Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss151-200

Text File | 1990-01-14 | 638KB | 15,276 lines

Date:     Sat, 29 Apr 89 14:13:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #151
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Apr 89 13:47:40 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: "free" Collect Payphone Calls (Doulgas Scott Reuben)
    Re: Automated Telephone Calls (Richard Edell)
    Re: Automated Telephone Calls (Rich Wescott)
    Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? (Brent Laminack)
    Re: Omni-card doesn't have to be bad (Robert J Woodhead)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29-APR-1989 04:14:43.95
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: "free" Collect Payphone Calls

Well, I for one have seen this done.

A friend of mine on my hall was from The Philippines, and would
have some people back there call the hall payphone COLLECT.

This also worked for this guy who had relatives in Isreal.

What they both did was have their "associates" go to a payphone
in The Philipines or Isreal, and tell their LOCAL operator
to make a collect call to US telephone number 203-346-99xx (forgot
the payphone number...I was lucky enough to have my own phone!)

The local operator in whatever country would call the payphone,
WITHOUT an AT&T or SNET (local 'Bell' Operator). The people at my
school on the other end would gladly accept the collect call, and
they would talk for 20 minutes or so without any problem. I don't
recall SNET ever coming to check out the phones or anything, but
after a few months of this, they put in a Charge-A-Call on the hall,
and took out the regular payphone.

They also (apparently) programmed the switch to intercept all
incoming calls to the Charge-A-Call (which is standard) so
you could call collect, but would get "The number you have
reached, 346-99xx, is not in service, for incoming calls".

Being ever-so resourceful, I recall that they just had the calls
placed to another payphone in the dining hall, but school ended
for the year shortly thereafter, and SNET didn't change any more
payphones around.

(Incidentally, you can also do this with AOS outfits that have a
pretty poor data-base of payphone numbers. They are SO glad to
rip you off with a collect call that they don't spend too much
time verifying if they can actually get some money from that
number. You can even charge it collect to another COCOT! But who
would want to wait around a slimy COCOT for a call? :-)

Even more amazing is that recently I was using a COCOT (sorry
everyone...) to make a calling card call. I wanted to see if
they would bill me for a call to a number that is not in service.
So I dialed in my calling card number, but while I was dialing
I noticed that the "7" button was broken, and wouldn't generate
the 7 tone. So I pressed a 8 instead and then a whole string of 8's
because I figured it woudln't work anyhow. But it DID! The call
went through on an INVALID card number! Now I got interested,
and made up some card numbers in hick areas that I've been to.
I tried 702-454-9950-1234. 702-454-9950 is not in service. Also,
I don't know any calling card's with PINs of "1234". Guess what...
It worked too! So I tried 702-454-9950-4321. Again, went
through. I tried some number in 206 that I just made up. Worked
fine! I said "This is ridiculous...someone could make up a PIN for
*MY* number and bill me!" (well, doubtful I would be billed, but they
may call me or something...). I tried a variation on my PIN, but
it didn't work. So I suspect that they don't have a complete
data base, and for less densely populated areas, or non-Bell areas,
or (any suggestions?) they simply don't bother to check. I read
it costs them about $.35 to verfiy a card (compared to $.07 for
AT&T, which is one of the excuses they use in favor of their
500% surcharge) so maybe they figure it isn't worth it on cards
from areas where there is less fraud? Sounds silly to me, but
I guess they are so greedy they skip a bit on security here and
there...

Well, serves them right if you ask me...:-)

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old DREUBEN to locals! :-)   )

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

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Telephone Calls
Date: 28 Apr 89 22:23:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley (student)


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

(Sorry, couldn't cut much out of the original posting, so I decided
to include it in its entirity)

Digital Equipment Corporation sells two products, DECtalk and DECvoice.
These may meet your requirements.

DECtalk sits between a telephone line and an async port, sending status
messages to the host computer for things like phone line ringing, DTMF
received, etc.  The host can send control commands for things like dial
a phone number, hang-up, etc.  The host can also send text to DECtalk
and DECtalk will *READ* this text to the caller.  Several voices are
available and the speech is pretty good.  You may call it for a demonstration
at [phone].  Cost is about $4000 per port (phone line).

DECvoice connects to a MircoVAX II.  In addition to what DECtalk does,
DECvoice is capable of speaker independent voice recognition (Yes & No,
maybe more?) and of digitizing (recording in digital form) the caller's
voice, saving this recording on disk, and playing the recorded voice at
a later time.  DECvoice requires VAX/VMX Version 5.0 - I don't know if this
supports TCP-IP in the way you're thinking.  I've called the demonstration
number for DECvoice and the speech quality is better than that of DECtalk's
but this is because they digitized (recorded) the speech you'll hear.
DECvoice demonstration number is (508) 493-TALK.  I don't know the price, but
it sounds expensive.

If you're interested you may contact DEC at [phone].

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with DEC, most of this information comes
from some sales litature they sent me a few months ago, but the copyright
dates range from 1984 to 1988.

Richard J. Edell
[e-mail]
[phone]



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

From: richw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Telephone Calls
Date: 27 Apr 89 17:15:55 GMT
Reply-To:  Rich Wescott  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tower Multiprocessor Systems, E&M-Columbia, NCR, W Columbia, SC


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

> X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 143, message 4 of 7
> I am looking for a box to do the following --

[Moderator's Note: Description was repeated; is edited out here; see
prior message. PT]

When I worked at UNISYS(SPERRY) a few years back they had a system
called VIPS which may provide the functionality you are looking for.
We developed an application which ran on a UNIX box to interface via
a tty port to this VIPS box. The UNIX box acted as a server and a dialogue
manager between the VIPS system and an IBM host.

The VIPS system is a pc based system which digitizes your recorded message
and stores the message by number.
It allows for answering the phone, speaking the messages, decoding the DTMF
tones, phone transfer.


The VIPS system has an RS232 serial connection and a Sperry Terminal interface.

There are other systems out there you could try  AT&T, ROLM.

If I can be of more help please use email.

--
    -Rich Wescott
    ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 28 Apr 89 18:14:28 GMT
Subject: Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT?
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.


In article <[e-mail]>, it says
| [Moderator's Note: Suspend Call Waiting is available throughout area 312
| with the possible exception ...
| ... 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.
| 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

The CO's in this area just recently added the *70 feature to cancel call
waiting.  Bell Canada sent a notice in the bill that month.  They
mentioned the ability to flash and cancel call waiting on an incoming
call too, but I don't think there was any implication that three way
calling was necessary.  I haven't tested it, though, so I (or they)
could be wrong.
--
     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: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT?
Date: 28 Apr 89 13:48:04 GMT
Reply-To: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA



    Here in Atlanta, *70 does work at no extra charge.  The documentation
for it is in the first section of the white pages, under "custom calling
features".  I'll admit, though, you have to look to find it.

            brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent)


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

Date: Fri Apr 28 00:10:06 1989
From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Omni-card doesn't have to be bad---
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 148, message 7 of 11

    [Jerry writes about remembering PIN's and somesuch]

In my daily life, there are two types of PIN's I have to remember.  The
first is a bank money card 4 digit PIN, and the second are my telephone
credit cards, where the PIN is on the card and I have to remember which
phone # goes with which card.

In the former case, I find the best PINs to use are 1) the first 4 digits
of my old zipcode, or 2) the last four digits of a phone number I won't
forget (not my phone number, of course; Mom's, for example).  Such numbers
are hard to forget; ask youself what your old college zipcode was!

In the latter case, I just write a cryptic code, like "HN" for home number,
"O1" for "Office Number #1", etc.

Security for the latter cards can be more lax because they are likely to
get lost when I am away from home, so there is little danger of abuse
because the phone number is not on them.  And in the case of my bank card,
even if someone who know's it is my card tries to use it, the PIN is not
anything they would be able to easily glean by researching me.

--
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  ...!uunet!biar!trebor | [e-mail]
"The NY Times is read by the people who run the country.  The Washington Post
is read by the people who think they run the country.   The National Enquirer
is read by the people who think Elvis is alive and running the country..."


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #151
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 1 May 89 0:17:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #152
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon,  1 May 89 00:04:01 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Idea for *new* Bell Operating Company service (Richard Edell)
    Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service (Fred Darnsocks)
    Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service (Samuel E. Schacham)
    Re: 800 number directory (Robert Maier)
    Re: 800 number directory (Daniel L. Ross)
    800 Directory Assistance (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: New Jersey area code split (Dave Levenson)
    Re: New Jersey area code split (Stan Krieger)
    Re: New Area Codes for London UK (Keith Brazington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Idea for *new* Bell Operating Company service
Date: 28 Apr 89 22:49:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley (Student)


BACKGROUND:
Some of us are in college, others are through with thier college days.
But do you remember dividing-up your telephone bill with your roommates.
This process allways seems to slow payment to the phone company, sometimes
to the point where they mail a "reminder" notice.

PROPOSED SOLUTION:
"Roommate Billing": this service, when added to a phone line, requires that
when a call is placed that a "user account" code be entered.  The monthly
bill is broken down by account code so there is no question about how much
each roommate is to pay (monthly charges are separate).  There is only one
responsible person per phone line.

POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATIONS:
For each valid "user account" code issued assign a fictitous billing number
(I've seen these used for summary billing, business calling cards --
they're 10 digit numbers w/o valid area codes/NXXs i.e. (758) 151-xxxx).
This allows long distance companies to continue with regular ANI for billing.
                    - or -
Add this account code to all calling records - UCK!

I figure this type of service would be worth a few bucks/month ($3-$5)
to the numorous student-type households.  Of course there is always the
alternative of several phone lines/households but the idea is to avoid
this additional expenses.

What do you think?

Richard J. Edell
([e-mail])
(415 882-7126)

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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 10:26:25 PDT
From: Fred Darnsocks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service
Organization: Statistics Dept., U. C. Berkeley

Patrick-
Thanks very much for this posting. I have two questions that
perhaps you can answer for me. You say that MCI not offering
their new plan to people who are casual callers yet they are
not processing changeover orders to the BOCs but instead having
the customer do that themself. My question is then: How do they
know who is a casual caller and who is not? My local service is
provided by Pacific Bell. It is my understanding that the switching
for the long distance carrier is done at Pacific Bells Tandom switch.
Unless casual caller calls are sent to MCI on different trunk groups
I don't see how MCI can tell the difference. In other words can't I
just tell MCI that I've elected to have them as my default carrier
and still take advantage of the program? Please excuse my naivite.
I know that I only have enough knowledge about the system to hurt
myself.

I'd also be interested in knowing if MCI will be getting intrastate
tariffs for this program here in California.

Thanx again.

--
===============================================================================
I'm not sure who I am or how I got here but if I click my heals together
and think real hard...........can I please go home
Fred    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I made a second, then a third call at random to get
different people at MCI each time, to ask the same questions. I found out
from two of the three that in fact you do have to permit MCI to notify the
local telco; meaning of course even if you do not cut yourself over to
MCI for dial one plus, they will do it anyway. All three people did agree
that the new service was only for one plus customers. The third person I
spoke with said if I wanted to call the telco myself, it would be cut over
faster than waiting for the paperwork from MCI to be processed. But, he
said indeed, they would follow up and verify it 'was done correctly'. PT]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 21:44:25 EDT
From: "Samuel E. Schacham" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service
Organization: Microelectronics Center of NC; RTP, NC

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>
>On Friday, MCI Communication Corporation announced a new plan for
>residence phone subscribers. This plan has been started in direct
>competition to AT&T's Reach Out America Plans.
>
An important consideration is what is the "one time fee" for getting this
service. AT&T now charges $10 (for a while it was free), how about MCI?
                      Samuel

[Moderator's Note: Apparently, zero at this point. All three representatives
that I spoke with over the weekend said there was no charge to sign up
and that furthermore they would give me a one hour credit on either plan
I chose, and a free credit card with 'Around Town' built into it. PT]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 09:42:04 MST
From: Robert Maier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 number directory

In TELECOM Digest V9 #150 [e-mail] (Mark Linimon)
writes:

>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.

``Caveat emptor'' is unfortunately correct.  I got burned by this one
some time ago.  It's a directory of AT&T 800 numbers, *not* a
directory of all 800 numbers!  Numbers in the many 800 exchanges owned
by the other long distance companies (MCI, US Sprint etc.) aren't
included.

In particular the main information numbers of AT&T's competitors (e.g.
800-877-8000 for US Sprint) aren't there.  I wonder why?  :-)

--
Robert S. Maier   | Internet: [e-mail]    [128.196.128.99]
Dept. of Math.    | UUCP: ..{allegra,cmcl2,hao!noao}!arizona!amethyst!rsm
Univ. of Arizona  | Bitnet: maier@arizrvax
Tucson, AZ  85721 | Phone: [phone]  /  [phone]

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

From: "Daniel L. Ross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 number directory
Date: 29 Apr 89 18:52:08 GMT
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
tx.us (Mark Linimon) writes:
> 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 ...
> ... caveat emptor

My parents' AT&T long distance bills were so high (before I got them to use
an alternative LDC, after considering getting them an outward WATS line :-),
that AT&T sent them a letter at the end of the year thanking them for being
"such GOOD customers," as well as a complimentary AT&T Directory of 800
Numbers.  I think it was about 1 1/2 inches thick
(both white and yellow pages), and did NOT contain several 800 numbers I
looked for (my bank's customer service line, for instance).  I believe the
whole book was a kind of a "yellow pages", in that the 800 subscribers had
to pay to get into it at all.  Unless the one mentioned on NPR was
substantially better, or you really wanted it, I don't know that the
$14.95 would be worth it.

Dan Ross      Inet: [e-mail]
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas    Dept. of C S

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

Date: 29-APR-1989 23:30:43.11
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Directory Assistance

Hello all,

I know this may have been asked a while ago, but who provides 800
Directory Assistance? (800-555-1212)

I thought it was AT&T, yet they don't identify themselves as such.
They just say "800, what number, please?"

Does AT&T still operate it? If so, do MCI and Sprint pay a certain
share of the operating expenses?

If not, just who does run 800 DA nowadays?

Thanks for any info,

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old dreuben to locals! :-)  )


[Moderator's Note: For many years the data base was in St. Louis, MO. Maybe
Southwestern Bell runs it? Is it still located there?  PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split
Date: 29 Apr 89 21:48:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(David M. Kurtiak) writes:
> 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 new area code for Central New Jersey will be 908.  It will
become active in June, 1991.  It will include, roughly, the counties
of Warren, Hunterdon, Somerset, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean, but
aligned on C.O. service area boundaries; not county lines.  No
change in rates; no change in LATA boundaries, but eleven-digit
dialing between 908 and 201 or 609.

The above is based upon an article in the New York Times for
Thursday, April 27, 1989.

--
Dave Levenson            /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.            |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA            |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave    \-----------------------------/


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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 22:49:18 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split


> 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.)

  From what I saw, or read into, the articles that appeared in both
  the Newark Star-Ledger and the (Plainfield-Somerville) Courier News,
  in order to free up some additional central office codes, seven
  digit dialing across area codes will be eliminated.  As I understood
  it, there are some boundary areas where currently area codes aren't
  needed, although the number is in a different area code.  What this
  does, of course, is prevent that central office code from being
  used in the other area (i.e., a central office code in Stroudsburg,
  PA cannot be used in 201).  The article said that eliminating this
  short-cut dialing will free up about 25 central office codes.

  We'll probably see more details when the official announcement is
  supposed to be made (Monday, May 1), but, according the article,
  this shouldn't affect local calling areas or LATA boundaries.
  My central office will be affected by this; according to the
  map, the Summit, NJ central office will be in 908, however our
  local calling area includes Millburn, South Orange, Chatham,
  Livingston, and Madison, which will remain in 201.
--
Stan Krieger
Summit NJ


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

Date: 29 Apr 89 15:41:37 GMT
From: Keith Brazington <g4lzv![e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Keith Brazington)
Subject: Re: New area codes for London UK.
Organization: G4LZV USENET BB, Rochester, Kent, UK.


Its just been announced that the 01 London UK area code is to be split into
two. 071 will be the new code for Inner London, and 081 for outer London.
British Telecom ( BT ) has stated that local call rates will apply across the
two areas. This means that all of the 0x1 area code are now going to be in use:-

021 Birmingham
031 Edinburgh
041 Glasgow
051 Liverpool
061 Manchester
071 London ( Inner )
081 London ( Outer )
091 Newcastle-upon-Tyne

The change is expected to happen during 1990.

Keith

--
UUCP ..!uunet!mcvax!ukc!slxsys!g4lzv!keith  | Keith Brazington
Smart mail  [e-mail]            | 5b Northgate Rochester Kent UK
Ampanet  [44.131.8.1] and [44.131.8.3]        | [phone] Voice
Packet  G4LZV @ GB7UWS -- G4LZV USENET BB --| [phone] Data v22,v22bis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #152
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 1 May 89 1:33:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #153
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 May 89 01:05:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller*Id Experiments (Dave Levenson)
    Pay Telephones For Advertising (Brendan Kehoe)
    Area Code Program and Free Telephone Calls (Bill Gerosa)
    Re: speaking of ringbacks (Gabe M Wiener)
    Re: switch between speech/fax/modem? (Brian Jay Gould)
    Re: switch between speech/fax/modem? (Steve Elias)
    811? (Carl Moore)
    Small PBX With Centrex-Like Features Wanted (Gerry Wheeler)
    Small PBX For Residential Use (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*Id Experiments
Date: 30 Apr 89 18:25:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


I tried three experiments to test interaction with Caller*Id service
here in New Jersey.  I placed three local calls to a line equipped
with a Caller*Id display from a non-cocot coin telephone.  When I
deposited 20 cents and placed the call, the calling-number was
displayed as expected.  When I dialed 0+ the local number, and then
entered a NJ Bell calling-card number (NJ Bell is the toll carrier
listed on the coin-phone's information card) the display showed Out
of Area.  When I dialed 950-1022 + local number + a valid MCI
account number, the display also showed Out of Area.

Any other Class feature interactions worth reporting to this group?

--
Dave Levenson            /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.            |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA            |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave    \-----------------------------/


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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 15:23:34 EDT
From: buita![e-mail] (Brendan Kehoe)
Subject: Pay Phones for Advertising?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brendan Kehoe)
Organization: Jolnet, Public Access Unix, Orland Park (Joliet), Ill.


 On a whirlwind trip this weekend, which brought me through Boston, Cleveland,
LA, and Newark airports, I noticed something odd...at some phones in both
LAX and Newark, the customary "information cards" beneath the keypad was
replaced with a little thing saying "Call friends! Call relatives! Just do
0+Area Code+Number for those times when you're out of change."
 Not only is AT&T pushing this, but PacBell and NJ Bell are also encouraging
collect calls? This made me wonder whether The Phone Company has something up
its sleeve in the form of an increase in operator-assisted rates, or if,
what with the increase of LD carriers, collect calls are being avoided with
calling cards...

--
Brendan Kehoe
[e-mail]    | GEnie: B.KEHOE  | Oh no! I forgot to say goodbye
[e-mail]  | CI$: 71750,2501 |  to my mind!
[e-mail] | Galaxy: Brendan |                - Abby Normal



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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 14:33:06 EST
From: Bill Gerosa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code Program and Free Telephone Calls



  A while back there was quite a bit on area code lists and programs.  B&G
Enterprises sells a machine code program for the Commodore 64/128 computers
that contains all area codes used in the USA and a few of its neighbors.
The program allows you to add to the area code list, save the list, print
it, and the other usuals.  Each area code is accompied by the state it is
used in and a major city it is used in.  It costs $12.95 and all of the
instructions are right on the disk.  They process orders very quickly.
  This company also sells a very interesting informational flyer on how
to make free telephone calls.  The cost of th$7.  Their address is:

                              B&G Enterprises
                              134A Palmer Avenue
                              North Tarrytown, NY 10591

  All shipping costs are included in prices.  A side not:  They make it very
clear that their free telephone method is not to be used - it is for
informational and learning purposes ONLY!


