!  It only has to have the Mastercard number printed on it. There
have been combo Master/ATM cards for years now, OK so long as the PIN (password
number for the uninitiated) isn't on the card (which amazingly, many customers
who can't remember a 4-digit number, add).  AT&T/BOC cards always struck me
as being both dangerous and stupid for that reason, the whole misusable number
u!is right there for the stealing, when again a 4-digit # is all you need to
memorize.  The same people who claim that they are baffled by all these numbers
are the ones who could tell you what was on channel 7 thursday at 7:30, three
weeks ago.  For those who just *can't* hack it, you can write your PIN on the
appropriate card in some personal encoding, like 10's complement, add 5, etc.

All this ranting from me, a guy who just memorized his 13-digit Sprint card!!!

Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173
Phone [phone]     Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 15:35 CDT
From: Steve Swingler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Results of LBOC Cable Ownership Question

I recently submitted a request for information on ownership of Bell cable in
our buildings.  There are MANY different opinions of this, but I will share
what we have learned here.

The Texas Attorney General's office said that while the cable is legally owned
by Bell, we are operating in a "free lease", the only restriction being that
we let Bell use whatever pair they require first, and that we cannot destroy
the cable.  We will become owners of the cable in either 1990 or 91 (they
could not remember the exact date).  Finally, they said that Bell has
no right to remove it.

When we told the Bell people what we had learned they quickly changed their
minds and backed off.  I guess my advice for anyone in similar situations
would be to call their bluff.


Steve Swingler
Center for Computing and Information Systems
Baylor University
Waco, TX

DISCLAIMER: I'm no Lawyer, and Baylor is not in the business of giving legal
advice.  I am only sharing my experiences for your general information.

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

Date: Wed Apr 26 11:08:56 1989
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the "busy signal number"?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>Does anyone know what the number is that you can dial to get a busy signal?

Uh, try calling the number you are calling from.  That usually works for me.

Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
Internet: [e-mail]   UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!athena.mit.edu!langz
Witnessed:  "...that is the question.  Whether 'tis knobblier in the knees..."


[Moderator's Note: I think she meant a test number for that purpose.
Here in Chicago, any.prefex-9968 usually returned a busy signal. If
you wanted to shake someone who constantly pestered you for your number
so they could call you, give them one of those!  The above was the one
used under the old cross bar system. Things have changed so much I do not
know what is what some days. I think prefix-9995 also sends a busy signal
here on most exchanges.  PT]


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Overseas 800/900 Access
Date: Wed, 26-Apr-89 07:49:50 PDT

Regarding the question if overseas callers can reach 800 and 900
service (area code) numbers in the US. The answer is no. Since
800 and 900 service is mapped to an undialable trunk number,
there is no dialable equivilent. Now, there are a couple of
caveats: First: AT&T is offering a new 800 service for low
volume users where they will "forward" 800 calls to your basic
local number. Obviously, if you know the local number, you can
dial direct and pay the usual rates. Second: USA Direct is not
as direct as they advertise. I needed to call United Airlines
to reconfirm a flight from Austrailia. Since the local office
was closed, I thought "No Problem, I'll just call back to the
US and ask the AT&T operator to give me United's US 800 number.
I realize I will have to pay the overseas rate, but at least
they can connect me." Wrong. Even though AT&T advertises USA
Direct as getting connected to an AT&T operator _in the US_,
she stated she could not dial the 800 number. I had to get a
local Chicago number for her to dial.

Ken

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

From: Ed_Boston <hp-sdd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Date: 25 Apr 89 14:40:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Boise R & D Lab


Most operators can see that a phone number is a pay phone.  I the area that
I grew up in, all pay phones had a prefix of 978 or something like that.

Unless you saw your friend doing this, I wouldn't believe them.  If you have
seen them doing it, I would suggest that you talk to the person and tell them
to stop.  Also, let the phone company know how the person is doing thins.  I
AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU TURN THE PERSON IN SO NO FLAMES ABOUT IT!!  This would
be your choice.  It is people like this that keep our phone bills so high!