  Disclaimer:  I have no connections or ties with the above company, just
telling everyone what is out there, etc.


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

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 22:43:09 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: speaking of ringbacks
Organization: Columbia University

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

>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.

Actually I believe it's an ESS exchange, though it does not have 10XXX access
yet.  Nonetheless, it's got a nice pleasant ring and the distinctive ESS
busy signal, and touchtone calls don't take a year and a half to go through
as they normally do on SxS with a front end.

However, most of the other exchanges are VERY old....rings that sound like
an idling car engine, "growl" dialtones, etc.  In fact, I was in a restaurant
nearby, and the phone rang long-short on each cycle.  Must be (or must have
been) a party line.

The number we have is NOT a party line, at least not now.  Don't know how
the former residents had it set up though.

-G
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\******/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: switch between speech/fax/modem?
Date: 30 Apr 89 04:07:59 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


Next to me right now is my Panasonic model KX-F3500 telephone/answering
machine/copier/fax.  If you were to call me at [phone], it would
first answer with my voice advising you that you have reached an answering
machine.  If you didn't begin to speak within 5 seconds of my beep, the
unit assumes that you are waiting for a carrier and begins fax mode.

So far the unit works fine.

If on the otherhand, I also wanted to include data (in fact, I wouldn't
want to keep my computer powered up all the time) I would have to
inspect the data to determine if it was fax or 'other.'  Remember that
fax data is data.

I hope that answers your question.
--

- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]   BITNET gould@jvncc  -
-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould    Telephone [phone] -

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

From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: switch between speech/fax/modem?
Date: 30 Apr 89 14:22:47 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


 [e-mail] (Robert Olsson datoravd, EMC tfn 018-672581) writes:

>    Is there any product or device capable of switching between speech,
>    facsimile and modem for public telephone line?

    I believe the "Hello Direct" cats sell a rudimentary device
    that can do this job, or at least part of it.  they have an
    800 number here in the US...




--
 ...... Steve Elias ([e-mail]);(6172399406); {}


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

Date:     Fri, 28 Apr 89 13:30:28 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  811?

I recently passed thru Mifflinburg, Pa.  There is a pay phone in town
on 717-966 prefix.  For emergencies, it says 811.  I don't know if this
is a misprint.

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Starline...
Date: 28 Apr 89 18:25:36 GMT
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.


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

> 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.

Sounds like a great setup.  If people are now willing to pay extra per
line per month for features like this, maybe there is a market for small
key systems for home use.  Something that would handle 1 to 6 CO lines,
and up to maybe 10 stations would be nice.  It could allow call
transfers, intercom, conferencing, custom ringing, etc. Are such
things available at reasonable costs already?
--
     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:     Mon, 1 May 89 1:00:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Small PBX For Residential Use

In the message just before this one, correspondent asks about the same type
of features available in Starline, but via an on-location PBX. One small
PBX unit I used for several years is ideal for persons with a large residence
or a small business.

The MELCO SYSTEM 212 is a neat little switch that would meet the needs of
many, if not most large residences.

Melco is located out in Washington State; I think possibly in Bellview (?),
but I no longer have the documentation on this unit. When I moved a
few years ago to my present apartment (about two blocks from my former home),
I sold the Melco unit to someone else. This was about the time we were getting
ESS in our CO anyway.

The Melco System 212 has two CO lines and 12 internal extensions. The
extensions are numbered 21 through 32. The Operator zero is an alternative
address for extension 21. Any extension can dial 9 for an outside line.
Dialing 81 or 82 picks a specific outside line. The extensions can dial
each other, of course, and if you have a paging system hooked in, dialing
4 connects you to the amplifier and keys up the microphone circuit.

Any CO call, incoming or outgoing, can be transferred between extensions
by flashing and dialing the desired two digit code. Incoming calls default
to extensions 21 and 22, but can be either 'call forwarded' to ring on any
desired extensions, or they can be answered using universal answer, which
is 7. A common audible circuit allows up to five electronic chirpers or
up to three conventional bells to be located in stategic locations.

Individual extensions can be made busy by dialing 39, and will stay busied
out until they go off hook again. The two incoming lines can individually
be silenced by dialing 61 or 62. Dialing 63 silences the common audible while
allowing the phones assigned to answer incoming calls to continue to ring.
Dialing 64 cancels all prior suspensions on the incoming lines.

Calls can be put on hold by flashing, then hanging up. A time out can be
set for one minute or five minutes, and calls left on hold longer than
that time will ring back to the phone which put them on hold. Music on hold
is available. Calls can be 'parked' at another extension by dialing 60 and
the desired extension number; then retrieved from that extension
within the time allowed for hold.

The whole unit weighs about ten pounds, is in a plastic case and easily
mounts on the wall at the point where the incoming CO lines enter your
premises. It runs on 110 AC, and a battery backup is of course suggested
but not mandatory. In the case of power failure, incoming calls are routed
to extensions 21 and 22, which can also make direct outside calls while
the power is off.

The loop between an extension and the switch can be quite long. In my
application, the switch was located on first floor of the building, in an
old, large wooden cabinet from Bell which at one point years before had
serviced a switchboard. I used all existing house pairs, and the most
distant extension was on the 9th floor, about 150 feet away. However,
one purchaser of the unit, according to Melco, was a company which did
oil exploration work in Alaska; they had several loops that were better
than five miles from the switch and the reliability was excellent.

I bought the unit for $700 back about 1980. The first one flaked out on
me about six months after I had it and Melco sent a replacement by air
express the same day. I did find it was very sensitive to dirty power,
and it had to be grounded properly, otherwise it would *appear* to work
but get its brains scrambled about once a week and require me or someone
to go to the switch, power down and come up again.

Since it uses the switchhook flash for its own purposes it is NOT compatible
with call-waiting or three way calling, unless you do as I did, and make
a quick and dirty patch: I ran a second, 'control pair' to each station,
and mounted a little micro push button on each phone. That pair by-passed
the Melco and went into the CO lines before they entered my switch.
Pressing the contact *very briefly* (like half a second) would trigger
the CO switchhook features while still convincing the Melco the CO had not
disconnected (therefore it would disconnect me!). But that was cumbersome
and unreliable at best. I'd say don't plan to use custom calling features
with it except for speed dial. And I did not even really need that since
I had a Demon Dialer in series with the two CO lines, again between where
the CO came in and where Melco took over.

It did a quite adequate job for me prior to Starline being available.
One drawback was it only had one talking path for internal station to station
calls, and two talk paths for CO calls. If two stations were talking to
each other, a third station could not initiate another internal call
at the same time.

Likewise, just one dial tone. Whoever had it used it. Other extensions off
hook waited for dial tone if someone else had it first. If a phone
went off hook and did nothing, after ten seconds of dial tone there
would be ten seconds of error tone, and that phone would be yanked out
of the system, to free up the limited facilities available.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #153
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 2 May 89 0:10:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #154
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 May 89 00:05:29 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    RJE Software/Hardware needed (Chris Anderson)
    Roomate Billing (Kenneth Selling)
    AT&T 7404D phone info requested (Doug Claar)
    New MCI Rates (clarification) (Fred Darnsocks)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Anthony Argyriou)
    Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Ed Morin)
    ESS and 10xxx Dialing (Scott Statton)
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    Re: Mass. phone rates (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 May 89 05:28:26 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Chris Anderson)
Subject: RJE Software/Hardware needed.
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Chris Anderson)
Organization: QMA, Inc., Rancho Cordova, CA


My company needs to do communications with IBM mainframes.
We need RJE for 3780 bisync.  It needs to be 4800 baud, with
a 208A/B modem.  We may need both the software and the
hardware, a protocol converter for the serial port, the
synchronous modem, etc.  Oh yes, it needs to run on a Pyramid
9825 running OSx 4.4.

Is there such a beast?  Any help you could give would
be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

Chris

--
| Chris Anderson,                                |
| QMA, Inc.                email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Of *course* I speak for my employer, would he have it any other way? |

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

Date: 1-MAY-1989 03:47:05.81
From: Kenneth Selling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roomate Billing

In TELECOM Digest V9 #152, Richard Edell suggests a new Bell Operating Company
service --  Roomate Billing  -- which requires:

> when a call is placed that a "user account" code be entered.  The monthly
> bill is broken down by account code so there is no question about how much
> each roommate is to pay (monthly charges are separate).  There is only one
> responsible person per phone line.

OHH YES!  Having been the official "phone bill figurer-outer" wherever I've
lived at college, I couldn't agree more.  I've occasionally thought about how
nice such a service would be.  (Think: 6-10 students sharing one phone line.)

My imagination has included the further possibility of the "responsible person"
whose name is on the bill, being able to temporarily disconnect someone's
access number if they aren't paying their bills.  Students are often nervous
about having the phone bill in their own name because of the possibility of
getting stuck being responsible for a lot of someone else's calls.

Unlike above, though, the way I've envisioned Roomate Billing working is that
local calls go through normally, but any 1+  or  0+  call would require an
access number be entered.

Roomate Billing would certainly make figuring out shared bills easier.  It
would also have the added benefit of preventing dormitory interlopers from
making long-distance calls on such a line, and that's something which seems to
happen to a lot of people.  Haven't we all heard those stories about the
"two 40 minute calls to Tasmania which showed up over Winter vacation?"

The problems I envisioned putting this into practice had to do with collect and
operator-assisted calls.  How might one block an interloper from making a
person-person call, and how might one deal with billing collect calls?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                                           /------------------------------\
Ken Selling                                |  The Scholar on the Schwinn  |
                                           \------------------------------/
Organization:   Wesleyan University
Internet:       [e-mail]
BITNET:         [e-mail]
Local:   :-)    kselling
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Subject: AT&T 7404D phone info requested
Date: Mon, 01 May 89 17:02:30 PDT
From: Doug Claar <[e-mail]>


We have 7404D phones on our site. These have an all-digital interface which
uses four wires. (Or so I'm told). They also have a 36 pin "cartridge"
connector underneath. Other phones on the network feature an LED display
that displays the name of the (inside) caller.

Our telecom folks say that they have no information on how this thing
works, except that it uses some proprietary AT&T protocol. Can anyone
out there in telecom fill me in on this phone? Is it totally proprietary,
or is there interfacing information available? These phones are used on
an AT&T pbx, so I guess it could be all-proprietary...

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Doug Claar
HP Computer Systems Division
UUCP: mcvax!decvax!hplabs!hpda!dclaar -or- ucbvax!hpda!dclaar
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: Fred Darnsocks <[e-mail]>
Subject: New MCI Rates (clarification)
Date: 2 May 89 01:04:21 GMT
Reply-To: Fred Darnsocks <[e-mail]>
Organization: Statistics Dept., U. C. Berkeley



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

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 150, message 1 of 9
>
>   Whole bunches of stuff deleted
>
>Calling Card with the 'Around Town' option allowing local calling with
>no surcharge.

Just a point of clarification here. The Around Town feature, while
it may allow local calling with out a surcharge, is not intended for
this use. the intention is that you will make long distance calls out
of the service area of the local Telco (or BOC). What the Around Town
feature will do is not add a surcharge to any calls that are made using
it, if those calls are made within the area that is a local call from
the phone number that that card is tied to for instance if my number is
123-456-7890 and 123-555-1234 is a local call for me then if I make a
call with my MCI calling card from 123-555-1234 there will be no surcharge
added to the call.

 Fred Darnsocks  [e-mail]

===============================================================================
I'm not sure who I am or how I got here but if I click my heels together
and think real hard...........can I please go home
Fred    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 May 89 15:59:10 PDT
From: Anthony Argyriou <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

I have heard that if someone charges calls to phones that they aren't
supposed to (including other customer lines, if customer complains),
that a phone company tries to track down the caller. Failing that, they
charge the _recipient_ of the calls.

Anthony Argyriou
[e-mail]

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

From: Ed Morin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work
Date: 1 May 89 17:14:03 GMT
Reply-To: Ed Morin <nwnexus![e-mail]>
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.; Seattle, WA


A number of years ago, a friend of mine had a phone number 292-9936 (before
it got changed).  While traveling, his father had to make an emergency collect
call, but the operator insisted that they had a payphone at their home and
would not allow the call to go through!  He ended up yelling through the phone
to the party at the other end to get his message through!  (She apparently did
call at some point to see if anybody was at the number even though she thought
it was a payphone...)

--
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc.
"Unix Public Access for the Masses!"
[e-mail]

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

Date:  Mon, 1 May 89 19:59:25 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ESS and 10xxx Dialing


Gabe Wiener writes in a recent digest, about ESS features.

If you live in any version of ESS with any version of generic, you can
have 10xxx dialing.  You may live in an 5XB machine.  These often have
"precise tone-plants".  To get 10xxx dialing requires the addition of
a beastie called an "Adjunct Frame".  I don't recall who makes these,
but they fit somewhere in the line-link frame (logically, not
physically) and generate precise dialtone.  You can tell if you're on
one of these by the following test:

 Get a dialtone ... dial "#" ... if you hear a "different" dialtone,
you've got adjunct dialing.

This allows 10xxx dialing.  If you are served out of an electronic
toll-tandem (most of the US is) then you can get presubscription.
(Even people on #1 SXS machines can get presubscription if they're
served by DMS-200 Tandems.)

Summary:
 1)   ESS always allows 10xxx, unless specifically disabled.
 2)   5XB sometimes sounds like ESS
 3)   5XB can be upgraded to allow 10xx

Oh, one more thing:

ESS 5 allows party lines, with distinctive ringing.  These machines
are marketed heavily to small areas, as replacement for old step
machines.  Many customers will want to keep their old party-line
service, so the machine allows it.  As a side-note, this is how
distinctive ringing service is implemented for the
"many-phone-numbers-on-one-phone-line" feature.  (Often marketed as
"room-mate service" or some-such.


Scott the unemployed phone-hacker.

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

Date: 1 May 89 06:41:18 GMT
From: ggw@gw@ew
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Sender: [e-mail] (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Organization: Red Wolfe Software
Lines: 16

X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 142, message 3 of 10

In <[e-mail]> Kevin Lightner wrote:
> 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. ...
> ...  Does anyone else know of more of these?

Here in Durham, North Carolina (a satrapy of GTE-South)  the id number is a
simple 711.  The usual automatic voice reads you your number and then they
put an obnoxious tone on the line (to encourage you to hang up.)

---
UUCP: ...mcnc!duke!dukcds!wolves!ggw  or  ...decvax!duke!dukeac!wolves!ggw
Internet: [e-mail]  or [e-mail]
Voice: 919-493-1998 (home)  919-684-6126 (work)
Data: 919 493 7111 - The Wolves Den UNIX BBS
USMail: 902 A1 Park Ridge Rd.  Durham NC  27713


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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 May 89 10:18
Subject: re: Mass. phone rates

Noticing JSol's message, I tried to call the NETel newsline, but
it was out of order!

Having followed tariffs for over a decade, though, I can comment on
what's likely to happen.  NETel last got a "general rate increase"
around 1983, and its rate structure hasn't been examined in a lot
longer.  The 1983 round raised some private line rates by a lot
(short hauls), lowered long-haul private lines a little, and otherwise
was across-the-board by a few percent.

Since then, the area has grown quite a bit.  Business for NET has been
excellent.  So it's unlikely that they're really hurting.  Sometimes
telcos keep quiet about their rates since their rate of return has
gone up as a result of growth and they don't want the reguators to
lower the rates to the legal levels!  NET may have been in that position,
and it's possible that they're just now getting back into the range
of lower profitability.

In any case, there's no reason to expect the Mass. DPU to let NET
impose residential message rates where Metro service is now available.
Politics are too important, and it would be too easy to shoot down
the change as being unjustified.  Some changes are not unlikely, since
the Metro boundaries were set in 1908 (!) and Boston has, well,
grown a bit (suburb-wise) since then.

Lynn, btw, is an illustration of a case where 7-digit dialing doesn't
mean "local".  Lynn subtends Cambridge toll, so it's wired up as part
of Metro (hence the 7-digit dialing), but it wasn't put within the
1908 boundaries so it is treated differently.  Saugus (just west) is
another such case, surrounded by metro but not included.  It's local
to areas that would otherwise be 1 message unit (8 mile radius) and
toll (not 2MU) to the rest of Metro Boston.
     fred

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #154
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 3 May 89 1:47:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #155
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 May 89 00:45:46 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Loud Hum on the Phone (Jeff Russ)
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    Re: Roomate Billing (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Minor Retraction (Jon Solomon)
    Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service (Bob Hofkin)
    Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service (Michael Chin)
    Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans (TELECOM Moderator)

[Moderator's Note: Refreshing change of pace! Today someone says I am
prejudiced *against* AT&T. Read Michael Chin's correspondence and my
reply.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Russ <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 May 89 16:45:39 GMT
Subject: Loud hum on the Phone

My telephone recently started acting up.  When I pick up the phone I hear
a loud hum.  I can still dial numbers and make connections but the hum
is so loud that I can hardly hear anything.  The onhook voltage is 51 volts
and the offhook voltage is 6 volts.  I have another phone on the same
line and it does the same thing.  Does this look like a phone company
problem and not a problem with my wiring at home?  The only things connected
to the line are telephones that I bought from the phone company.  There
was a thunder storm with lots of lightening before I noticed the problem.
I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what to check before I call the phone
company.
                Jeff Russ

                [e-mail]
                BITNET: russ@iubacs

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

Date: Sun, 30 Apr 89 20:48:59 EDT
From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number

In <[e-mail]> Kevin Lightner wrote:
> 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. ...
> ...  Does anyone else know of more of these?

Here in Durham, North Carolina (a satrapy of GTE-South)  the id number is a
simple 711.  The usual automatic voice reads you your number and then they
put an obnoxious tone on the line (to encourage you to hang up.)

---
UUCP: ...mcnc!duke!dukcds!wolves!ggw  or  ...decvax!duke!dukeac!wolves!ggw
Internet: [e-mail]  or [e-mail]
Voice: 919-493-1998 (home)  919-684-6126 (work)
Data: 919 493 7111 - The Wolves Den UNIX BBS
USMail: 902 A1 Park Ridge Rd.  Durham NC  27713

[Moderator's Note: Did you mean 'satrap' instead of 'satrapy'?   PT]
------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Roomate Billing
Date: Tue,  2-May-89 16:14:44 PDT

I don't know where AT&T is on "Roommate Billing", but GTE offered it
10 years ago at Southern Illinois University. It was called Dorm Dial
and worked from any phone on campus. Essentially, GTE issued a restricted
use credit card that could only be used from campus. You dialed your number
direct and a GTE operator would ask for your card number. You gave it to
her and got the direct dial rate with no surcharges. Since the basic
rental of the phone was included in the cost of your room, there was
no additional charges and no splitting bills.

Those that lived off campus were out of luck though! It wasn't offered
there.