Ed Boston

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #148
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 28 Apr 89 0:03:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #149
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Apr 89 00:02:41 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    NYNEX Announces INFO-LOOK Gateway (Patt Haring)
    Re: Southwestern Bell's QuickSource (J. Eric Townsend)
    Re: Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth (Tim Pozar)
    New area codes for London (Nigel Whitfield)
    Change in Area Code for London, UK (Kevin Hopkins)
    Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? (Richie Tozier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Patt Haring <gcrc!ccnysci![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Computer Network?
Date: 26 Apr 89 08:14:38 GMT
Reply-To: Patt Haring <gcrc!ccnysci![e-mail]>
Organization: City College Of New York


In article <[e-mail]> telecom-gateway@vector.
UUCP writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 134, message 1 of 10
>I'm doing a paper for a mass-media class on the possibilities of a national
>computer network accessible by anybody... sort of like Usenet with a lot more
>support and cash flow, I suppose.
>I'd appreciate any suggestions or information for this paper, as well as
>suggestions of where I could _look_ for information :-).  One person I asked
>said he recalled a post somewhere/somewhen that gave estimates of how much
>a nationally available, non-commercial computer network would cost.  Does
>anybody remember that?  Are the figures still available?
>I'm sort of basing my paper on the French Minitel computer network.  In case
>
>    As anybody who's ever used compuserve or the source, or other computer
>services could predict, it wasn't long before the services available via
>terminal "mushroomed" into areas like newsgroups, etc.

NYNEX announced INFO-LOOK Gateway at a press conference in NYC
yesterday.  [INFO-LOOK is already operating in Bell South and
Bell Atlantic.]

Are local RBOC's entering the electronic information market?
This looks like another version of Compu$erve, The Source,
GEnie, to me.

I received this insert with my monthly phone bill:

"Introducing a new service for accessing information and more...
all through your personal computer
----------------------------------------------------------------

Starting in May, New York Telephone's INFO-LOOK (tm) Gateway
Service can be your link to accessing a variety of information,
products and services.

The INFO-LOOK Gateway simplifies on-line computer access to a
variety of information providers.  When you call the Gateway
phone number through your modem, you'll be able to scan a menu
of information services.

The types of information services you may choose from include:
entertainment, business, health, food, news, weather, sports,
travel, government, educational and reference information. The
servicfes, some interacctive, are provided by independent
companies.

The INFO-LOOK Gateway is easy to use -- even if you're relatively
new to using a PC.

What you'll need to use the INFO-LOOK Gateway

1.  Virtually any type of personal computer.

2.  A modem (300, 1200, or 2400 Baud), and communications software.
    This enables your computer to communicate with other computers
    via the telephone system.

3.  A New York Telephone Calling Car.  If you need a New York
    Telephone Calling Card, (it's FREE), call your service
    representative whose number appears on page one of your
    New York Telephone bill.

Charges for using the INFO-LOOK Gateway

There are ** no ** Gateway enrollment fees and ** no ** monthly
subscription charges.  In most cases, you will be charged:

o  A local call to reach the INFO-LOOK Gateway.

o  While you're browsing the Gateway directory of services, or
   moving between services, you pay $.05 a minute.

o  Once you connect to a service, the charge is determined by the
   Service Provider.  Some services have a per-minute usage
   charge.  Some services are free.  The charges for each service
   are listed in the Gateway menu.

You'll find most charges itemized on your monthly New York Telephone
bill.  Some Service Providers may decide to bill you separately
and directly for use of their services.

Call for more information

To get your free INFO-LOOK Gateway information booklet call (toll-
free) 1-800-338-2720, Ext. 20, any day from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.

Note:  New York Telephone does not provide or control the services
       offered through the INFO-LOOK Gateway Service. They are
       provided by independent companies, which are responsible
       for the content, character, and quality of their services."

The predictions run $5 billion now and another $5-10 billion by
1991.

Look for a new billing category on your phone bill:  data charges

--
Patt Haring
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth
[e-mail]

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

From: "J. Eric Townsend" <flatline![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell's QuickSource
Date: 26 Apr 89 19:56:15 GMT
Reply-To: "J. Eric Townsend" <flatline![e-mail]>
Organization: Fusion-Chem-Info-Med-Data-Bio-Net-Tech-Quik, Inc. (Ltd.)


In article <[e-mail]> toto![e-mail]
(Bill Cerny) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 145, message 4 of 7
>
>The QuickSource number is 323-2000, but
>cannot be accessed via 1+713+; SWBTCo has blocked access to "the
>Houston metro area served by SWBTCo," according to the script the woman
>reads to you when ask for help (713-865-5777; not blocked).  The help
>desk will send you a free QuickSource directory though.

4-5 days from now I should get mine.  The help number is for all of
SWB, so you have to spell out that you want a QuickSource directory.

I just called, and there's nothing online for entertainment/dining.
They also don't tell you the "go up one menu level" command until
you timeout and go through help.  One of the "help" choices thinks
it's the "goodbye" command.

I usually like toying around with things like this, *however*, QuickSource
seems so broken that it's not even funny.  I didn't play with it too
much, but still...  You should always have *something* on line, no matter
what.  Anything is better than "I'm sorry, this selection is not
currently available."


--
If you're not using UNIX, you're just using an operating system...
J. Eric Townsend
Inet: [e-mail]  511 Parker #2 Houston,Tx,77007
EastEnders Mailing List: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 20:41:41 PDT
From: Tim Pozar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth
Reply-To: Tim Pozar <hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Scott Statton) writes:
>For a more detailed discussion of the topic, go to your local library
>and look up Claude Shannon, who pioneered the field of "information
>theory" and proved mathematically why all of this works.

    Another good description of Baud and Bits is the technical
    manual for the Am7910 WORLD-CHIP FSK Modem, made by AMD.
    Their number is 800-538-8450, and they are located in
    Sunnyvale CA.

         Tim

--
 ...sun!hoptoad!\                                     Tim Pozar
                 >fidogate!pozar               Fido:  1:125/406
  ...lll-winken!/                            PaBell:  [phone]
       USNail:  KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 17:16:14 BST
From: Mad Nige <[e-mail]>
Subject: New area codes for London

British Telecom has announced this week that the area code for London
is to be changed on May 6th, 1990, due to the increased number of lines
needed in the capital.

The existing code is 01-, and the new codes to be introduced are 071-
for the centre of the city and 081- for the suburbs. A list was
published in the Evening Standard today, showing which exchanges will
fall in which area, but I don't really feel inclined to type it all in.
As yet, I don't know what the transitional arrangements are, but I'll
try to find out. Response in the letters columns of papers seems to be
a bit negative at the moment.


Nigel Whitfield.

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

Subject: Change in Area Code for London, UK
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 15:23:32 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


British Telecom  (BT) published advertisements in  the national press today
which announced that the 01 area code for London will be abolished at 00:01
(British Summer Time) on Sunday May  6th *1990*.   At the same time two new
area codes, 071 and 081, will be  introduced  to cover  the same area.  071
will cover Inner London and 081 will cover Outer  London. Having  not lived
in London for the past 3  years I cannot determine  where BT's cut-off line
is, but using some of my friends' 'phone numbers  as a guide it is  about 5
miles out  from  the  West     End.  BT say  they will   be  informing  the
international community nearer the time of the change over.

UK phone numbers are of the form AAA-EEE NNNN or AAAA-EENNNN where A is the
area code and E is the exchange code. London 'phone numbers have  a shorter
area code of 01. The current 01-EEE exchanges that  will be in the 071 area
 from May 1990 are:

21x, 22x, 23x, 24x, 25x, 26x, 27x, 28x, 32x, 35x, 37x, 38x, 40x, 43x, 473,
474, 476, 48x, 49x, 511, 512, 515, 537, 538, 58x, 60x, 61x, 62x, 63x, 70x,
72x, 73x, 79x, 82x, 83x, 92x, 93x, 976, 978, 987

and the following will be in the 081 area:

20x, 29x, 30x, 31x, 33x, 34x, 36x, 39x, 42x, 44x, 45x, 46x, 470, 471, 472,
475, 478, 50x, 514, 517, 518, 519, 52x, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 536, 539,
54x, 55x, 56x, 57x, 59x, 64x, 65x, 66x, 67x, 68x, 69x, 74x, 75x, 76x, 77x,
78x, 80x, 84x, 85x, 86x, 87x, 88x, 89x, 90x, 94x, 95x, 96x, 974, 977, 979,
980, 981, 983, 984, 985, 986, 988, 989, 99x

(99x excludes 999 which is the UK equivalent of the US 911 number)

Most of the moves are for a full EEx  group but 5 groups  of exchanges have
been split between the 071 and 081 areas (47x, 51x, 53x, 97x and 98x).