[e-mail]

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

Subject: minor retraction.
Date: Tue, 02 May 89 02:05:10 -0400
From: [e-mail]

Sorry folks. I made a mistake. Scott and I checked this out after I sent
the message to TELECOM: Lynn and Cambridge are within the metro calling area,
and are a zone 2 message unit call, not a toll call, as I otherwise implied.

--jsol

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

Date: Tue, 2 May 89 14:29 EDT
From: Bob Hofkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service

According to the MCI rep I spoke with, the "Prime Time" flat rate is
effective at all times EXCEPT weekdays 8 AM - 7 PM, and Sunday 5 PM - 7
PM.  A call placed during those hours gets a 10% discount from the
regular rates.  Residential customers can choose "Prime Time" or
"Saturday Supersaver," but not both.  The plans start June 1.

Current MCI customers should be warned that the existing volume
discount plan is being scaled back.

The rep denied that "Prime Time" is direct competition to Reach Out
America, but then she repeatedly compared the two programs!


Bob Hofkin


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

From: att!homxc!mchin
Date:  Mon, 1 May 89 09:31:14 EDT
Subject: Re: New MCI Residence Long Distance Service

[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator):
>
> On Friday, MCI Communication Corporation announced a new plan for
> residence phone subscribers. This plan has been started in direct
> competition to AT&T's Reach Out America Plans.
> When compared to AT&T's Reach Out Plan, the following basic
> differences are noted --
{lines deleted}
>
> AT&T's bulk purchase plan for residences kicks in at 10 PM nightly.
> MCI's new plan begins at 7 PM, giving an extra three hours of calling
> time in the evening.


Why was this stuff posted so early?  Shouldn't you have waited until you got
the inevitable reaction from AT&T and/or Sprint?  Also, if you're going to
describe the AT&T Reach Out America Plan, you should include the Evening and
Daytime options which can be purchased for approximately an additional $1.00
per month each.  The Evening option allows 15% discount on evening calls
(5 p.m. - 10 p.m.).  The Daytime option gets you a 5% discount on day calls.
These discounts are subject to change.  Notably, I know that the 15%
discount is expected to change to 20% under new filings.  Also, other rates
are expected to change, possibly including the hourly charge.

Please get all your facts before you start posting service comparisons.  We
get enough distortions from watching TV commercials.

Yeah, yeah.  I know I work for AT&T.  But I'm not really advertising.


Michael Chin            |  It could probably be shown by facts
AT&T Bell Laboratories        |  and figures that there is no distinctly
att!homxc!mchin         |  native American criminal class
Arpa:  [e-mail]    |  except Congress. - Mark Twain



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

Date:     Wed, 3 May 89 0:42:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans

Michael Chin, in the previous message, questions my comments last weekend
regarding the new MCI Long Distance plan for residence subscribers. He
asks, 'why was this posted so early?'

What is 'too early' about an announcement in a press release sent out on
Thursday, April 27, with a request that it be distributed over the weekend
of April 28-30 for a program which takes effect on May 1? I think the timing
was about right. If Mr. Chin's question is why did *I* announce it 'so early'
without waiting for responses from AT&T/Sprint, I would have to ask a
counter question of my own to him: Why would either of those organizations
bother replying if the media did not first announce this new program? Is
Mr. Chin suggesting that the [Wall Street Journal], the [New York Times],
and the [Chicago Tribune] -- to just name three papers I read each day --
should print the press release but [TELECOM Digest] should not have printed
it? If he thinks I should not print news releases sent to me by phone
companies and others, then someone should tell his employer to not
send me so much stuff! Apparently both MCI Communications Corp. and his
employer think I should talk about them as often as they can convince me
to do so, if the volume of printed press releases, etc is of any significance.

Not to worry, Mr. Chin! I'm sure AT&T will have something for me on the
subject before long! They always do.....

Then Mr. Chin says if I am going to mention the AT&T Reach Out Plans,
I should do so accurately and completely. Aside from the fact that there
are nearly a hundred such 'plans', i.e. one for each state for intrastate
purposes; one for each state for interstate purposes, with many being in
common to the others, the purpose of the original message was not so much
to re-hash AT&T's long distance calling plan as it was to announce a new
one and highlight what I believed was the major difference in the two;
namely the additional evening time available.

Mr. Chin points out that by paying extra to AT&T, one can get an additional
fifteen percent discount on evening calls. This is true, however MCI's new
plan charges *nothing extra* for the evening hours, and gives the overnight
rate -- not just 'an additional fifteen percent discount', but with
long distance calls now just costing pennies per minute anyway, this is
not really a major point.

Likewise, by paying extra to AT&T, one gets a five percent discount on
daytime calls, meaning that you pay extra to AT&T to get daytime rates
roughly equal to what MCI charges during the day for nothing extra.

Even that does not hold true everywhere however! Here in Illinois, our
'Reach Out Illinois' Plan includes something called 'interstate
transparency', which for 85 cents per month extra technically allows
interstate calling on the intrastate plan. If you have this, as I do, you
*cannot* also have the five percent daytime discount at present, because
of technical difficulties in billing intrastate/interstate calls and
giving the five percent discount which they are not permitted to do on
intrastate (within Illinois at least) calls.

AT&T also allows you to pay $2 extra per month on Reach Out America and
have your Calling Card/Call Me card calls billed at Reach Out rates during
the plan hours.

So everywhere we look with residential bulk calling and AT&T, we find an
extra surcharge in place for some added feature. That's okay with me, Mr.
Chin, since I have always believed in paying extra to get the quality I
want. You don't have to convince *me* to default all my calls to the Mother
Company.

Mr. Chin says AT&T will soon be lowering their rates. He believes I should
have said nothing about MCI's plan until AT&T had their new promotion in
place. That's tough. When AT&T sends me their latest news, just ask
any of the readers here: I will give it space, and catch the devil
from a few who think I praise AT&T too highly.

By the by, Sprint *has* already responded: They announced their rates were
reduced an average of 4.1 percent also as of May 1. See? I give everyone
equal time here, Mr. Chin. Sprint did not announce a bulk purchase
plan as such, but did cut their rates so that the price still comes
out about the same as MCI's new rates.

Patrick Townson
Moderator At Large


See you tomorrow!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #155
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 4 May 89 2:08:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #156
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 May 89 01:39:27 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Country direct numbers (John R. Levine)
    Dataroute to be De-Monopolized (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: Charges for busy signal when using modem? (Ross Oliver)
    I Have Problems Some Days (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 May 89 12:04:29 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <ima!ima.UUX!@harvard.harvard.edu>
Subject: Country direct numbers

There has been some mention here of AT&T's "USA Direct" service, which provides
direct-dial, usually toll-free, numbers in foreign countries that connect you
to an English-speaking AT&T operator in the U.S. who completes your call.  MCI
has something similar.  You can use your calling card or else call collect.

I found a little booklet in a hotel room over the weekend that has a
surprisingly long list of numbers that work the other way. Here they are.
Before you call them, consider that if you call Korea Direct's number, you
will in all likelihood get an operator who speaks only Korean, and who can
only complete calls to Korea.

Australia    800-682-2878
Korea        800-822-8256
Netherlands    800-432-0031
Singapore    800-822-6588
United Kingdom    800-445-5667
France        800-537-2623
West Germany    800-292-0049
Italy        800-543-7662
Panama        800-872-6106
Hong Kong    800-992-2323
Japan        800-543-0051

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 May 89 13:59:47 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Subject: Dataroute to be de-monopolized
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.


Well, it looks like more changes to the Canadian telecommunications
system are imminent.  This item is taken from the Kitchener-Waterloo
Record of May 2, 1989:

========================================================================
TORONTO (CP) -- The federal telecommunications watchdog has ruled on the
side of competition in the supplying of private-line telephone service.

A ruling Monday by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission will force Bell Canada, British Columbia Telephone Co.  and
Amdahl Canada Ltd.  to lose their monopoly over the supply of equipment
for the Dataroute service.

Dataroute is a long-established service used by medium-sized and large
corporations for a variety of functions, including banking, travel
reservations, stock trading and lotteries.

The service works within the confines of a company, unlike public
services, which are available to all.

The CRTC gave Bell and B.C.  Tel until July 31 to release previously
confidential signalling information that will allow manufacturers other
than Toronto-based Amdahl to supply what is known as digital channel
terminating equipment.

This equipment, with related pieces, codes and decodes data and connects
a corporation's private lines to the public telephone system.

The issue of private-line services was brought before the CRTC by
Paradyne Canada Ltd., part of AT&T.

Paradyne first went before the CRTC a year ago.  That company argued the
existing arrangement gave Bell and Amdahl an unfair advantage, and that
Dataroute customers would benefit from the introduction of competition
into that market.
--
     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: Ross Oliver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Charges for busy signal when using modem?
Date: Tue, 02 May 89 19:52:23 PDT
Reply-To: Ross Oliver <uunet!sco![e-mail]>
Organization: SCO Technical Support


In article <[e-mail]> 11TSTARK%GALLUA.BITNET@
cunyvm.cuny.edu (Timothy Stark) writes:
>
>   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.

Since the calling modem is silent until the answering modem
sends its pilot tones, how could the phone company know
whether a busy signal was an attempted modem or voice
connection?

Ross Oliver
Technical Support
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.

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

Date:     Thu, 4 May 89 1:33:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  I Have Problems Some Days

And this is one of those days. Two things going on which do not bode well,
but both will probably get cured eventually, and one probably already has
been cured.

This week, the site used to prepare and mail [TELECOM Digest] is switching
machines. In the past we were on a machine called 'gamma' at eecs.nwu.edu.
That machine is being removed from service, and I am now on a similar
machine called 'delta'. This is transparent to you, the reader, since all
mail merely comes to eecs.nwu.edu anyway. Pointers were, until yesterday,
pointing at gamma, which in turn might send mail to 'alpha' or other places
at Northwestern. During the change over Wednesday, it is possible some
mail did not reach me. I say this because the mailbox was suspiciously devoid
of new mail, and I found some new mail left behind at gamma.

If you sent mail Tuesday or Wednesday and wound up getting it bounced back
then I suggest you resend it to me. Our address is still '[e-mail]'
but there may have been some funny business Wednesday.

For next: Since last week, copies of the Digest have not been making
it through to the Usenet gateway for some reason. Some issues have been
retransmitted three times, and are still being gobbled up in a black hole
of some sort between here and chip@vector. My own control copies of the
Digest are only sporadically making it through to my mailbox at
chinet, a mere five miles away from Northwestern!  Once I am able to
re-establish contact with chip then our Usenet readers will again be getting
the Digest.

Since much of the correspondence from day to day in the Digest comes from
Usenet readers, and they mostly haven't gotten anything for several days
now, that explains why the mail is skimpy today.

That's life in the big city, I guess!


Patrick Townson

See you tomorrow!


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #156
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 8 May 89 0:03:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #157
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 May 89 00:01:51 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    We Are Back On Line! (TELECOM Moderator)
    One Year Ago: The Great Fire (TELECOM Moderator)
    Southern Bell and Southwest Bell Link Nets (Scott Barman)
    PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem (Jim Gonzalez)
    Wish List Item (Steven Gutfreund)
    Hum in the line (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 7 May 89 21:05:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  We Are Back On Line!

Last week was 'the week that was' here at TELECOM Digest headquarters. The
machine we had been using to produce each issue of the digest (gamma) is
being taken out of service, and replaced by a machine called 'delta'.
Needless to say, nothing ever goes off without a hitch.

We issued Digest #155 on Monday last week, and #156 on Tuesday, only to
find on Wednesday that neither issue, #155 or #156, had made it out of the
computer room, let alone getting to the subscribers. The dilemma, as it
turns out, and if I correctly understand what Postmaster Gore was telling
me is that the list channel worked fine on 'gamma', but had some serious
problems relating to 'delta', and the 4.2 software it is running,
until 4.3 becomes available to us sometime in the near future.

Nothing would work to get the Digest out. No amount of pushing by hand did
any good. It just wouldn't leave. Certain other systems, like bu-cs.bu.edu,
where the archives are stored would hang up on us as soon as a call was
made. No attempt was even made to mail out digests Wednesday, Thursday
or Friday. Saturday afternoon a 'real expert' looked into the matter and
provided some patches which would work in the interim. These patches consisted
mainly of putting the list channel back on gamma -- where it had always
been before, and where it had worked fine -- and tricking the mailer
handling the Digest into going over to gamma and then out.

Even those patches did not work exactly right, which is why some of you
got three issues of 155 and 156 delivered during the day Sunday. But we
*think* everything is in place now, at least until the Encore people
supply Postmaster Gore with what he wants to do the job right. And I guess
the 4.3 software is on the way also -- one of these days.

That is why your last Digests arrived about a week ago until you got the two
issues (and multiple copies of same) sometime Sunday. As jsol always tells
me, mailers are fun!

It's  a new week, virtually a new month, and spring is here. Let's try
again!


Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Sun, 7 May 89 21:56:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  One Year Ago: The Great Fire

As Mother's Day approaches, one cannot help but be reminded of flowers,
and fires, and telephones that work.

Last year, the national center for FTD operations, which is located in
Du Page County, Illinois, processed more than one million orders for Mother's
Day flowers in the week before May 8.

Then on Sunday, May 8, 1988 -- Mother's Day -- amidst a record volume of
phone traffic even for that special day each year came what has come to
be known as 'the world's worst telecommunications disaster' when fire struck
Illinois Bell's 'Hinsdale Superswitcher'.

Not being able to get the bills out to the florists for the Mother's Day
flowers for several weeks caused much financial stress, but had the fire
occurred a week earlier, with 250,000 orders in the FTD computer at any
one time, the confusion would have been even worse. Imagine all the mothers
who would have 'been certain' that their kids had forgotten all about them.
Even the lost phone calls that Sunday afternoon a year ago left more than
a few mothers miffed until word began spreading around the world -- just
hours later -- of the terrible tragedy which had struck.

It was shortly after 4 PM on that Sunday a year ago that an electrical fire
started in the two-story, red brick building building in Hinsdale -- a
building which looks like a thousand other phone company buildings across
the United States.

Neither Illinois Bell, long distance carriers, state or local officials
would know for more than a day the extent of the damage. The 10 PM news
on television that Sunday night showed the fire in progress, but had very
little to say. The Monday papers printed a few paragraphs, but no one --
not even the employees at Hinsdale -- had any grasp of the extreme amount
of damage they would find when they were permitted by the Fire Department
to re-enter the building for the first time about 4:00 AM Monday morning;
nearly twelve hours after the fire started. Miles of melted optic fiber;
circuit boards twisted into bizarre shapes from the intense heat; extensive
water damage to the main switch, with corrosion already starting; the
offices totally gutted leaving not a single printed document to be used
for reference in the days ahead.

And where to begin restoring service? Not only did Hinsdale provide local
phone service to several communities west of Chicago, but it provided
cellular phone service for all of area 312. It was a long distance hub
for all of northern Illinois. It also was the center for all communications
traffic between the air traffic controllers at Ohare Airport and the
Federal Aviation Administration control center in Aurora -- with links to
Midway Airport as well.

The first order of business was to restore the air controller's links, and
these were back in service by late Monday evening; a few hours after workers
were able to get into the building. Next came police, fire and other such
emergency services throughout the west suburban area. By mid-day Tuesday,
all police and fire departments in the area had at least one or two working
phone lines. Then came area hospitals and other local government,
again with just a phone or two. Cellular service, along with pagers were
back in service Wednesday. Emergency phone service, in the form of trailers
set up in various parts of the region were available beginning Thursday.
There were *so many* vital emergency restorations all going on at
once! Long distance phone service was re-routed around Hinsdale for nearly
two weeks. Some local phone service became available about two weeks after
the fire, and by a month later in early June, 85 percent of the restoration
was finished.

Was there anyone who did not at least have some inconvenience due to the
fire? The most immediate impact was on business places with local service
in the area who relied heavily on their phone service. Some of those
companies shut down for three weeks. A few went out of business entirely.
Calls between Chicago and the western suburbs were delayed or impossible
to complete for at least a week after the fire. Of course, calls to Hinsdale
were impossible for most of the month.

James Eibel, vice president of operations for Illinois Bell pointed out,
"We have had two fires in 104 years. I will never say never, but we have
done everything possible to see that such a tragedy never occurs
again." Eibel noted that an $80 million, five year plan to redesign its
entire hub system in northern Illinois is underway, and on schedule. The
new arrangement, when complete, will have each of the more than 100 phone
offices here connected in parallel with at least one other office, any
of which will be able to handle all the traffic from any office which
shuts down for whatever reason.

Illinois Bell has repeatedly declined to give cost estimates on the entire
impact of the fire. But besides the $80 million redesign plan, new equipment
was required at Hinsdale, which has been estimated at $20 million by
telecom experts. And industry analysts claim that the company lost about
$1 million per day in business during the period.

"Illinois Bell believes this is the cost of doing business," Eibel
said in an interview. "We foresee no rate increase at this time. After all,
the company's capital investment budget is $600 million per year, and the
$80 million in five years during the implementation of the new design can
easily be worked in."

Eibel also pointed out that the previously unmanned switching centers are
now staffed around the clock, and that specialized training has been going
on for some time. Other telcos have noted the 'Hinsdale experience' and
changed their thinking on many disaster related issues also. "We did not
ask to be placed in this position, but now we plan on being the leader in
all areas. We are leading a change in the philosophy and attitudes held
by many telcos. I can't afford to sit back and let someone else do it in
the future. We are firmly committed to never again having something like
this happen," concluded Eibel.

Never again? Those are strong words. But if any good at all has come from
the Hinsdale disaster a year ago this week, it is that Illinois Bell's
telephone network is becoming stronger and more secure than ever against
natural disasters of the sort that shook everyone with a rude awakening
on May 8, 1988. Hey, New York Tel/PacBell/Southwestern Bell, et al -- are
you reading this? You *do* remember Hinsdale, don't you?


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 14:12:14 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Subject: Southern Bell and Southwest Bell to link nets.
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA


This is a paraphrase of an article that appeared in the Business section
of the May 3, 1989 Atlanta Journal and may be of some interest here:

On May 2, 1989, Southern Bell announced that they and Southwest Bell
have agreed to link their experimental ISDN setups by the year 1991.
According to the article, this marks the first agreement of this type
crossing the "boundries" of the Regional Bell Operating Companies.  The
article goes on to say that Southern Bell has been working on the
experimental ISDN equipment in their Dunwoody office (that's in a
northern Atlanta suburb) since 1985.

--
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott


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

Subject: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem
Date: Thu, 04 May 89 16:11:51 -0400
From: [e-mail]

I recently purchased a PhoneMate answering machine.  Consumer Reports had
indicated that readers had complained of failures of machines that had been
"check-rated" (highly recommended).  One of the problems they reported was
that callers would be cut off while still speaking.  I am now excountering
this problem.  With the machine in VOX (record-'til-caller-stops-talking)
mode, the caller is cut off after speaking for anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds.
I double-checked that the CPC feature, which apparently allows use of a telco-
generated termination tone, is off.  Has anyone else encountered this failure
with PhoneMate machines?  I plan to call their 800 number tonight, but was
hoping comments from other users.

I have never had trouble with Panasonic machines.  I keep buying up to the
new features and passing on the older machines.  If this PhoneMate gives me
anymore grief I will return it and buy another Panasonic.

                -Jim.


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

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <bunny![e-mail]>
Subject: Wish List Item
Date: 3 May 89 18:46:20 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


Here is a wish list item that will really give people interested in security
a headache (much worse than caller-id).