BT says that 071 and 081 will  still  operate as  one charge area  for both
local and long distance calls. Subscribers in the 071 area will have to use
the 081 code to reach numbers in  Outer London  from the very  first day of
the change over, and vica versa, though I presume  BT are going  to allow 7
figure dialling  instead of 10   figure dialling  within  the  071/081 area
during some over-lap  time period.  These  calls will still be  classed  as
local  but no doubt  BT will  gradually change this policy  in the years to
come and start  to  class them as  'mid-distance' (less than 56km).  When I
phoned the BT information line (0800-800 373) they said that people dialing
01 from outside London after May 1990 will get  a recorded  message telling
them to dial 071 or  081   appropriately instead  of  the 01   code.    The
gentleman also  said that  it had  not  been decided whether  this recorded
service would come in immediately after  the changeover date or whether the
01 code could still be used for a few weeks it.

This new plan for  London's 'phones is  slightly different to the  one many
people believed  BT  were going to  use.   That one  would have changed the
three figure exchange  numbers EEE into  4 figure  numbers by doubling  the
first digit of the exchange number (e.g.  01-234 NNNN  would become 01-2234
NNNN).  This would  have made London numbers  10 digits long, like those of
most  of  the UK.    The rest of  the  UK is  moving   to 10 digit numbers,
including the area code, ASAP and it is only small towns and  villages that
need their exchanges upgrading that still  have  8  or 9 figure  numbers at
present. This scheme would have  allowed Londons  telephone number capacity
to increase  9-fold, as  opposed to  just  doubling it as   in the  071/081
scheme.

The major dialling centres in the UK from May 1990 will now be:

    021    Birmingham
    031    Edinburgh
    041    Glasgow
    051    Liverpool
    061    Manchester
    071    London (Inner)
    081    London (Outer)
    091    Tyne & Wear (Newcastle & Sunderland)

Hope that has helped bring a touch of internationalism to the area code
discussion in the Telecom Digest.

            Kev.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [e-mail] | Kevin Hopkins,              |
| or    ..!mcvax!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins         | Department of Computer Science,|
| or in the UK: [e-mail]         | University of Nottingham,      |
| CHAT-LINE: [phone] x 3815         | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+


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

From: Richie Tozier <buita![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT?
Date: 26 Apr 89 17:15:59 GMT
Reply-To: Richie Tozier <[e-mail]>
Organization: TVH @ Jolnet Public Access UNIX


Where i live in North Carolina...the cancel call waiting '*70' can be done
any number of times ie: *70 dialtone *70 dialtone again and again..why
is this is it a toggle or just a little bug or what?


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #149
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 29 Apr 89 1:15:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #150
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Apr 89 00:55:40 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New MCI Long Distance Pricing (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: New Jersey area code split (Robert Halloran)
    Re: New Jersey area code split (Ron Natalie)
    Re: New Jersey area code split (Carl Moore)
    Re: Overseas 800/900 Access (Linc Madison)
    Re: Overseas 800/900 Access (Clive Dawson)
    Switch between speech/fax/modem? (Robert Olsson)
    800 number directory (Mark Linimon)
    Re: speaking of ringbacks (Edward Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 29 Apr 89 0:50:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New MCI Long Distance Pricing

On Friday, MCI Communications Corporation announced a new long distance
bulk usage plan for residential phone subscribers. This new offering is
designed to provide direct competition to AT&T's Reach Out America Plan.

The new plan provides one hour of calling each month between 7 PM and
8 AM weeknights, anywhere (interstate) in the country for $8. Additional
hours after the first hour are $6.80, and are pro-rated by the number of
minutes used. This is 13.3 cents for the minutes in the first hour, and
11.3 cents per minute in the additional hours.

A companion plan is called 'MCI Supersaver' and it allows customers to
make interstate calls all day Saturday *only* for five dollars per
hour, or 8.3 cents per minute.

Comparing this to the AT&T Reach Out Plan we see that --

AT&T does not begin its cheapest rates and residential bulk plan until 10 PM.
The new MCI plan gives three extra hours in the evening.

Additional hours on the Reach Out Plan are $6.90. Additional hours on
MCI's plan will be $6.80.

MCI's plan stops at 5 PM Sunday, and does not resume until 7 PM Monday.
AT&T's plan stops at 5 PM Sunday also, but resumes at 10 PM Sunday night
and gives from then through Monday morning.

MCI only offers their plan to customers with one plus dialing; they do
not offer it to callers via 10222 or 950-1022. AT&T does permit its
Reach Out subscribers to be 'casual callers', via 10288, while keeping
some other carrier as one plus.

AT&T allows Calling Card and Call Me Card holders to call into the number
associated with the Reach Out Plan and be billed at Reach Out rates. No
surcharges are added to these calls, provided the number associated with
the plan is the number being called (from wherever).

MCI says no credit card calls can be tied into their new low rates.

This new program from MCI is tarriffed to begin May 1, at 7 PM that evening.
They are taking orders now, but YOU must call your local telco to make the
conversion to MCI for one plus calling; MCI will no longer do it for you.
The person I spoke to in the Chicago area office of MCI seemed rather
familiar with this new product, but may have been mistaken on some points
(which would cause me to be mistaken in this article), so you may want
to double check and see if you can keep AT&T/Sprint as one plus while
using MCI's Saturday Supersaver rates via 10222.

For various reasons I probably will not switch from AT&T's Reach Out and
having them on one plus, but if I could get the Saturday Supersaver via
10222 I would probably sign up and make extensive use of it on Saturday
long distance calls.

Finally, as a special deal, MCI is giving the first month free of charge.
If you take the $8 weekday evening program, you get the first hour of
calls -- $8 worth -- free. Likewise the Saturday deal is being given
free the first month.

Although MCI *still* does not connect to 976 or 1-900 numbers, their line
quality is pretty good. The lady I spoke with also offered to send me a
Calling Card with the 'Around Town' option allowing local calling with
no surcharge.

Patrick Townson


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

From: Robert Halloran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split
Date: 28 Apr 89 13:43:58 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Halloran <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
M. Kurtiak) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 148, message 1 of 11

>I just heard on the radio this morning that New Jersey Bell will be
>announcing an area code split for the north Jersey (201) calling area.
>Appearantly, details are still being worked out, and a formal announcement
>will be made this upcoming Monday, May 1st.  I'll post a summary once
>this is made available.
>
>Does anyone out here know of any details that can be passed along
>*before* the official announcement??  (such as what the NPA will be,
>cutover dates, boundaries?)  Thanx for any info. that can be shared!

The article I read in yesterday's local paper said that the split will
occur 'in 1991'.  The new NPA will be 908, and will basically cover the
southern 'half' of the current 201 area (for the geographically inclined,
affected counties will be Warren, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Union, Monmouth
and Ocean, plus the southwest corner of Morris).  Counties remaining in
201 will be Sussex, Passaic, Bergen, Essex, Hudson and the majority of Morris.

NJ Bell will also start requiring area codes on calls into NY and PA
that have been considered part of NJ local calling areas.  This will
apparently take effect Oct. 2, and free up about 25 exchanges.

(all this is from a cover story in the Asbury Park Press of 4/27; any
inaccuracies can be attributed to them.)

                        Bob Halloran
=========================================================================
UUCP: att!mtune!rkh                Internet: [e-mail]
USPS: 17 Lakeland Dr, Port Monmouth NJ 07758    DDD: 201-495-6621 eve ET
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.
Quote: "Well, if it wasn't Buckaroo Banzai, I'd say 'commit the man.'"
         - where else?

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split
Date: 28 Apr 89 13:00:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Sure, being involved in the University communcations system, I immediately
called our NJ Bell Account Rep on this.  He really didn't have any more
details that I'd already read in the papers.

The boundry falls along the Morris and Union county lines in New Jersey.
Those counties and north remain 201, those south (and north of 609, which
doesn't fall along county lines) are in the new 908 area code.  The LATA
boundries remain unchanged (there are three in New Jersey, one covering
the 201 area code, and two more dividing the 609 into east (Atlantic)
and west (Delaware Valley) LATAs).  Cutover is to occur two summers
 from now.  As with other area code splits there will be a time where
both the old and new numbers will work.

One thing that hasn't fully been worked out yet is a few central offices
on the border.  There are a handful of distinct towns (political boundries)
that would be split by this.  Another interesting observation is that
this boundry cuts right through the heart of AT&T land.  The paper
noted that this will cause some substantial amount of money to be
spent just dealing with chaning half of their facilities numbers.
I suppose it is some kind of revenge on the part of the operating
company.