I would like to be able to put a remote phone into slave mode. That is,
from a remote site, be able to log-in and press any button on a remote
phone. This would be very nice to be able to activate call-forwarding
on my home phone to my current location. Or, vice-versa to use my office
phone from home or another remote location. I can imagine a lot of other
remote applications as features (e.g. voice-mail) proliferate.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon (Steven) Gutfreund               [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA                      [e-mail]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hum in the line
Date: Fri,  5-May-89 16:00:42 PDT

Regarding the humming noise in the line after an electrical storm: It sounds
like the surge arrestors in the network interface box (or upstream) are blown.
In any case, it's easy to check out. Get a neighbors phone and plug it in
to one of your jacks. No hum, phone problem. Still hum, find network interface
box. Most newer ones have a customer removable cover and a test jack. Plug
good phone in test jack. If you still hear hum, it's in the network so
call the phone company. If you don't have a test jack, call the telco. They
will tell you where the problem is...

[e-mail] com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #157
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 9 May 89 0:44:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #158
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 May 89 00:23:49 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dialogic Product Line (Scott Statton)
    Automated Operators (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Correction to a retraction (Ken Levitt)
    HELP!! With phone lines (David W. Vezie)
    PhoneMate 7200 Troubles (Jim Gonzalez)
    Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
    Re: Charges for busy signal when using modem? (Thomas E. Lowe)
    Re: Charges for busy signal when using modem? (Kevin Blatter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 7 May 89 14:46:13 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dialogic Product Line


Greetings, _Digest_ readers.  Recently, I suggested someone look into
a Dialogic card for their PC.  I wrote to Dialogic Corp, and they sent
me a nice info package of their products.  I'll briefly describe each
product, and include it's price (as listed in this package).

    Dialogic Corporation
    129 Littleton Road
    Parsippany, NJ  07054

    201 334 8450

Dialog 40/B    $1,195.

Four channel digital voice/telephony expansion board with DTMF
decoding/encoding capabilities.  Multitasking application program
interface.  Two RJ14 telephone connections.

Dialog 41/B    $1,395

Same as D 40/B, but includes patented call-progress routines.

AMX/81        $595

Audio Multiplexer provides a means of switching audi signals from up
to eight D/40 chanels to external audio devices, including local
telephone sets, tape decks, voice recognition units, and text to
speech systems.

DTI/124        $2,995
DTI/100        $  965

T-1/DS-1 interface.  DTI/124 interfaces one T-1 span to up to six
D/4xB (i.e. 24 VF paths);  DTI/100 provides one VF drop-and-insert.

MF/40        $1,195

D/4x daughterboard detects and generates MF signalling.

VR/10        $3,695

Speaker Independent Voice Recognition board that features a 16 word
vocabulary for speech recognition over the telephone network.

DID/40        $1,895

Direct Inward Dial interface enables D/40 series board to interface to
C.O. DID trunks.

SA/102        $  110

Station Adapter provides for connection of up to eight telephone sets
to an AMX/81

AIA/2        $  150

Audio Interface Adapter allows audio devices with RCA jacks to be
interfaced to an AMX/81 via an SA/102.

AC/101        $  225

Audio Coupler provides direct audio path to a D/4x telephone interface
for recording of prompts through a connected telephone or audio
source, such as a cassette deck.

There you have it....If you've got a great idea that's just waiting to
be implemented with one of these, why not drop me a line.

Disclaimer:  I do not work for Dialogic, nor does anyone I know.  My
only relation is a satisfied customer.  I have only personally tested
the D/4x boards, but have found them to be of high quality and
easy-to-use.

Scott

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Automated Operators
Date: Fri,  5-May-89 16:06:07 PDT

Just received an insert in this month's bill from Michigan Bell
(Ameritech). It seems that they are about to implement a form
of the automated operator services some of the COCOTs have
been using for collect and third party billing. According to
the flyer, if you are making a 0+ call withing the LATA and
do not enter a credit card number after the "bong", you may
get connected to a computer asking you to touch a number
corresponding to your billing request (collect or third
party). You will then be asked to record your name. The called
or billed number will then be called, a computer generated message
will be played with your name inserted appropriately, and the
receiver asked to touch a number corresponding to whether or
not they accept charges.

I tried it this evening a got a real operator, so I can't
give any more details right now or comment on the possibility
of spoofing the system.

[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 07 May 89 12:17:47 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction to a retraction


On 5/2/89 jsol wrote that Lynn MA was in the metro Boston calling area.

This is only true sometimes.  If you live outside of the metro calling area
and have "Metropolitan" calling (as I do), Lynn and Burlington are toll
calls.  This seems to be the case for some other areas as well (like Hyde
Park).  Dorchester and Mattapan get free calls to Lynn, but
not to Burlington.

Swampscott, Nahant, Scituate, and North Reading are shown in the metro phone
books, but appear to be toll calls for most people with metro service.

Ken



--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: "David W. Vezie" <pixar!unicom![e-mail]>
Subject: HELP!! With phone lines
Date: 7 May 89 08:07:59 GMT
Organization: UNIx at the College Of Marin, Kentfield CA



I have a problem.  I have a lot of phone lines going into our
computer room, and I have no idea what the some of numbers are.
There was a number (760-7760) which would tell me what number
I was calling from.  However, since the Pa Bell upgrade last
February, that number hasn't worked.

Can anyone tell me what the new number is?  I'm desperate!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
       David W. Vezie, Systems Hacker  |              [phone]
              Lucasfilm Ltd            | [e-mail]
 "I support Star Wars (tm),            |{pacbell!unicom,well}!r2d2!dv
    it's SDI that I can't stand"  --Me |   {sun,ucbvax}!pixar!r2d2!dv

[Moderator's Note: After mailing this message to me -- during last week's
on again, off again mail service -- Mr. Vezie got through to me and said
to please include a note that the number he mentions in his message is
(was?) only for the area in California where he is located.  PT]

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

Subject: PhoneMate 7200 Troubles
Date: Mon, 08 May 89 10:58:25 -0400
From: [e-mail]

This is a follow-up to my posting regarding difficulty with a new
PhoneMate 7200 answering machine.

After several hours of busy signals, I managed to get through to
the toll-free help line listed in the owner's manual.  After asking
about Call Waiting (I don't have it), CPC (I had it turned off), and
callers pausing for more than a second (I tested it myself by counting
the seconds aloud until I was cut off), the woman told me to take the
machine to a local service center.  Taking a brand-new machine to a
service center is a bit much, so I returned the machine to the store
with description of my experience.

It is my suspicion that the machine simply has a problem with the
threshold used for detecting speech.  I could probably include
instructions in the outgoing message to speak loudly, but doesn't
inspire confidence, and doesn't work for faint long-distance calls.
Since the problem with callers being cut off was noted in Consumer
Reports in two earlier series of machines, I expect that this is a
problem that won't be designed out soon.  I would advise purchasers
to bear my experience, and the Consumer Reports data, in mind when
considering PhoneMate products.  Neat features don't compensate for
poor performance.  By the way, a friend had similar trouble with an
earlier model, so this experience was not entirely surprising.

I have switched to a Panasonic with similar features.  As noted in my
earlier message, my experience with Panasonic answering machines has
been consistently positive.  Good thing I have friends and relatives
willing to adopt the old ones :-).

                -Jim.


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


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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem
Date: 8 May 89 19:01:28 GMT
Reply-To: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Organization: World Otherness Ministries


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I recently purchased a PhoneMate answering machine.  Consumer Reports had
>indicated that readers had complained of failures of machines that had been
>"check-rated" (highly recommended).  One of the problems they reported was
>that callers would be cut off while still speaking.  I am now excountering
>this problem.  With the machine in VOX (record-'til-caller-stops-talking)

Not with PhoneMate machines, but with Sanyo machines. Mine was a TAS-450,
not a cheap little bugger, and it would hang up also between 5 and 20 seconds.
Our outgoing message said "Shout so you don't get cut off," but that
didn't help much.

I sent a letter to Sanyo, and they said that their machine was a "quality
product," and I obviously got a defective one. I sent it in along with $10
worth of postage, and got it back even more broken then before.

The machine not only cut callers off, but almost never recognized touch
tones for remote operation, had randomly blinking LEDs, would often lose
messages instead of saving them -- it was just a piece of crap.

I sent another letter to Sanyo, and threaten them with exposure on the
net, among other places. They told me to try replacing my batteries
again. (Didn't work.)

My machine was not defective, I think, but designed wrong. Would it
be too difficult to inlcude a VOX sensitivity adjustment with these
things? (Mine didn't have one inside or out.)

I hope you can return your PhoneMate; I doubt it can be repaired.
I bought a Code-a-Phone, and am reasonably pleased with it. I lost
a lot of money on the Sanyo, and got a lot of grief. I hope you
folks consider not purchasing Sanyo business products, and *especially*
stay away from the TAS-450 and the TAS-250.

Bottomed rated in the Consumer Reports issue of two months after my
purchase. Sigh.


--
# Daniel M. Rosenberg     //  Stanford CSLI  // Opinions are my own only.
# [e-mail]  // decwrl!csli!dmr // [e-mail]

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

From: "thomas.e.lowe" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Charges for busy signal when using modem?
Date: 8 May 89 13:10:35 GMT
Reply-To: "thomas.e.lowe" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>>   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.
>Since the calling modem is silent until the answering modem
>sends its pilot tones, how could the phone company know
>whether a busy signal was an attempted modem or voice
>connection?

And even if tones were sent, the phone company would have to be eavesdropping
on the line to determine if it is a modem or voice.

This sounds like it would be illegal.

--
Tom Lowe    [e-mail] or  att!hound!tel     [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
(R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T  (keep them lawyers happy!!)

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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Charges for busy signal when using modem?
Date: 8 May 89 17:08:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


> Phantom talked with me about charging for busy signals when using modem.
> He told me that: If voice-to-voice, they will not charge
> busy signals; If modem-to-modem, they will charge busy signals.
>
> Since the calling modem is silent until the answering modem
> sends its pilot tones, how could the phone company know
> whether a busy signal was an attempted modem or voice
> connection?

The long distance company can't tell (nor should they care!) whether
the call was dialed by a modem or by voice (it's identical).  The
caller was probably using some low-budget long distance company which
charges for calls that aren't completed.

Kevin Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs

Disclaimer:  My employer never told me what it thinks, why should it
care what I think?


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #158
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 10 May 89 0:26:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #159
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 May 89 00:06:24 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Education Level Needed To Use a Public Telephone (Stan Krieger)
    Looking For a Phone Line Simulator (Steve Gaarder)
    Re: "Buzzing" on line (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: Loud hum on the Phone (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans (Kevin L. Blatter)
    Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans (Roy Crabtree)
    Re: One Year Ago: The Great Fire (Roy Crabtree)
    Re: One Year Ago: The Great Fire (Pete Brown)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Stan Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Education level needed to use a public telephone
Date: 27 Apr 89 13:34:58 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ
Lines: 54

All the stories about AOS's and surprise phone bills has
just affected me in a way that's different from what I've
seen on this net.  But what it came down to is that it seems
a person either needs a college education, or a lawyer
present, just to make a phone call.

The situation is simple.  My daughter's high school band is
performing in a show in Virginia Beach on Saturday (4/29);
they left NJ today.  If for any reason she needs to call me,
I gave her instructions on how to put the call on my calling
card (I believe it's cheaper than calling collect), but here
is what I had to warn her about-

    1.  The "correct" number to dial, or push, is
        10288-0-(201) and my phone number.

    2.  Don't use the phone in the hotel room, because
        it might not support 10XXX dialing, or worse,
        an operator may just identify him/herself as
        AT&T because of the code.  Also, even if the
        hotel's LD carrier is AT&T, she may find the
        hotel will charge her for using the room phone,
        although the call wasn't billed to the room.

    3.  If she uses a public phone, use one that's owned
        by C&P Telephone.  A private pay-phone, like one
        in the hotel, might not support 10XXX, or as
        above, the operator may see the 10288 and lie.
        And, even if you use a Bell phone, push the
        10288 anyway.

    4.  Listen for the "Thank you for using AT&T" after
        she punches in my calling card number.  But I also
        had to warn her that an alternate carrier name
        might not be obvious.  She said, "So if it
        says Sprint, I should hang up." I said yes,
        but it could be a similar sounding name like "NPT",
        or it may just say "Thank you".

Now, these instructions are to a high school junior who is in
the top 25% of her class, and even with them, she could still
get caught using a phone carrier not of her own choosing, simply
because of all the permutations involved.  To many people, it
may look like you can get better odds from an Atlantic City
slot machine than from a public phone.

It used to be that all we had to do was teach our kids to dial
"0" in case of fire or if the police were needed, but now that
might not work either.

HELP!!!
--
Stan Krieger
Summit NJ

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

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 13:17:05 edt
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for a phone line simulator

I need a device that will simulate 2 phone lines for the purpose of testing
data communications equipment.  Ideally, it would provide dial tone, and
when dialing was detected, ring the other line.  I could also use a simpler
unit that would provide dial tone and ring voltage under manual control.
This latter I could build, and will if I can't find something ready-made.
For that, I need to know what the frequencies of a standard dial tone are,
and where I can get a 100V 20Hz ring supply.

Thanks,

Steven Gaarder
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6-MAY-1989 03:37:42.05
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: "Buzzing" on line


Jeff-

In response to your post from Telcom 155 about a thunderstorm possibly
causing a loud hum on your phone line(s), I've had the same problem
around my house as well.

Frequently, after it rained, I got a loud hum, or no signal at all
(just dead, although Touch Tones worked), and callers calling in
to me got either a busy signal or the line picked up, AUTOMATICALLY,
without me lifting the phone.

After a while, I found out that it was a junction box outside my house,
where my lines were connected to a larger pool of wires from the
central office (?).

When it rained, water got in there, and stayed there for a few days
until it dried out. The water would ocassionally short-out my line,
almost as if someone had "picked-up" the phone and left it off-hook,
hence the apparent lack of a dial tone yet enough line current to
power the Tone pad. It also explains why it was busy for incoming
callers.

At other times, there was a dial tone, but a very loud buzzing on the
line. Incoming callers would get a very short ring, and then, (I am
guessing now) after a certain threshold was reached, the exchange
thought that the short circuit was actually me picking up, and
connected the incoming caller and started billing. Some times it buzzed
quite loudly, others not quite so, yet it happened regularly after
a heavy rain.

I told the lineman all the details, and he immediately knew what to do:
He drilled a few holes in the bottom of the box for drainage, pasted
up the top of it to stop water from entering the box, and moved
my line which was having trouble a bit further to the top of the
box so that if any water accumulated near the bottom in the future
it would affect my line.

I'm not sure you are having the same problem, but it does seem rain
related, so maybe you have some exposed contacts outside that
would tend to collect rain water in a confined area and short
out the line, rather than it having to be just in the junction
box.

Well, hope this helps!!

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old dreuben to locals! :-)  [all one of them who
                                             actually reads this!-thanks!]


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

From: Ed Greenberg <claris![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loud hum on the Phone
Date: 9 May 89 04:19:52 GMT
Reply-To: Ed Greenberg <claris![e-mail]>
Organization: 3Com Corp., Mt. View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Jeff Russ) writes:
>My telephone recently started acting up.  When I pick up the phone I hear
>a loud hum.
>... middle deleted
>  ... there
>was a thunder storm with lots of lightening before I noticed the problem.
>I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what to check before I call the phone
>company.
>                Jeff Russ

My guess is you've blown a carbon protector.  This happened to my
family when I was about 18 years old (15 years ago) and it was a major
pain in the *ss because I had the house full of then "illegal" phones.

You need to (a) unplug all the phones and other telephony equipment in
the house, (b) find the demarcation point where the line enters and
(c) test the line there.  If it still acts up, call the telco.

What's going on is this...  Theres a block where the phone line enters
which has two carbon inserts connected to ground.  These protectors
are supposed to short to ground when lightning or other transients
strike.  If one blows, you've got a grounding problem.  This causes
the hum.

The carbon block will be found in the basement, garage or on the wall
outside the house.  It will have two screw or bolt down terminals, and
two other screw covers containing the carbons.  The outside wire will
be connected to the two bolt-down terminals.  The inside wire will
also be connected to those terminals.  There will also be a ground
which will be grounded (or "earthed" as our friends in the UK say.)

If your house is new, there will also be a modular "demarcation point"
which defines where telco responsibility ends and house wiring begins.
If so, unplug the demarcation jumper and plug a phone into "their"
side.  If it hums, call them.  If it don't you've got another problem,
probably a grounding problem inside the house.


Good luck, and let me know if I was right.
                -edg

--
{decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg    Ed Greenberg
    -or-                        3Com Corporation
{sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg                Mountain View, CA
                            415-694-2952

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

Subject: Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans
From: lzaz![e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 12:59:00 GMT

Lighten up Patrick!  As you know, people get a little touchy when their
company is attacked.  (I know that you didn't attack AT&T and I have yet
to read anything where you have.)  Anyone who lives in our society sees
AT&T attacked daily by its competitors in the printed and spoken media.

Being an employee of AT&T I (and undoubtedly Mr. Chin) know that most
of those attacks are gross misrepresentations of the facts.  I believe
that Mr. Chin was overreacting to what he thought was an attack on
AT&T's pricing schemes.  (Incidentally, I do not believe that you were
attacking AT&T.)

I'm sure you realize that a large percentage of the readers of Netnews
and this news group are AT&T employees.  Try to keep that in mind when
posting future articles.

Personally, I think that you do a good job of moderating this newsgroup
and I look forward to reading the postings.  Keep up the good work.
(Including press releases on what the competition is doing. ;-) )

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs


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

From: roy crabtree <ami![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans
Date: 9 May 89 18:29:52 GMT
Organization: Access Methods, inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> Michael Chin, in the previous message, questions my comments last weekend
> regarding the new MCI Long Distance plan for residence subscribers. He
> asks, 'why was this posted so early?'
[elided]
> Not to worry, Mr. Chin! I'm sure AT&T will have something for me on the
> subject before long! They always do.....
>
> Then Mr. Chin says if I am going to mention the AT&T Reach Out Plans,
> I should do so accurately and completely. Aside from the fact that there
[elided]
> Mr. Chin points out that by paying extra to AT&T, one can get an additional
> fifteen percent discount on evening calls. This is true, however MCI's new
> plan charges *nothing extra* for the evening hours, and gives the overnight
[elided]
> AT&T also allows you to pay $2 extra per month on Reach Out America and
> have your Calling Card/Call Me card calls billed at Reach Out rate

You've been lambasted as pro-AT&T; now it sems like you're being hit for being
anti-AT&T!!!

One comment relative to the new plans, however:  These are sounding one
whole heckuvalot like the variable rate structures PUCs (thersthatwordagain)
used to love so eliminate so much.

How about this as an idea:  Have the common carriers be _required_
to print on the bill to the customer what any available alternate
carier would have charged (overall,  mind you!) for the same calls,
and _require_ them to print a detailed comparative analysis on demand for
a customer against other carriers.

To be fair this comparison should be forced on a "best service price"
basis; i.e., no fair comparing the best AT&T rate with the worst
Sprint rate.

A more palatable form of this would be to require common carriers to print a
cost analysis to a consumer against actual usage versus known rate structures
with an eye toward _minimizing_the_bill_, based on past usage, or to allow a
user to ask for an estimate given a prospective usage pattern.