-Ron

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

Date:     Fri, 28 Apr 89 10:57:21 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  New Jersey area code split

The word "local" was omitted in the reference to calls from NJ to Pa.
and NY state.  Also, there is a case where 11 digits are already required:
Suffern, NY, in area 914 and a local call from part of 201 area; I believe
the Suffern prefixes are 357 and 368, and there is 201-368 in existence as
well.  Does the coming change from xxx-xxxx to 1-NPA-xxx-xxxx for inter-
area local calls also affect:
1. calls between 201 and 609 areas
2. calls from 609 to Pa. (such as from Trenton, NJ to Morrisville, Pa.)
Recall that requiring 1 before areacode was done in 609, not just 201.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 14:28:19 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overseas 800/900 Access

>From: [e-mail]
>
>Regarding the question if overseas callers can reach 800 and 900
>service (area code) numbers in the US. The answer is no. Since
>800 and 900 service is mapped to an undialable trunk number,
>there is no dialable equivilent. ...
>Second: USA Direct is not as direct as they advertise. I needed to call
>United Airlines to reconfirm a flight from Austrailia. Since the local
>office was closed, I thought "No Problem, I'll just call back to the
>US and ask the AT&T operator to give me United's US 800 number.
>I realize I will have to pay the overseas rate, but at least
>they can connect me." Wrong. Even though AT&T advertises USA
>Direct as getting connected to an AT&T operator _in the US_,
>she stated she could not dial the 800 number. I had to get a
>local Chicago number for her to dial.

"Can overseas callers reach 800 numbers?"  YES!  I have done it myself.
 From Australia, as a matter of fact, from a payphone in Hobart Airport.
I simply dialed 0011-1-800-XXX-XXXX and pumped in coins.  However, later
I was dialing an 800 number and figured on being on hold a while, so I
wanted to charge it to a US calling card number.  No go.  The operator
wouldn't even attempt the call, even though I told her I had dialed the
number myself successfully.

Moral of the story: sometimes machines are smarter than people.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu 27 Apr 89 12:30:39-CDT
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overseas 800/900 Access

    From: [e-mail]
    Subject: Re: Overseas 800/900 Access
    Date: Wed, 26-Apr-89 07:49:50 PDT

    Regarding the question if overseas callers can reach 800 and 900
    service (area code) numbers in the US. The answer is no. ...

This isn't quite correct.  AT&T has recently begun offering 800
service to callers from Mexico.

Clive
-------

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

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 13:20 +0100
From: "Robert Olsson datoravd, EMC tfn 018-672581" <[e-mail]>
Subject: switch between speech/fax/modem?
Organization: SLU, Swedish university of agricultural sciences


    Is there any product or device capable of switching between speech,
    facsimile and modem for public telephone line?

    I can imagine there are lot technical problems detecting carriers
    and switching etc.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Dept. of Statistics, Data Processing and Agricultural Extension
Computer Section EMC, Box 7072, 750 07  UPPSALA,  SWEDEN   Tel [phone]
E-mail [e-mail], SUNET eva::robert


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

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 17:16 CDT
From: Mark Linimon <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 number directory
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx


NPR's "Marketplace" program the other night had a pointer to a neat toy:
The AT&T Directory of 800 Numbers, available for plunking down $14.95 to
1-800-426-8686.  It allegedly has 120,000 800 #s listed, in both white-pages
and yellow-pages formats.  I haven't checked it out yet, myself, so caveat
emptor.

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

Mark Linimon
Mizar, Inc.
uucp: {sun!texsun, killer}!mizarvme!linimon

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

From: bridge2!bridge2: [e-mail];
Subject: Re: speaking of ringbacks
Date: 27 Apr 89 22:55:12 GMT
Reply-To: bridge2!bridge2: [e-mail];
Organization: 3Com Corp., Mt. View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 143, message 3 of 7
>
>My family has a house in Litchfield, CT.  Up there the ringback works a little
>differently.  All you have to do to get one is:
>
>
>1. Dial your own number.

[Rest of procedure deleted.]

This sounds like it is a vestige of the procedure used to call another
party on your party line.  Was this line once a party line? Is it
still?  I'll bet it's an OLD central office.
                -edg

--
{decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg    Ed Greenberg
    -or-                        3Com Corporation
{sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg                Mountain View, CA
                            415-694-2952

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #150
*****************************