If you realy want to spook the carriers, the FCC could require a carrier
to give the customer a bill based on the lowest possible bill among all plans
over a running year interval of time ...  yes, I'm dreaming ....

roy a. crabtree uunet!ami!royc 201-566-8584


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

From: roy crabtree <ami![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One Year Ago: The Great Fire
Date: 9 May 89 18:52:56 GMT
Organization: Access Methods, inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> As Mother's Day approaches, one cannot help but be reminded of flowers,
> and fires, and telephones that work.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mrph.
[elided]
> be known as 'the world's worst telecommunications disaster' when fire struck
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.... yet.
[elided]
> nearly twelve hours after the fire started. Miles of melted optic fiber;
> circuit boards twisted into bizarre shapes from the intense heat; extensive
> water damage to the main switch, with corrosion already starting; the
> offices totally gutted leaving not a single printed document to be used
> for reference in the days ahead.

Does anyone even remember the Manhattan Midtown fire (42nd Street, was it?),
of a somewhat smaller long distance service nature, but around 500,000
subscriber lines wre fried?  I seem to recall essential service online within
18 hours, plus 85% service restoral in two-three weeks ....

    ... and they complete rebuilt the central office from scratch ...


[elided]

> Never again? Those are strong words. But if any good at all has come from
> the Hinsdale disaster a year ago this week, it is that Illinois Bell's
> telephone network is becoming stronger and more secure than ever against
> natural disasters of the sort that shook everyone with a rude awakening
> on May 8, 1988. Hey, New York Tel/PacBell/Southwestern Bell, et al -- are
> you reading this? You *do* remember Hinsdale, don't you?

But of course reliable service costs too much, right?  So who wanted
to authorize the rate structure to _pay_ duplicate routing?  Since it
was almost there anyway, under the old single hierarchy provided by Ma Bell
(with some exception in congested areas).

If you want to cry, take a look at some of the traffic analysis plans for
disaster recovery provided back in the old step by step days:  they actually
coul do the job faster than Hinsdale was done.

But the cost was:  $$$ for the facilities, adequate space for the equipment,
and planning 5-15 years ahead in outside plant cable layout.

Say, patrick, is anyone out there doing this type of stuff for the nation as a
whole anymore ???

roy a. crabtree uunet!ami!royc 201-566-8584


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

Date:     Mon, 8 May 89 9:51:49 PDT
From:     Pete Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  One Year Ago: The Great Fire

Patrick,

Thanks for the Hinsdale history... I first enjoyed reading the Telecom Digest
shortly after the fire, and never quite figured out what had happened.  By the
time I understood archives, it was forgotten!

Thanks for all your efforts which make the Digest so interesting and
informative!

POB


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for the kind words.  PT]
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #159
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 11 May 89 0:47:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #160
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 May 89 00:34:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Bit-oriented protocols standard: ISDN channels? (John Gilmore)
    Sci.commtech Call for Discussion (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Modems and LD Carriers (Brian Jay Gould)
    Implementation of 911 Enhanced Service through PBX (Steve Swingler)
    AT&T Focus Group (Michael S. Maiten)
    NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas (John R. Covert)
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (David Lesher)
    London code split (Mark Brader)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 18:51:18 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bit-oriented protocols 'standard' for ISDN byte-oriented channels?

The new Sun SPARCstation-1 uses an ISDN chip for its audio interface
(the AMD Am79C30).  The chip is designed for use in an ISDN
speakerphone; it talks the "S" interface (towards the phone network)
on one end, has a micro-oriented 8-bit bus on another, two audio inputs
(mike and handset), and two audio outputs (earpiece and speaker).  It
has full SDLC support for the 16kbps "D" channel, but the two 64kbps
full-duplex "B" channels are simply accessed a byte at a time.

It appears that Sun will not support plugging your SPARCstation into an
ISDN phone line, because some standards committee somewhere decided
that, when used for data, the "B" channels should carry SDLC-formatted
data, and the SPARCstation (and the Am79C30) has no support for this.

I find this the height of lunacy.  The "B" channels are physically
transmitted as 8,192 8-bit bytes per second.  Each frame on the "S"
interface has 4 bytes of "B" channel data.  It knows where all the
byte boundaries are, and it doesn't lose any of them in transit.
If you think for a minute, this is obvious.  Voice encoded into a
64kbps channel had BETTER retain its byte boundaries, since it consists
of 8-bit samples which would be gibberish if resampled on random bit
boundaries.  So data encoded into the same 64kbps channel would also
retain its byte boundaries.

SDLC framing was designed for bit-oriented channels that need a certain
number of clock transitions to keep their bit timing accurate.  ISDN
frames already provide byte orientation and enough clock transitions,
completely outside the 64kbps of data.  Any bit pattern, including
infinite zeros and infinite ones, can be sent down the 64kbps channels
without harm.  There is no need for bit-stuffing here.  If framing is
desired (in some cases it may be), this should be up to the
communicating parties to pick a framing.  The "Asynchronous SDLC
framing" standard, designed for another byte-oriented communications
environment (sorry, don't have its X.number) would be a possible choice.

A trivial software driver for this chip would let users transmit full
duplex TCP/IP data back and forth between two SPARCstations at 64kbps,
anywhere that end-to-end ISDN service is offered.  I'm sure that
someone will code one up and probably give it away like SLIP, but if
the standard had been reasonable, this capability would have been
built-in by Sun.  Does anyone understand why the ISDN standards bodies
made what looks like a major botch here?

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: sci.commtech Call for Discussion
Date: 9 May 89 23:17:15 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.



I would like to get reaction to the formation of a newsgroup,
sci.commtech, for the discussion of new communication
technologies and their impacts on users (both end users and
organizations), media industries, media audiences, and society.
The group could be used to post information on developments in
new media technologies (generally all means of text, audio, and
video generation, storage and transmission).  As digital
technologies continue to transform the broadcast and electronic
media, those of us who grew up in the media/communications field
have much to learn from those of you in the computer field.

Example new communication technologies include

* new video technologies (HDTV, IDTV, interactive video,
  videodisc, picture-in-picture)
* new tape storage technologies (S-VHS, digital VCRs, digital
  audio tape)
* new optical disk technology applications (compact disk
  technologies (CD-ROM, CD-Video, CD+Graphics, erasable CDs)
* new delivery technologies (direct broadcast satellites, digital
  video-on-demand, pay-per-view)
* new telecommunication technologies (integrated services digital
  network [ISDN], fiber optics)
* new computer-based communications technologies (electronic
  text [including electronic newspapers], electronic mail,
  computer networks, videotex [e.g., Prodigy], teletext)

Discussions about *both* new technical and application
developments, as well as policy issues related to these new
communication technologies would be appropriate.  A current
policy topic, for example, would be telephone company involvement
in cable television.

Please *post* any comments on the name of this newsgroup, its
charter, whether or not it should be moderated and, if so, who
the moderator should be.  Looking forward to your reactions.


Posted 9 May 1989
--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 10 May 89 14:33:33 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I have seen numerous comparisons by carriers, of their noise levels (dropping
pins and such).  The modem manufacturers specify data rates based upon
noise free lines.

So...  has anyone ever attempted to chart data rate versus carrier?
(for several modem types)

If not, I may have some funding for someone interested in doing some
research.
--

- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]   BITNET gould@jvncc  -
-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould    Telephone [phone] -


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

Date: Wed, 10 May 89 16:33 CDT
From: Steve Swingler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Implementation of 911 Enhanced Service through PBX


     911 will be inplemented here (Waco, Texas) later this year.  Our PBX
(Northern Telecom SL1-XT) has the capability to send caller information to
the CO (ESS) either by ANI or AIOD.  The 911 implemention team was satified
with knowing that a call came from Baylor University and leaving it at that.
But we felt with over 4000 telephones on campus, we should do a better job
of providing locations to the emergency services.  We are now investigating
the possibility of providing extensions whenever a call is made to 911.

     Has anyone else set up 911 location information service from a PBX.
Please send any recommendations, advice, and experiences.


Thank You

Steve Swingler
Baylor University
Center for Computing and Information Systems
Waco, Texas

[phone]

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

From: "Michael S. Maiten" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Focus Group
Date: 10 May 89 22:44:29 GMT
Organization: Silvar Lisco, Inc. Menlo Park, CA


Recently, I was asked to participate in a marketing focus group
regarding business traveler's telephone usage.  It turned out that
the company sponsoring the research was AT&T.  The nine people in our
group (who were each paid $50) came from various backgrounds; the
moderator was an employee of an independent market research firm.

Most of the two hour session was spent identifying the telephoning
patterns of the various participants. A special focus was made on
alternative operator services and the problems experienced.

One thing that AT&T is investigating is a special recording to be
played just before entering your calling card number; the recording
would identify the service as AT&T.  It was implied that there would
be some sort of an advertising campaign that if you didn't get the
recording, you could then dial 10-ATT for an AT&T line.
[Surprisingly, most of the participants did not know of 10-ATT].

The main complaint that most people had with the recording was not the
idea, but the execution.  The recording was about twice as loud as the
touch tone sounds and had some (in the opinion of 100% of our group)
terrible electronic music with a loud voice saying something like
"Thank you for using AT&T".

The current scheme is that you get a recording stating simply "thank
you for using AT&T" after you enter the calling card number.  AT&T
wanted to know our reactions to having it before entering the number.
About 75% of the group said that they would hang up and redial using
10-ATT if they got the message before entering their calling card
number.  No one said that they would redial after entering the entire
long string of digits (as in the present type of recording).

At one point in the discussion, they wanted to know our reactions to a
sign, which all telephone companies would be forced to post on pay
phones, that would specify that you could reach AT&T using 10-ATT!  No
one thought that was a good idea as it seemed that AT&T had gone a bit
too far.

They even had some proposed signs which businesses would post to
indicate that all telephones inside were official AT&T telephones.
(Like we accept Visa, Master Charge, and AT&T!).

All in all, an interesting session.  It will be interesting to see if
any of the things presented for our opinions will ever see the light
of day.
--

Michael S. Maiten                 Internet:    [e-mail]
Silvar-Lisco, Inc.                Nameservers: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]        Usenet:      {pyramid,sun}!silvlis!msm

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 May 89 20:20
Subject: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas

It was just announced that those portions of 214 outside Dallas will be
changed to 903 in the Fall of 1990.

With 708 assigned to Chicago, 903 assigned to Texas, and 908 assigned to
New Jersey, only 909 and 917 remain to be assigned before the format changes.

/john

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 10 May 89 00:34:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: UofMiami Hertz Lab, Coral Gables, FL


For many years in the 216 (Cleveland and Akron), 200+7d (Except the correct
7d) gave you a readback. The theory was that if you were on the correct pair,
you just got a beep. Recently they have changed it to something else and told
the craft people that revealing the 'something else' is cause for immediate
termination. We still wonder why. Any ideas what is behind this new policy?

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: London code split
Date:     Wed, 10 May 89 22:10:07 EDT


As most of you know, the dialing code for London from within the UK is
01 (the real city code being just the 1, of course).  This is reflected
in the title of a TV show over there: "01 For London".

And this is why the place where I learned that that code is being split
was in an entertainment magazine!  They were remarking that the producers
of that show would have to find a new title for it.

If I understood the piece correctly, rather than the system used in places
like New York where the more "central" area gets to retain the old, easily
dialed and remembered, code, in London the 01 will be abolished altogether;
part of the area will become 071 and the rest 081.  This is to happen on
May 6, 1990.

Mark Brader            "A hundred billion is *not* infinite
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         and it's getting less infinite all the time!"
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]        -- Isaac Asimov, "The Last Question"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #160
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 12 May 89 0:29:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #161
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 May 89 00:10:11 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem (Bob Breum)
    Framing within an ISDN B Channel (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Bit-oriented protocols standard: ISDN channels? (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (Don Ritchey)
    Re: Correction to a retraction (Bob Clements)
    Re: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas (TELECOM Moderator)
    Where is Epic? (Brian Lakeman)
    ISDN does NOT require any particular data protocols! (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Paying for directory assistance calls (Roy Smith)
    University Telecom Programs: Request for Info (Bruce Klopfenstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Breum <iuvax!uiucuxc!cmpfen![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem
Date: 10 May 89 18:12:22 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Breum <iuvax!uiucuxc!cmpfen![e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Fenestrations, Lake Monroe, Florida, USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I recently purchased a PhoneMate answering machine.  Consumer Reports had
>indicated that readers had complained of failures of machines that had been
>"check-rated" (highly recommended).  One of the problems they reported was
>that callers would be cut off while still speaking.  I am now excountering
>this problem.  With the machine in VOX (record-'til-caller-stops-talking)
>mode, the caller is cut off after speaking for anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds.

I have a PhoneMate 9750, their top-of-the-line two-line answering machine
with a built-in telephone.  It has not had any problems during the more than
a year that I have used it.  I would recommend it to anyone, although the
built-in phone is pretty worthless; buy the similar model without the phone.

Oh, there is one drawback to this unit:  it uses very expensive lithium
batteries which have failed at least twice already.

--
Computer Fenestrations                              Bob Breum
Post Office Box 151        {uiucuxc|hoptoad|petsd|ucf-cs}!peora!cmpfen!bob
Lake Monroe, FL 32747 USA
[phone]                           "C is the new BASIC"

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

Date: Thu, 11 May 89 10:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Framing within an ISDN B channel

I believe that the reasons for requiring HDLC framing within an ISDN
B channel is that, because of clock differences in the network, it is possible
that an 8-bit byte may get dropped somewhere along the way.  This makes
little difference in a voice conversation, but messes up data.  SDLC framing
with a frame check sequence allows you to detect the error.

Marvin Sirbu



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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bit-oriented protocols 'standard' for ISDN byte-oriented channels?
Date: 11 May 89 17:29:06 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


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

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 160, message 1 of 8

>The new Sun SPARCstation-1 uses an ISDN chip for its audio interface
>(the AMD Am79C30).  The chip is designed for use in an ISDN
>speakerphone; it talks the "S" interface (towards the phone network)
>on one end, has a micro-oriented 8-bit bus on another, two audio inputs
>(mike and handset), and two audio outputs (earpiece and speaker).  It
>has full SDLC support for the 16kbps "D" channel, but the two 64kbps
          ^^^^ LAPD.
>full-duplex "B" channels are simply accessed a byte at a time.
>
>It appears that Sun will not support plugging your SPARCstation into an
>ISDN phone line, because some standards committee somewhere decided
>that, when used for data, the "B" channels should carry SDLC-formatted
>data, and the SPARCstation (and the Am79C30) has no support for this.

As far as I know it is EXPECTED (not required) that most ISDN data
will be HDLC-framed.  (e.g. X.25, proposed new packet-mode services)
However, V.110 rate-adapted data is not HDLC-framed, and clear-channel
data is not necessarily framed, either.

Is there a standard restricting the format of clear-channel data to
HDLC-framing? Who is responsible for that?  What are they going to do
about V.110? Names and document numbers would be appreciated - this is
news to me and could be a Very Bad Thing. With luck it's just a
misinterpretation on someone's part.

I find it interesting that there is no HDLC controller on the B
channels. How does the SPARCstation perform when it is being
interrupted every 125uS?

                Peter Desnoyers

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

Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
From: ihlpb![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 13:22:00 GMT

Summary:  Yes, he does mean satrapy.

In article (Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>), you wrote

> Here in Durham, North Carolina (a satrapy of GTE-South)  the id number is a
>
> [Moderator's Note: Did you mean 'satrap' instead of 'satrapy'?   PT]

GTE-South = satrap - 1) the governer of a province in ancient Persia.
        2) a: RULER b: a subordinate official : HENCHMAN

Durham, NC = satrapy - the territory or jurisdiction of a satrap.

Definitions courtesy of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
Copyright 1988.

Humorously yours,

Don --

Don Ritchey [phone], AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 4E-408
att!ihlpb!dritchey or [e-mail] {for smart mailers}

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

Subject: Re: Correction to a retraction
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 15:00:07 -0400
From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Ken Levitt writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 158, message 3 of 8
>
>On 5/2/89 jsol wrote that Lynn MA was in the metro Boston calling area.
>
>This is only true sometimes.
[and goes on with another list of towns that may or may not be toll calls.]

I cannot imagine what possible reason there could be for going into
this level of detail on the net, but what do I know? :-)

The basic point is that New England Telco charges different
amounts for "Metropolitan" service depending on where you live.
Roughly, in the richer suburbs they charge more and in the poorer
suburbs they charge less. (Richer and poorer back when the tariff
was created, long ago, not necessarily true today.) To justify
the price differences they include slightly larger calling areas
in the higher-priced suburbs.

The upshot is that you can't tell what is a toll call by whether
you have to dial a leading one or not.  You can't tell without
knowing your class of service AND where you live AND where you're
calling AND the time of day AND the day of week.  I had to code
all this into a ham radio repeater's microprocessor.

Anyone who cares about the specific towns can just look in the phone
book and/or call the business office.

Bob Clements, K1BC
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Fri, 12 May 89 0:04:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas

In issue 160, John Covert writes that area code 903 has been assigned to
NE Texas.

He then notes that area 708 has been assigned to Chicago, however
this is not correct. Chicago will remain in area 312. 708 has been assigned
to all parts of northern Illinois which were formerly in 312 and not in
815.

He also notes that only two area codes remain unassigned before the supply
of 'traditional' area code numbers is exhausted, and area codes begin to
take a different format.

My question is this: with the numerous three digit codes which are currently
not in use which at least resemble, or 'look like' what area codes have
always looked like, why are not those numbers being used first, before
completely departing from tradition?

For example, numbers like 310, 311, 511, 300, 400, 500, 600. While
they do not conform exactly (never before two zeros in a row on a regular
area code; never two ones in a row; when one is the second digit then the
third digit is always two or more, etc...)  but they still look enough
like area codes that they would be more palatable to people than what I
have heard is going to happen, using numbers like '689' or '327' which
don't even closely resemble areas.

Some time back when I said that the numbers 410,510,610,710,810,910 were
unavailable as area codes since they were used by Western Union, I got
almost hissed off the stage. If they are *not* out of circulation,
then howcome they wouldn't be more suitable as area codes than what I'm
told Bellcore is going to pass off on everyone?


Patrick


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

From: Brian Lakeman <ndsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Where is Epic?
Date: 11 May 89 14:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Lakeman <ndsuvax![e-mail]>
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo


I was wondering if Epic might have gone out of business or something.
A friend of mine bought an Epic 2400 baud modem for his Apple //e last year,
and it was a little buggy and he heard that Epic was replacing their old
buggy ones with new ones.  So he called Epic and they told him to send it
in to them, and they gave him a number to write on the box.  So he did this,
and it has been atleast a month and he hasn't gotten anything back from them
yet.  He called the number he had for Epic, and it said the number had been
changed, so he called the new number, and it said it was disconnected.  He
also called the California number for Epic, and it was also disconnected.

Does anyone have the new number for Epic?  Or has something happened to Epic?

please reply by mail if possible, thanks.


Brian Lakeman

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]



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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 May 89 09:35
Subject: ISDN does NOT require any particular data protocols!

In Telecom V9I160, John Gilmore <[e-mail]> writes,

>It appears that Sun will not support plugging your SPARCstation into an
>ISDN phone line, because some standards committee somewhere decided
>that, when used for data, the "B" channels should carry SDLC-formatted
>data, and the SPARCstation (and the Am79C30) has no support for this.

>I find this the height of lunacy.

Yes, I agree, your assertion above fails the sanity test.  ISDN does
NOT require any particular formatting of data on the B channel.

ISDN's circuit-switched 64 kbps (unrestricted) bearer service places
absolutely no constraints on what you do with your 64 kbps of
isochronous bandwidth.  You wanna run SDLC, run SDLC.  You wanna run
DDCMP, run DDCMP.  You wanna run bisync, run bisync.  Or fax, or
low-bit-rate video, or 7 kbps ADPCM audio or whatever.  The network's
not allowed to touch your bits.

In some US implementations, you may be limited to the 64 kbps Restricted
bearer service.  This is merely an artifact of the use of T1 carrier,
which doesn't allow the all-zero octet to be transmitted, so that
applies to 64R calls.  Inverted HDLC of course runs fine in that mode.
However, B8ZS and ZBTSI are two techniques for removing the restriction
from T1; the telcos are installing them so 64R may be rare or
nonexistent in practice.

If the Sparcstation can't be used over ISDN, it's not the fault of the
standards.
    fred
(voting member, ANSI T1S1: ISDN Architecture, Services and Protocols)

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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Paying for directory assistance calls.
Date: 11 May 89 16:50:24 GMT
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC, NY


    A few weeks ago I had to call a company in the Virgin Islands.  I
wasn't sure if they were on St. Thomas (part of the USVI) or on Tortola
(part of the British Virgin Islands, the BVI).  It turns out you can call
either by dialing a "normal" long distance call -- area code 809 followed
by 7 digits, even though the BVI only has 5-digit phone numbers.  Anyway, I
called directory assistance by dialing 1-809-555-1212 and got an operator
who asked "which island please" and patched me through to Tortola directory
assistance over what sounded like a radio-telephone link (the USVI and the
BVI each consist of 3 large islands plus a number of smaller ones).  I
suspect the initial operator I spoke to was on the mainland because when I
said I wanted Roadtown, he asked again which island I wanted.  Roadtown is
the capital of the BVI and by far the largest city (if you can call it
that; I don't think it has 2500 people) in the BVI -- any local of either
the US or BVI would know that without a second thought.

    Anyway, I got my phone bill the other day.  The DA call was $0.60,
under the heading "Directory Assistance, Canada and Area Code 809".  I've
never been charged for DA before, even DA calls to Canada, so this was
curious (but hardly worth making a fuss over).  The interesting thing was
that I made a total of 4 toll calls to the VI that day -- 2 1-minute calls
for $0.13 and 2 2-minute calls for $0.26.  That one quick DA call, which is
"supposed to be free", cost me almost as much as the 4 toll calls combined,
totalling 8 minutes!  This was all AT&T.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: UNIVERSITY TELECOMMUNICATION PROGRAMS: Request for Info
Date: 11 May 89 22:26:57 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.



I am interested in university programs in telecommunication
(*not* broadcasting).  Please post or use U.S. Mail to send
program information to me.  It is also unclear if there are
other newsgroups which may have readers with insights to this
topic.  If you can help me out here, too, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #161
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 13 May 89 1:09:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #162
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 May 89 00:33:37 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New Area Code in Texas? (David Tamkin)
    Re: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas (Anthony Argyriou)
    Area codes -- a few comments (Carl Moore)
    Getting LD carriers from payphones (Jerry Glomph Black)
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Dave Levenson)
    Telephone carriers (Carl Moore)
    Tn3270 wanted (Jens Mohrmann)
    Jack specifications  (Gabe M Wiener)
    Long Distance Directory Assistance (Steve Elias)
    Re: Implementation of 911 Enhanced Service through PBX (J. J. Sowa)
    Noise/interference over long distance credit card calls (Steve Dyer)
    Re: University Telecom Programs: Request for Info ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Area Code in Texas?
Date: Wed, 10 May 89 11:59:48 CDT

Tuesday evening, May 9, one friend of mine told me that another friend of
ours (who works for a long-distance carrier) found out that there is another
area code split upcoming: 214 is to be divided, and the part without Dallas
is to become 903 late in 1990 (even before 908 is introduced in New Jersey).

Does anyone have further information?  Why would 903 be revived before 908,
909, and 917 have been used even once?  Why, when it comes time for 903 to
be reused, would be it placed in a state (albeit at the far corner of that
state) along the Mexican border, comparatively close to where the original
903 [now 706] was, when there are other area code splits in the works
much farther from the old 903?

David Tamkin  POBox 567542  Norridge IL  60656-7542 ...killer!jolnet!dattier
GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  BIX: dattier  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]
Anyone on Jolnet who agrees with me is welcome to speak up on his or her own.

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

From: Anthony Argyriou <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas
Date: 12 May 89 20:23:09 GMT
Reply-To: Anthony Argyriou <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> covert%covert.DEC@decwrl.
dec.com (John R. Covert) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 160, message 6 of 8

>It was just announced that those portions of 214 outside Dallas will be
>changed to 903 in the Fall of 1990.

>With 708 assigned to Chicago, 903 assigned to Texas, and 908 assigned to
>New Jersey, only 909 and 917 remain to be assigned before the format changes.

>/john

 PacBell announced a while ago that Alameda and Contra Costa counties were
being split off of the 415 (San Fransisco) area code, but haven't announced
a number for the new area. Giving us 909 isn't too good, being adjacent to
707 (CA North Coast + Solano Co.). 917 is worse, because some of Contra
Costa County is adjacent to 916 (Sacramento Valley). Those of us here thought
that we'd get 903, because it was most unlike the nearby area codes.
(708 and 908 are similar to 408, Santa Clara Co and south).
 How do they choose these numbers? Who chooses? Why did Dallas suburbs
get 903? Is either 909 or 917 unsuitable there?

Anthony Argyriou

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

Date:     Thu, 11 May 89 15:57:16 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Area Codes - a few comments

[Moderator's Note: This is a consolidation of four short messages on
related topics sent by Mr. Moore today. PT]

706 and 905 are used for parts of Mexico, right?  Also, I believe
708 will pick up Chicago SUBURBS; the city exchange stays in 312.

Will that new area 903 in NE Texas get any N0X/N1X prefixes?
It's just my guess that it will not; the only N0X/N1X I know of
in the present 214 area is in Dallas and nearby.  As is the
case in the Washington area suburbs, when you assign prefixes
in Dallas and suburbs you have to consider your area code and
a big chunk of a neighboring area code as well.

With 708,903,908 being assigned in the next 2 or 3 years, and 909,917
unused (I have no comment here regarding N00, N10, N11), you wonder
about the poor souls who will end up in the first NNX area code.
There have been some problems noted reaching new prefixes (not
limited to N0X/N1X) and new area codes.

It's also been noted that 415 area (includes San Francisco) may split
later (no code announced yet, right?); that area recently prepared for
N0X/N1X prefixes.

Up to this point, all of the N0X/N1X I know of in Maryland and in 703 (Va.)
has been in the DC calling area, which ran short of NNX.  Last night, I got
my hands on a Baltimore call guide of Nov. 1988, and discovered 2 such pre-
fixes outside the DC calling area:
915 Baltimore city (915 in DC was for some recorded messages; don't know
    about this one)
303 Columbia (local call for Silver Spring, which is also local to DC &
    suburbs; also a local call for Baltimore city)

Perhaps you'd want to set up an archive file explaining such codes
(why they are not used as regular area codes--yes, I know about
411,611,911,800,700,900).  Hasn't that question been asked before?

[Moderator's Note: Why 411-611-911 are not used as area codes is pretty
obvious, since they equal Information, Repair Bureau, and Emergency in
that order. But why can't numbers like 210-310-311-511 be used? Or numbers
like 410-510-710? They at least resemble area codes and would not be so
confusing to a phone user.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 May 89 15:50:58 EDT
From: Jerry Glomph Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting LD carriers from payphones
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Three notes from travels in past 2 weeks:

1) 'Fred's communications' COCOTS essentially NEVER allow 10XXX access. I have
repeatedly tried this, and failed.  The local BOC payphones usually DO allow
it, but certainly not always.

2) Denver Airport: The BOC there (US WEST) phones default to Sprint, and the
phones are very clearly marked as such. 10288 works fine there.
Houston Airport: The phones are NOT marked, I think you get BUM-Stench
Communications as a carrier. About 40% of the big advertisements in the
corridors of the airport are flashy placards telling you, in 2" letters, how
to access AT&T by the 10288 method. Obviously 10288 is ok here as well.

3) What has failed in only the rarest of COCOT situations is to use Sprint's
  LD service via the 800-877-8000 access.  A few of them shut off the keypad's
  tone generator after the connection is made, but at least an operator
  answers, and you can still complete your call, with a $1 surcharge (still
  a lot better than AOS rates!)  I find that the ATT charge-card phones (the
  silly ones with the CRT and card-reader) usually shut off the keypad, but
  otherwise the BOS phones are OK.  BUMSTENCH phones are usually OK as well.

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

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 13 May 89 02:42:34 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Brian Jay Gould) writes:
> I have seen numerous comparisons by carriers, of their noise levels (dropping
> pins and such).  The modem manufacturers specify data rates based upon
> noise free lines.
>
> So...  has anyone ever attempted to chart data rate versus carrier?
> (for several modem types)


We have used three different LD carriers in recent years.  Our
experience is that each of these (SBS Skyline, MCI, and AT&T) shows
significant variation between different calls to the same place,
using the same carrier.  The variation in data transmission quality
varies even more among calls placed over the same carrier to
different destinations.  The variation between these carriers was no
more than the variation between different calls using the same
carrier.

We also find plenty of noisey intra-lata calls.  If the local
carrier cannot deliver a clean dial-up circuit across town, how can
they be expected to provide a uniformly clean interface to any of
the inter-lata carriers?   It doesn't matter much how good the toll
carrier is if the local carrier is bad.  A given circuit is as good
as its weakest link, isn't it?

--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
...the man in the mooney


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

Date:     Thu, 11 May 89 11:47:07 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  telephone carriers

1. Are codes like 10222 and 10288 supposed to work from residence and
   business phones as well as pay ones?

2. I just passed through the Lynchburg, Va. area, and used a pay phone
   (ostensibly C&P) to place a 0+ call inter-LATA, and it went via ITI.
   (I guess that means: ugh.)

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

From: nixbln![e-mail]
Subject: tn3270 wanted
Date: 11 May 89 20:20:18 GMT

I post this for a friend without usenet-access:

Is there anybody, who knows where one can get a public-domain version of
telnet including tn3270 ???????
from : jens mohrmann

thanks in advance


(please send answers to uunet!linus!nixbur!mohrmann.bln
 or unido!nixpbe!mohrmann.bln from europe)



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

Date: Thu, 11 May 89 19:57:26 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jack specifications
Organization: Columbia University

Hello netlanders.  We're about to put in a Merlin system.  Now as I understand
it, the Merlin takes an RJ-21X.  We're also putting in an automated alarm
system with a telephone hookup that takes an RJ-31X.  Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Can anyone tell me exactly what an RJ-31X is?  I know that an RJ-21X is one
of those rectangular connectors that can accomodate up to 25 (?) dialtones.

What about the RJ-31X?  Thanks.

-G

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

Date: Fri, 12 May 89 08:44:31 EDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: long distance directory assistance

this is probably old news to many readers, but you can save a dime on
your 1***5551212 calls by prefixing with 10ATT.  ATT still charges 50 cents
per directory assistance calls...  does anyone know of another carrier
which matches ATTs rate for directory assistance?

steve elias
([e-mail])

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

From: Sowa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Implementation of 911 Enhanced Service through PBX
Date: 12 May 89 14:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: "54422-Sowa,J.J." <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> SWINGLERS%baylor.bitnet@
eecs.nwu.edu (Steve Swingler) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 160, message 4 of 8

>     911 will be inplemented here (Waco, Texas) later this year.  Our PBX
>(Northern Telecom SL1-XT) has the capability to send caller information to
>the CO (ESS) either by ANI or AIOD.  The 911 implemention team was satified
>with knowing that a call came from Baylor University and leaving it at that.
>But we felt with over 4000 telephones on campus, we should do a better job
>of providing locations to the emergency services.  We are now investigating
>the possibility of providing extensions whenever a call is made to 911.

>     Has anyone else set up 911 location information service from a PBX.
>Please send any recommendations, advice, and experiences.

>Steve Swingler

Steve,

This is an interesting operation. How are you proposing
sending more digits/extensions other then the phone
numbers administered by your local operating company?

If you are only getting basic 911 service without
ANI/routing capabilities sending more information from
your PBX own't help the PSAP.

On the other hand, if you are going to connect into an
Enhanced 911 PSAP I have a few questions.  An Enhanced
911 PSAP has an address database that must be
maintained by someone, how or will the university keep
the database informed of extension moves. Will the PSAP
even want to know about these numbers?  If you are
going into an E911 PSAP could it even handle a DN
followed by an extension? I didn't think E911 was
currently capabile of this. If the E911 is going to be
used for routing the calls and your university is split
over multiple juristictions I believe most of the call
routing will be based on the PBX trunks billing number
now originating extensions, since that is a reason for
most PBXs to provide extensions not necessary known to
the local switching offices.


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

From: Steve Dyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: regular noise/interference over long distance credit card calls
Date: 12 May 89 14:45:40 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Dyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA


I was travelling on business last month and attepted to use my trusty Toshiba
laptop which comes with a 1200 baud modem.  I thought I'd use my AT&T credit
card, since I wanted to avoid the hotel's long distance charges.  However,
I found that whenever I dialed direct with the credit card, I would end up
getting an incredibly regular noise pattern: what seemed like <DEL>{ once a
second--you could set your watch with it.  This was visible on the screen when
there was no other output, but served to garble any output coming
simultaneously from the host I was connected to.

When I called from the hotel without using a credit card, everything was fine!
Calling the AT&T operator and (hopelessly) explaining my problem, I would
manage to get a clean line about 30% of the time.

What's going on here?  I've had this happen now twice, once from Alabama
and once from Tucson.  Anyone know of a miniature MNP modem I can attach
to the back of a laptop?


--
Steve Dyer
[e-mail] aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
[e-mail]


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

From:    <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UNIVERSITY TELECOMMUNICATION PROGRAMS: Request for Info
Date: 12 May 89 18:10:45 GMT
Reply-To:    <[e-mail]>
Organization: Statistics Dept., U. C. Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]> bgsuvax![e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 161, message 10 of 10

>I am interested in university programs in telecommunication
>(*not* broadcasting).  Please post or use U.S. Mail to send
>program information to me.  It is also unclear if there are
>other newsgroups which may have readers with insights to this
>topic.  If you can help me out here, too, I'd appreciate it.


Golden Gate University, a small, private school in San Francisco
California, offers both undergraduate and MBA degrees in
telecomunications management.
        Golden Gate University
        536 Mission St.
        San Francisco, CA

I have no connection to them, however, when I worked for Sprint in
their Burlingame, CA office, there were several people that had
attended and thought highly of the place.



===============================================================================
I'm not sure who I am or how I got here but if I click my heals together
and think real hard...........can I please go home
Fred    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #162
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 15 May 89 1:12:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #163
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 May 89 01:00:35 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Problem with Phonemate (Sandy Libman)
    Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem (Rick Watson)
    Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem (Ross D. Snyder)
    Re: HELP!! With phone lines (James Turner)
    Re: HELP!! With phone lines (J. Deters)
    Re: Education level needed to use a public telephone (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Framing within an ISDN B channel (D. Stanwyck)
    Computerized answering service (Carl Moore)
    "area code" data for Autovon numbers? (Frank J. Wancho)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 May 89 12:05:40 PDT
From: "Sandy Libman - now on ATSE::" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problem with Phonemate

>I have a PhoneMate 9750, their top-of-the-line two-line answering machine
>with a built-in telephone.  [...]  Oh, there is one drawback to this unit:
>it uses very expensive lithium batteries which have failed at least
>twice already.                  Bob Breum

I also have the Phonemate 9750 and am disgusted by the (lack of) design that
went into the way it handles power failures.

The machine takes $12 worth of batteries.  These batteries last one hour!

It seems to have the following reactions to a power outage:

1. If the batteries are good and there's a power glitch, everything happens
   as you would expect.  The machine acts as if nothing happened (power-wise).

2. If the batteries are hopelessly shot, or not even there, or good and you
   have a long (>one hour) power failure, then when the power comes back
   on, the machine rewinds the incoming message tape.  Yes, you noticed
   that.  It happily writes all over the messages that came in before the
   power failure.

3. If the batteries are marginal, and there's a power glitch, the machine
   puts both tapes into FF and runs them until they are banging at the end
   of the reels.  It then starts to smell like it's going to produce copious
   amounts of smoke and flame.

1 and 2 were confirmed by Phonemate's 800 number as "That's the way it
works."  3 was observed once, first-hand, and is the reason that I don't keep
any batteries in it.

-Sandy

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

From: Rick Watson <ut-emx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem
Date: 13 May 89 16:37:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


> I have a PhoneMate 9750, their top-of-the-line two-line answering machine
> with a built-in telephone.  It has not had any problems during the more than
> a year that I have used it.  I would recommend it to anyone, although the
> built-in phone is pretty worthless; buy the similar model without the phone.
>
> Oh, there is one drawback to this unit:  it uses very expensive lithium
> batteries which have failed at least twice already.

While the 9750 has some nice features, it has a very low-security
touch-tone remote operation code.  Worse, I can always tell when
someone else's 9750 answers because of a distinctive answering
characteristic.

Also, the touch-tone decoder on my 9750 has drifted and had to be
re-adjusted.  I now supect that the timer that decides a caller
didn't leave a message has drifted becuase it won't save a
very short message.

I wouldn't recommend it.
--Rick

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

From: "Ross D. Snyder" <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PhoneMate Answering Machine Problem
Date: 15 May 89 02:46:33 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA


I also own a PhoneMate 9750 answering machine, which I have used for the last
three years.  Its behavior over that time has been peculiar in a number of
ways.  For the first six to twelve months, the VOX circuit seemed deaf and
impatient, but that problem "healed" over time.  While it was a problem,
I just instructed the people who usually called me to speak loudly and
quickly, which got around the problem.  The other problem I have had is
DTMF deafness, but it seems to vary over time.  Sometimes it is quite
sensitive, but other times (often only a few seconds later) it's completely
deaf.  I used to think it was the telco trunks, but after MIT's cutover to
our new 5ESS (with completely new cable plant) last fall, I ruled that out.
I opened up the PhoneMate and found four trimpots on the board.  I tried
adjusting them, but it did not seem to have any effect.  I never use the
built-in handset.  In fact, I have kept always kept the PhoneMate in a
clear plastic bag to keep it looking new and operate it through the bag.
(I use only a 1970's vintage WECO 2500 set or my 1960's vintage WECO
3B speakerphone when I want to talk on the phone.)  I've always wondered
why PhoneMate used those expensive 6V photoflash batteries for backup.
The batteries cost ~$12, and I only paid $60 for the machine.  I overcame the
problem by wiring up an external 8 AA-cell alkaline pack.  Overall, I have
been very pleased with the PhoneMate.  Sure a few analog levels aren't quite
right, but the uP software is good, as are the front panel controls.  The
thing I like most about the PhoneMate is that it either does exactly what you
want or (if it's deaf) does nothing (and retains all messages).  I've never
lost a message with it.  I also believe Code-A-Phone makes good machines, but
not as good as they used to (e.g. Ford Industries Code-A-Phone Model 200:
the "Chrysler" of answering machines).
-Ross



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

From: James Turner <xait!soleast![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HELP!! With phone lines
Date: 12 May 89 15:08:53 GMT
Reply-To: James Turner <xait!soleast![e-mail]>
Organization: Solbourne Computers, Eastern Regional HQ


In article <[e-mail]> pixar!unicom!dv@ucbvax.
berkeley.edu (David W. Vezie) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 158, message 4 of 8

>I have a problem.  I have a lot of phone lines going into our
>computer room, and I have no idea what the some of numbers are.
>There was a number (760-7760) which would tell me what number
>I was calling from.  However, since the Pa Bell upgrade last
>February, that number hasn't worked.
>
>Can anyone tell me what the new number is?  I'm desperate!

For some reason, people seem to delight in searching for these
numbers, when there is a much simpler solution to their problem.

When I was working in NY, I had a similar problem (multiple lines
with unknown numbers). I simply hooked up a handset to the line
and dialed the closely kept secret telephone company number, "0".
When the operator came on the line, I explained that I needed
to know the number of the phone I was calling from. She read me
the number off the TSPS console. End of story.


[Moderator's Note: That may be the end of your story, but many telecom
participants, myself included, have found that normally the operator will
NOT say what number the call is coming from. The rule is they aren't
supposed to do it, for various security reasons.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Deters)
Subject: Re: HELP!! With phone lines
Date: 12 May 89 14:50:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (J. Deters)
Organization: Terrapin Transit Authority

In article <[e-mail]> pixar!unicom!dv@ucbvax.
berkeley.edu (David W. Vezie) writes:

>I have a problem.  I have a lot of phone lines going into our
>computer room, and I have no idea what the some of numbers are.
>There was a number (760-7760) which would tell me what number
>I was calling from.  However, since the Pa Bell upgrade last
>February, that number hasn't worked.

In our area, (Minneapolis, St. Paul - 612, and in other areas I have
done work in, 511 is the standard readback number.

-j


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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Education level needed to use a public telephone
Date: 12 May 89 20:23:15 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


It hasn't been a good idea to dial 0 for the police or fire
for years, even stretching before deregulation.

Why don't you buy your kids a handheld cellular telephone.

-Ron

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

From: "D. Stanwyck" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Framing within an ISDN B channel
Date: 12 May 89 19:52:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ


First, I have been one of the most active ISDN data standards
people in the US for the last several years.  I feel I can
address this terrible misconception that has been being passed
around the net.

ISDN does not mandate HDLC or any other framing for B-channel
data.  While some standards exist for particular data transfer
arrangements, there is intentionally left of the user to determine
what data will be sent and in what form.

When a request for a 64 kbps clear channel is granted, the ISDN
guarentees that 8 kilohertz integrity exists.  This means that
bit in is bit out.  Any bit oriented protocol can be used.  It is
up to the two end users to determine a way to agree to what the
data transfer protocol is, and haow it will be used.

For CCITT standard protocols (e.g., X.25), there are ways to pass
information about the throughput, rate adaption protocol, etc.

I don't know the problem with the Sun workstation that started this
discussion, but I suspect it is based on misinformation somewhere
along the line.  If there are specific questions or comments on what
I have said, I will be very willing to supply chapter and verse from
CCITT Recommendation X.31, or Q.931 (which I am the editor of the data
parts of), or other CCITT Recommendations on the topic.  I just hate
to see so much misinformation about ISDN bandied about.


--
Don Stanwyck                o  o            201-957-6693
AT&T-Bell Labs               ||             mtfmi!stanwyc
Middletown, NJ  USA        \__/            Education Center

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

Date:     Tue, 9 May 89 14:58:52 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  computerized answering service

United Telephone is offering in some areas a "message phone" where
you can forward calls to (you would get a computerized answering
machine).  Information about this is available by calling 800-692-
7382.  (I got this number by calling time & weather service in
Carlisle, Pa. at 717-243-1313, and the toll-free number I got works
in Maryland.)

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

Date: Sat, 13 May 1989  17:07 MDT
From: "Frank J. Wancho" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "area code" data for Autovon numbers?

I'd like to mash a copy of the area code program to return locations
for Autovon prefixes (and vice-versa).  Does anyone have an online
copy of Autovon prefixes+locations I could grab for this purpose?

--Frank

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #163
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 15 May 89 2:01:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #164
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 May 89 02:00:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Jack specifications (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Loud hum on the Phone (Art Gentry)
    Re: Looking for a phone line simulator (Brendan Kehoe)
    Re: University Telecom Programs: Request for Info (D. Stanwyck)
    Re: Area Codes - a few comments (Dave Levenson)
    Miscellaneous Comments (Paul Guthrie)
    Miscellaneous Comments From New Reader (Peter Morgan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jack specifications
Date: 14 May 89 04:54:00 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> Hello netlanders.  We're about to put in a Merlin system. Now as I understand
> it, the Merlin takes an RJ-21X.  We're also putting in an automated alarm
> system with a telephone hookup that takes an RJ-31X.  Qu'est-ce que c'est?
> Can anyone tell me exactly what an RJ-31X is?  I know that an RJ-21X is one
> of those rectangular connectors that can accomodate up to 25 (?) dialtones.

> What about the RJ-31X?  Thanks.

    OK, let's start with the RJ-21X, because it is not "one of those
rectangular connectors". The rectangular connectors are known as "Amphenol"
connectors, although they may also be made by Cinch, Amp or other people I
have not heard of. They are known in FCC Rules and Regulations Part 68 as
"50 Position Miniture Ribbon Plug". Now you know why they are called
"Amphenols"

    An RJ21X is a 66 block that is used as the "Demarcation Point". This is
the point at which the telco hands the lines over to the customer. This is a
"split" block using bridging clips so each line can be disconnected at this
point for trouble shooting and finger pointing. Most RJ21X blocks have an
Amphenol jack on the side so you can save time etc by plugging an Amphenol
plug in that leads directly to your PBX or Key system etc. This saves having
to run individual pairs for each of the possible 25 trunks. Most RJ21Xs have
less than ten trunks on them so usually the trunks are punched down with
regular wire. The RJ21X description in Part 68 states a few things which are
not common practice. It does not mention the 66 block and states that the
telco will consecutively wire the lines - not true with Pacific Bell, they
put them on any pair you state, i.e. PBX lines 1 - 15, FAX line 25, Modem
line 24. When Part 68 was written, the use of "RJ21X" as a demarcation
device was not common, hence their description of typical usuage "Traffic
Data recording equipment".

    An RJ31X is an 8 position jack with a few extras. They are used mostly
by alarm companies. When used by alarm companies, they are wired so that a
line runs through them in series. What this means is that the pins have
special shorting bars across them. For example: Tip comes in on Pin 5 and
via the shorting jack leaves on Pin 8. Ring comes in on Pin 4 and leaves on
Pin 1. Now when the alarm company comes along, they plug their alarm dialer
(The one that calls the alarm center or the fuzz) into the RJ31X. The
shorting bars are now lifted and Tip and Ring runs through the dialer. When
the alarm goes off, the dialer will disconnect the customer side of Tip and
Ring and dial out on the Telco side (Pins 4 & 5). Note: Many alarms sense
voltage on the line and if you randomly unplug the RJ31X, the alarm will go
off and make more noise than a heavy metal concert. Usually, you put the
alarm on the least used pair, often the last or your FAX line.

    Note that the RJ31X is an 8 position modular device, sometimes called a
"business jack". Regular phone jacks are 6 position modular devices. The
same jack will change its number depending its usage. When the same jack is
wired the same way, but used for an automatic dialer (Not an alarm dialer)
it becomes and RJ32X. When used with a "Data Set" (Modem) it becomes an
RJ36X. If it is for a modem with "programming resistors", but no shorting
bars, it becomes an RJ41S

    If you are feeling confused by now, don't worry. If you have to install
an RJ31X, they usually have instructions and drawings in the box. If all
else fails, you may be lucky to get an alarm installer who understands these
things.

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

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

From: Art Gentry <kcdev![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loud hum on the Phone
Date: 9 May 89 14:00:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Kansas City, MO.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
indiana.edu (Jeff Russ) writes:

> My telephone recently started acting up.  When I pick up the phone I hear
> a loud hum.  I can still dial numbers and make connections but the hum
> is so loud that I can hardly hear anything.  The onhook voltage is 51 volts
> and the offhook voltage is 6 volts.  I have another phone on the same
> line and it does the same thing.  Does this look like a phone company
> problem and not a problem with my wiring at home?  The only things connected
> to the line are telephones that I bought from the phone company.  There
> was a thunder storm with lots of lightening before I noticed the problem.
> I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what to check before I call the phone
> company.

Sounds suspiciously like you have a blown ground protector.  This is a fuse
like device in the junction box, where the telco cable comes into the building.
It's purpose is to prevent excessive potential (like a lightening strike) from
entering the equipment.  Another possibility is a high ground on the cable,
this could be either inside or outside wiring.  Telco can rapidly test for a
ground and tell you if the problem is theirs or yours.  Odds are, since you
mentioned the storm, that the protection fuse has done its job and needs to be
replaced by the telco.

Art

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

From: Brendan Kehoe <buita![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for a phone line simulator
Date: 13 May 89 04:05:58 GMT
Reply-To: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Organization: Jolnet Public Access Unix


Steve Gaarder wrote in comp.dcom.telecom article <telecom-v09i0159m02@vector.
dallas.tx.us>:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 159, message 2 of 8

>For that, I need to know what the frequencies of a standard dial tone are,
>and where I can get a 100V 20Hz ring supply.

 A dial tone is 350 & 440, continuous..in case ya want 'em, busy is 480 & 620,
.5 on, .5 off...

--
Brendan Kehoe
[e-mail]    | GEnie: B.KEHOE  | Oh no! I forgot to say goodbye
[e-mail]  | CI$: 71750,2501 |  to my mind!
[e-mail] | Galaxy: Brendan |                - Abby Normal

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

From: "D. Stanwyck" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UNIVERSITY TELECOMMUNICATION PROGRAMS: Request for Info
Date: 13 May 89 20:55:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ


>>I am interested in university programs in telecommunication
>>(*not* broadcasting).  Please post or use U.S. Mail to send
>>program information to me.  It is also unclear if there are
> Golden Gate University, a small, private school in San Francisco
> California, offers both undergraduate and MBA degrees in
> telecomunications management.
> Golden Gate University 536 Mission St.  San Francisco, CA

I have been on the faculty at the University of Colorado (Boulder)'s
Telecommunications Department for the last couple years.  We offer a
Master's degree in Telecommunications (Interdisciplinary).  For further
information contact the University of Colorado Graduate School, or send
email to me.

Don Stanwyck                o  o            201-957-6693
AT&T-Bell Labs               ||             mtfmi!stanwyc
Middletown, NJ  USA        \__/            Education Center

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes - a few comments
Date: 14 May 89 12:50:03 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> ...But why can't numbers like 210-310-311-511 be used? [as area codes]

In NJ Bell territory, 311 produces a ring-no-answer.  I've been told
that it produces automatic number identification in a few central
offices, but I haven't heard which (anyone else in NJ know of any?).
I think most of the N10 codes are/were assigned to TWX, weren't they?

My copy of "Notes on the Intra-Lata Networks" (1984, Bellcore) lists
codes 211, 311, 511, and 711 as RESERVED.  This publication
extimates that by 1995, we will need Interchangeable NPA codes.
This refers to area codes of the NNX format, just like CO codes.
Before that time, ALL local switching systems must have been
modified to require 1+ dialing.  If anything, recent events indicate
that the 1995 estimate may be off.

I wonder how much difficulty would be caused if the USA and Canada
were to be assigned different country codes?  This would allow
re-assignment in the USA of area codes presently assigned in Canada
(and vice versa) and might push that 1995 date back a few years.

--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
...the man in the mooney


[Moderator's Note: You may recall that numerical list of area codes published
several months ago in the Digest. In that list, *I* said that the N10 codes
were all assigned to Western Union (formerly AT&T) TWX. The response from
a couple people was that I was grossly in error....that those numbers were
just 'artifacts' with no relevance to the voice network. If that's so, then
why won't they be used for area codes, now that we need a few spares?  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 19:33:57 GMT
Subject: Miscellaneous Comments


I believe an RJ31 is an oversized modular connector with eight wires.
They are used a lot in multiline dialers, etc.  If there is interest,
I can post what each wire is used for (I think it's pretty standard -
My Mitel Smart-1 Call Controller uses them).

As for using an operator when a COCOT keypad disconnects, generally if
you explain this to the operator, the call will go through at regular
rates (no surcharge).

It was mentioned a few weeks ago that AOSs seem to have incomplete
Calling Card databases.  This is true, as there is no central point
for calling card info.  Certain independants have refused to give out
this info.  Also, the private verification databases don't have
corporate cards (yet).  So anyway, you can use just about any number
as a calling card (just make sure it meets modulo 13 checks).  There
is an old story about the president of Microdevices (an AOS) using the
president of ITI's (another AOS) home number with a made up PIN
whenever he was in an ITI serviced hotel.  There is a catch here, some
sleazy COCOTs (and some AOSs - ITI started this), use the AT&T calling
card database.  What they do is after receiving the calling card
number, they (the payphones or AOS switches) dial 10288 + 0 + NPA +
NXXXXXX then dial the credit card number.  By `listening' for the
'thankyou for using AT&T' (really energy detect with timing) they can
determine if it is a valid card.

As for using two payphones to make third party calls...... AOSs will
be hit the worst (because of their backwards technology).  Students
often do this from their dorm rooms.  It is true that in certain areas
payphones were assigned a special office code, or last four digits
(often beginning with a nine).  This generally is not true for COCOTs.
This makes screening difficult.  A natural addition to AOS software
would be to do lookups on third party billing numbers against other
payphones on the switch, since COCOT payphones usually come in banks.
AT&T and the other majors will eliminate this problem with LIDB lookup
via CCS7.

--------
Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul
Zippy says:
HOORAY, Ronald!!  Now YOU can marry LINDA RONSTADT too!!


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

Date:        Sun, 14 MAY 89 14:37:19 BST
From:        [e-mail]
Subject:        Miscellaneous Comments From New Reader

A few comments on topics which came up in TELECOM Digest v9 i160 11 May 89
[ Please excuse me if I blunder - this is first digest I've received and I'm
  not "up" on some of your terminology. ]

---  comments on Sci.commtech
Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]> :-
>> * new delivery technologies (direct broadcast satellites, digital
>>  video-on-demand, pay-per-view)
What is "digital video-on-demand" please ?  (different to pay-per-view?)

I'd like it to be moderated, and distributed via LISTSERVers, too.
It may be that it needs to be split further, but that'd be up to the
moderator to decide...  there are many subject areas there !

---  modem speeds vs carriers reliability survey
Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]> :-
>>  has anyone ever attempted to chart data rate versus carrier?
>>  (for several modem types)
Since we get most things late, I don't know whether a recent issue of "Data
Communications" has covered this again. Past issues which had ratings of modems
/ carriers include carriers: Aug 87; modems: Sep 87, May 88 (fast), Oct 88.

Oh yes - there was also a *big* feature in Aug 86 - the areas they measured
may give you a head start on planning a questionnaire - though the data won't
be of interest now.  Why not get more money and do the survey for them, or did
they ask anyway ? :-)

---  01 for London  R.I.P. '90
Mark Brader <[e-mail]>  SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
>>  This is reflected in the title of a TV show over there: "01 For London".
A new one to me... maybe it is only shown on London TV.
BT (British Telecom) took out large adverts in some papers recently.
The ads show the current "exchange" part (01-XXX-1234) and how that will
translate in the new number system.   0x1-XXX-1234     +44 x1 XXX 1234
 x=8 for "Greater London", x=7 is "City" ( 4 mile radius ).

I'm really *dreading* next Spring (junk mail) but some firms are outside
London, thank goodness!  I'll be getting the list of codes keyed in fairly
soon.  If you want a copy, or feel I should post a copy, just let me know.
--- Peter.
 Peter Morgan,  network supporter!  | JANET: <[e-mail]>
  Brighton Poly. Computer Centre,   | world: <[e-mail]>
   Watts Building,   Lewes Road,    | Dialcom: 10074:MIK1108
    Brighton, BN2 4GJ, England.     | FIDO:  (use as last resort, please)
     +44 (273)  600900  x 2321      | <[e-mail]>

[Moderator's Note: Welcome to the Digest readership, Peter. I hope to hear
from you frequently.  PT]
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #164
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 16 May 89 0:22:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #165
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 May 89 00:03:53 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    The Jason Project (John Wheeler)
    More TSPS ANI confusion (Ross D. Snyder)
    AT&T Card To Become a Credit Card? (David Marston)
    Last of the area codes (Linc Madison)
    Other unused NPAs? (Jim Gilpatrick)
    Re: Area Codes - a few comments (Laura Halliday)
    Re: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Re: Area Codes - a few comments (Gerry Wheeler)
    Using "800" LD access from COCOTS (Linc Madison)
    Re: 01 for London  R.I.P. '90 (Kevin Hopkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: The Jason Project
Date: 15 May 89 12:46:36 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


Now the story can be told. I just completed a 14-day stretch of audio
engineering for The Jason Project, which I feel has been a landmark in
telecommunications.

It may have been in your city. Woods Hole Oceanographic, Electronic Data
Systems (EDS), and Turner Broadcasting System worked together to bring
thousands of children in 13 U.S. cities live interactive television from
the Mediterranean. A robot named "Jason" which was developed with the
U.S. Navy, went down to the ocean floor with high-res color TV cameras
to bring beautiful video of, and retreive, Roman artifacts 1800 years old.
The children, at museums, were able to talk directly with the exploration
team, headed by Dr. Robert Ballard (credited with the "Titanic" find) by
means of telephone interfaces here at TBS in Atlanta, which we mixed into
the show, as well as into a phone line (a dial-up) to Holmdel, NJ.
This line was then uplinked to Pan-Am Sat 1, and received by a 2 meter
gyro-stabilized dish on board the Star Hercules. This same dish provided
uplinking for video (encrypted with 2 channels of DIGITAL audio as well
as a data stream allowing scripts to be fed back to Atlanta from
a laptop PC on the ship). EDS also provided several direct-dial phone
"lines" to the ship (which appeared as New Jersey telephone numbers
on board the ship) over which we sent production coordination
information, and received backup audio.

We produced 84 television shows, placed approximately 250 calls to
museums using primarily US Sprint (though we occasionally used AT&T when
Sprint circuits arrived at "low" audio level). We DID find that,
at least here in Atlanta, AT&T lines come out LOUDER, even with the
sometimes higher noise floor, than do the Sprint mostly fiber optics.

If anyone saw the show at any museum sites, I'd love to get feedback.

--
          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: "Ross D. Snyder" <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: More TSPS ANI confusion
Date: 16 May 89 01:08:32 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA


The other day a friend of mine was making an AT&T operator-assisted call,
and the person she wanted to reach was not there, so she told the person
who answered the called line to have the desired person call her back at
a different number than the one she was calling from.  The problem occurred
when, after she had said "...call me back at NPA-NXX-", the operator broke
the transmitted audio path from my friend and completed the number with
"XXXX" read from her TSPS console.  Of course, the last four digits the
operator read were not the last four digits that my friend intended to say.
After I thought about this situation, I started to get upset, realizing that
there is really no recourse for my friend other than making a DDD call
and giving the person the correct number.  The operator had already hit
"position release" and was off to continue to unknowingly confuse other
customers.
-Ross


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

Date: Mon, 15 May 89 09:44:38 -0400
From: David Marston <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Card To Become A Credit Card?

On the 8:55 EDT 5/15/89 broadcast of "Today in Business" on the CBS Radio
Network, it was reported that AT&T is considering "converting" its 40,000,000
or so Calling Cards into full-blown credit cards. This was one of those
three-line stories that only mentioned the possibility of more flexible
calling, since a full-fledged credit card is accepted by some AOSes. I'm
sure that TELECOMmers can think of many other angles to this story. To get
you started: would they "convert" the cards with or without credit checks?
.................David Marston          decvax!dartvax!eleazar!marston
                                        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 May 89 01:26:01 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last of the area codes

I've been following the area code splits with some interest, since they
seem to be affecting just about every place I've ever lived.  As has
been noted, 909 and 917 are the only remaining "conventional" A/C's left
unused at present, and my area (Oakland/Berkeley, California) is slated
to get one in 1991, before "Time T."  Any idea what the last one will
be?  Maryland, perhaps?  Will 706 and 905 be reclaimed for use in US/
Canada, requiring "011" dialing for all calls to Mexico?

Another speculation: what areas will get new area codes in 1992 when
the telcos get to use NNX codes?  One area that comes to mind immediately
is Yukon/Northwest Territories.  For years upon years, the numerical
list of area codes in my phone book has shown "403: Alberta, 403: Yukon
Territory (Temporary), 403:Northwest Territories (Temporary), 404:
Georgia ..."  A/C 403 has been "temporary" for YT/NWT for an awfully
long time.

-- Linc Madison = [e-mail]
           or e118-ak@  "       "      "

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

Date: Mon, 15 May 89 06:30:27 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Other unused NPAs?

d i g i t a l
                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:      15-May-1989 09:17 EDT
                                        From:      Jim Gilpatrick
                                                   GILPATRICK.JIM
                                        Dept:      Software Services
                                        Tel No:    DTN 351-2263

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _DECWRL::"[e-mail]" )


Subject: Other unused NPAs?

 So we are running out of area codes.  How about reclaiming the 905 & 706
 codes by breaking the North-American Zone 1 hack that uses these codes for
 Mexico in violation of the CCITT rules?  Or would this be too inconvenient?
 If we could do it, it would give a total of 4 free NPA codes (706, 905, 909,
 917).

 Is there some good reason this cannot or will not be done?

                                                    --jim



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

Date: 15 May 89  8:57 -0700
From: laura halliday <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes - a few comments

Dave Levenson writes:

> I wonder how much difficulty would be caused if the USA and Canada
> were to be assigned different country codes?  This would allow
> re-assignment in the USA of area codes presently assigned in Canada
> (and vice versa) and might push that 1995 date back a few years.

Probably quite a bit...not only would you only liberate a handful
of area codes in the process, you would disrupt important lines
of communication. We Canadians tend to phone the U.S. more than
we phone other provinces - lines of communication are north-south
rather than east-west.

...laura

University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA 903 assigned to NE Texas
Date: 14 May 89 20:37:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: John W. Bridges & Associates, Inc., Lewisville, Tx.


In article <[e-mail]> Anthony Argyriou
<[e-mail]> writes:
- X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 162, message 2 of 12

- [e-mail] (John R. Covert) writes:
- >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 160, message 6 of 8

- >It was just announced that those portions of 214 outside Dallas will be
- >changed to 903 in the Fall of 1990.

-  How do they choose these numbers? Who chooses? Why did Dallas suburbs
- get 903? Is either 909 or 917 unsuitable there?

        Well, I just talked to our tariff folks, and 903 is not being
assigned to the Dallas suburbs ( unless you consider Tyler a suburb of
Dallas :-) According to our tariff folks, it will be the Longview lata (
544 ) and probably portions of the Houston lata ( 560 ) and the Dallas
lata ( 552 ). Geographically, I have been told it will go from Tyler
east to the state line, and south from the state line to a someplace
south of Palestine.

    As to what area codes are suitable in this area, well Fort
Worth ( the unheard of half of Dallas/Ft. Worth ) is in the 817 area
code, as well as nearly everything else west of Dallas.  Even Waco on
the south, and Denton on the north are in area code 817.  That probably
makes 917 unsuitable..  About 909, I don't know.  Maybe Southwestern
Bell made it to Bellcore before Pacific Bell. :-)

--
Eric Schnoebelen,            JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
[e-mail]                ...!killer!u-word!egs
    "...we have normality"..."Anything you still can't cope with is
therefore your own problem..."    -- Trisha McMillian, HHGG

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 15 May 89 17:38:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Area Codes - a few comments
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
> [Moderator's Note: ...
> ... But why can't numbers like 210-310-311-511 be used? Or numbers
> like 410-510-710? They at least resemble area codes and would not be so
> confusing to a phone user.  PT]

There have been several messages of late commenting on suitable area
codes, and I think this is the second time the moderator has made this
point.  As a non-insider, I would estimate that 99% of telephone users
have no preconceived notion of what an area code looks like.  It is
simply three digits.  Heck, I didn't know there were restrictions on
area code numbering until I started reading this group, and I used to
work for the phone company!

There were also previous messages about whether this area code or that
should be assigned right next to some other area code that was similar.
I don't think there is any difficulty with that from a user point of
view.  (I can't say whether there are technical reasons for avoiding
it.) After all, one seldom knows what area codes adjoin the desired one,
and if you misdial you get some wrong party -- it hardly matters if they
are 100 or 10000 miles away from the party you intended to dial.

Is there some inside reason why these points are important? I don't see
them affecting how the ordinary user sees the phone system.
--
     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: Mon, 15 May 89 01:32:36 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using "800" LD access from COCOTS

>>From: [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black)
>Subject: Getting LD carriers from payphones
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 162, message 4 of 12
>
>Three notes from travels in past 2 weeks:
>
>3) What has failed in only the rarest of COCOT situations is to use
>   Sprint's LD service via the 800-877-8000 access.  A few of them shut
>   off the keypad's tone generator after the connection is made, but at
>   least an operator answers, and you can still complete your call,
>   with a $1 surcharge (still a lot better than AOS rates!)  I find
>   that the ATT charge-card phones (the silly ones with the CRT and
>   card-reader) usually shut off the keypad, but otherwise the BOS
>   phones are OK.  BUMSTENCH phones are usually OK as well.

Try telling the Sprint operator, "I'm calling from a pay phone and the
owner doesn't want me to use Sprint, so my keypad is turned off.  Can I
get the lower rate?"  If Sprint has *any* sense at all, they'll happily
give you the lower rate.

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]
          or e118-ak@   "       "     "

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

Subject: Re: 01 for London  R.I.P. '90
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 15 May 89 17:13:06 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


I already  have the codes on-line and  a shell script  built  round them to
change  01 numbers to 071/081 numbers.   If Peter Morgan, or   anyone else,
wants the list and/or script please drop me a line.

            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   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #165
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 16 May 89 1:23:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #166
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 May 89 01:11:38 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Telecom Calendar For June (TELECOM Moderator)
    Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Automated Operators (Daniel Senie)
    Miscellaneous Comments (John Owens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 16 May 89 1:09:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Telecom Calendar For June

Here are some events taking place during June which may interest you --


June 1-3

Conference: Developing Managers in a Competitive Environment.
At the Davidson Conference Center, Los Angeles. $595.
Contact: Center for Telecommunications Management, UCLA
School of Business Administration, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0871   213-743-0304


June 3-6

Exposition: Consumer Electronics Show/Summer
At McCormick Place, Chicago, IL.
Contact: Electronic Industries Association, Consumer Electronics Group
1722 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20006  202-457-8700  FAX: [phone]


June 5-9

Conference and exposition: Laser '89
At Munich Trade Fair Centre, Munich, West Germany.
Contact: Jerry Kallman, Kallman Associates,  5 Maple Court, Ridgewood
NJ  07450      201-652-7070    FAX: [phone]


June 6-7

Seminar: Operator Services
At Marriott Pavillion, St. Louis, MO.  $325  USTA Members; $450 Non-members.
Contact: US Telephone Association, 900 19th Street NW  Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006-2105    202-835-3290


June 7-9

Exhibition: Texpo '89
A very interesting exhibition at the Civic Auditorium and Brooks Hall in
San Fransisco, CA.   Sponsored by Pacific Bell.
Contact: 800-44-TEXPO


June 11-14

International Communications Conference:  ICC '89
At the Sheraton-Boston Hotel, Boston, MA.  $275 IEEE members; $335 non-members.
Contact: ICC '89 Registration, c/o Wang Laboratories, Box 241, Lowell,
MA 01853


June 12-13

Conference: Business Opportunities in Rural Telecom
At the Key Bridge Marriott, Arlington, VA.  Conference will explore all
aspects of rural telephony. Numerous speakers, exhibits. $695
Contact: Suzanne Wood, Telecom Publishing Group, 1101 King Street,
Suite 444, Alexandria, VA 22314.  703-683-4100//800-327-7206  FAX: [phone]


June 13-14

Conference: 900 Service Workshop and Conference
At Marina Beach Hotel, Marina Del Rey, CA  $395.
Contact: Infotext Magazine, PO Box 19740-155, Irvine, CA 92714   714-551-9179


June 14-16

North American ISDN User's Forum.
Users' and implementor's workshops. Boston, MA.
Contact: Kim Brashears, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Phone: [phone]


June 19-23

Seminar: The Rate Case Process
At the San Antonio Marriott Rivercenter. San Antonio, TX.  $1225 USA Members;
$1550 non-members.
Contact: Sheerin Ahmadifar, U.S. Telephone Association
900 19th Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006-2105    202-835-3131


June 20-22

AFCEA International Convention and Expo.  (And admission is just $10 !!)
This is the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association's
show. Worth every nickle! It will be at the Convention Center,
Washington, DC.
Contact: Armed Forces Commuications and Electronics Association,
4400 Fair Lake Court, Fairfax, VA  22033   703-631-6125   FAX: [phone]


I will try to post a new calendar of events every month or so, and will
include what appear to be the most interesting of the several events
which are brought to my attention.

Send conference/exposition/seminar announcements relating to telecom
to me at --

                     TELECOM Digest
                     c/o Patrick Townson
                     60690-1570



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

Date:     Tue, 16 May 89 0:34:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection!

U.S. Sprint's subsidiary, Telenet has announced an interconnection agreement
between Telemail, Telenet's electronic mail product, MCI Mail, and AT&T
Mail.

The new arrangement, scheduled to be in effect later this summer, will allow
the 300,000 worldwide users of Telemail, the 100,000 users of MCI Mail and
the 50,000 users of AT&T Mail to conveniently send email messages to each
other.

The exact logistics have not yet been announced, but I wanted to get the
word to you as soon as I heard about it. When more details are available,
a message will be posted.


Patrick Townson


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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Operators
Date: 15 May 89 20:55:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.
portal.com writes:
> Just received an insert in this month's bill from Michigan Bell
> (Ameritech). It seems that they are about to implement a form
> of the automated operator services some of the COCOTs have
> been using for collect and third party billing. According to
> the flyer, if you are making a 0+ call withing the LATA and
> do not enter a credit card number after the "bong", you may
> get connected to a computer asking you to touch a number
> corresponding to your billing request (collect or third
> party). You will then be asked to record your name. The called
> or billed number will then be called, a computer generated message
> will be played with your name inserted appropriately, and the
> receiver asked to touch a number corresponding to whether or
> not they accept charges.

What do they plan to do if the billed number does not have touch-tone?
Some of us are still in the dark ages and connected to step offices...

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


[Moderator's Note: We have something like this now in Chicago. You
dial zero plus the ten digit number to make a call on your card, even if
the call is in Chicago. After dialing those eleven digits, a gong rings,
and a condescending recorded voice tells us, "Enter your calling card
number, followed by a pound (#), or dial zero for an operator now!"
If you do neither, then a live operator cuts in after about twenty
seconds to handle the call manually. Phones known to be rotary dial are
automatically routed to the operator following the gong signal.  PT]

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

Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Subject: Miscellaneous Comments
Date: 15 May 89 10:02:38 EDT (Mon)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>

I have some piecemeal responses to a number of things in the last few
TELECOM Digests, so I'll just lump them together in this one message.

> TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 May 89 00:33:37 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 162
> From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
> Subject:  telephone carriers

> 1. Are codes like 10222 and 10288 supposed to work from residence and
>    business phones as well as pay ones?

Absolutely.  We just got equal access on our business lines here and
they were switched to MCI; I reprogrammed my auto-dialer to use 10288
before all my calling card calls.   If you're placing calling card
calls from a business or residence where you don't know the carrier,
always give the 10288 (or whichever) a try.

> 2. I just passed through the Lynchburg, Va. area, and used a pay phone
>    (ostensibly C&P) to place a 0+ call inter-LATA, and it went via ITI.

This reminds me of something I saw a few weeks ago in Waldorf, MD
(southern Maryland - C&P territory).  On the front of a 7-11 store
along U.S. 301N was the requisite row of payphones (4).  Above the
payphones was a large white banner with blue letters proclaiming

    C & P Public Phones Are Back!

I guess they had COCOTs and got complaints.....

> From: Sowa <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Implementation of 911 Enhanced Service through PBX

> This is an interesting operation. How are you proposing
> sending more digits/extensions other then the phone
> numbers administered by your local operating company?

I understood the original posting to mean that the campus had DID
trunks to extensions on-campus, but that without outgoing ANI, all the
911 service would be able to tell was that the 911 call originated on
one of the university's outgoing trunks.  With ANI from the campus, a
regular directory number would be provided with no separate extension,
much as (as you mentioned) some PBXs do for billing origination purposes.

> An Enhanced 911 PSAP has an address database that must be maintained
> by someone, how or will the university keep the database informed of
> extension moves.

I imagine this will be one of those things that's going to be more
work than anyone planned....

> TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 May 89 02:00:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 164
> From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Jack specifications

> [Description of in-series alarm wiring.]  Usually, you put the
> alarm on the least used pair, often the last or your FAX line.

I'd suggest not putting it on a FAX or modem line.  For quite a few
months here we were having problems with both our FAX and modem
connections being terminated randomly.  For modem use, it was obvious
that no connection ever lasted for more than an hour.  It turned out
that all the lines involved were passed through alarm systems (at
least one for intrusion and one for fire) and the systems were
"testing the lines" hourly!  We decided to get dedicated lines for
them, since, in addition to this annoyance, we didn't want an incoming
call to potentially hold up the alarm.  (They weren't ground-start
lines.)


--
John Owens        [e-mail]        uunet!jetson!john
[phone]        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #166
*****************************










Received: from gamma.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32118;
          18 May 89 2:13 CDT
Received: from BU-CS.BU.EDU by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28878; 18 May 89 2:10 CDT
Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA00545; Thu, 18 May 89 03:08:23 EDT
Received: from gamma.eecs.nwu.edu by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
    id AA17152; Wed, 17 May 89 02:27:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03620; 17 May 89 1:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03616; 17 May 89 1:12 CDT
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03612;
          17 May 89 1:12 CDT
Date:     Wed, 17 May 89 1:14:28 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #167
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R
Apparently-To: [e-mail]
Resent-Date:  Thu, 18 May 89 2:10:42 CDT
Resent-From:  [e-mail]
Resent-To:  [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 May 89 00:49:59 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A Message To Usenet Readers of the Digest (Chip Rosenthal)
    TELECOM address in US mail (Carl Moore)
    Help with Digital Voice Card (reposting) (Thomas Scott)
    New Communication Technologies: sci.commtech update (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Re: Area Codes - a few comments (John Cowan)
    Re: University Telecommunications Programs:info wanted (Jonathan)
    Re: Paying for directory assistance calls. (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Message To Usenet Readers of the Digest
Date: 16 May 89 09:43:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 156, message 4 of 4
>Since last week, copies of the Digest have not been making it through to the
>Usenet gateway for some reason. [...]  My own control copies of the Digest are
>only sporadically making it through to my mailbox at chinet [...]

Hi Patrick.  Normally I only bother comp.dcom.telecom readers with USENET
administrivia, but I would guess that the TELECOM Digest has been really
impacted (is that a verb?) by the problems the last few weeks, and the
mailing list readers must be wondering too.  So, I pass along the gruesome
details to them too.

The short story is that there were some big problems here at
vector.dallas.tx.us.  These problems have been resolved, and based on the
last week of traffic the link is now reliable.  However, one of the fixes
requires manual intervention in the gateway processing, and therefore,
will add about a day to the turnaround time.

The long story is that there were two problems here.  The first was that
until two weeks ago, vector.dallas.tx.us was running a version of XENIX with
a crufty version of uucp.  This version had a tendency to throw away
messages if the line disconnected, which happens frequently here.  The
solution has been to: (1) upgrade to a newer version of XENIX with HDB
uucp which doesn't throw things away, and (2) install a Trailblazer modem
which does a much better job with bad lines.

The second problem was that the program which automatically drops the
mailed digest into the gatewaying program started to instead drop them
into a black hole.  The resolution here was to drop them into my mailbox
instead, and manually process them from there.  Unfortunately, this means
that manual intervention is required, and adds some delay to the processing.
But I keep traditional hacker's hours, so the delay is usually well under
a day.  (This should be resolved in 2-3 weeks, when I upgrade to a new
mailer here.)

Anyway, things appear to be running once again.  I appologize for the
problems in the interim, and I appreciate yours and Patrick's patience.

So, what do you say we all go over to comp.lang.c, kick some butt, and
tell them what "#" is really called. :-)   (If you missed it, the pound,
number, square, octothorpe, tic-tac-toe argument has been going on there
for the past two weeks.)
--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337

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

Date:     Tue, 16 May 89 11:02:04 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  TELECOM address in US mail

That announcement from you didn't even mention the city.
Apparently that's PO box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690-1570.
(I am just guessing the PO box number from the zip+4 code.)


[Moderator's Note: You are correct in the address, however
'60690-1570' works just fine for receiving mail also, most of the
time. PT]

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

From: Thomas Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help with Digital Voice Card (reposting)
Date: 16 May 89 15:36:18 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp,Tinton Falls,NJ


I am running the Digital Voice Card (DVC) from Computer Age Ltd on my PC and
need a program or at least some information about how to interpret and generate
the audio data in the format it uses.   The format is specified by a mystery
chip (voice processor) that I believe to be manufactured by Toshiba.

Can anyone help?

More information follows:

The DVC is a playback/record system that records audio on hard disk as a bit
stream, using one of the many variants of the Adaptive Delta Modulation (ADM)
technique.  The ADM technique produces very compact audio files but is not
very convenient for audio analysis.   For analysis, Pulse Code Modulated (PCM)
data is much more convenient.   In fact, the DVC takes audio data as PCM
but converts it on board to ADM.  There are no part numbers on the
chip or in the documentation.

What I need is an algorithm (especially in the form of a C program) for
converting between the ADM and PCM just as the Voice Processor chip does.

Thanks,

Tom Scott
EMAIL: {uunet!masscomp, rutgers, princeton}!petsd!pecnos!tom
PHONE: [phone]

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES: sci.commtech update
Date: 16 May 89 11:41:22 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.



For those of you interested in the sci.commtech call for discussion:
an update.  All the feedback has been positive, and much of it has
been enthusiastic.  The idea is to bring together various professional
backgrounds to a common interest: new communication technologies and
their impacts on society, media industries, organizations, and individuals.
The latest developments in technology would also be posted and discussed.
The difference between sci.commtech and, for example, rec.video or rec.audio,
is that sci.commtech will *not* be the place to post inquiries as to what
equipment one might wish to buy.

There has been some discussion about the name, with sci.comm.tech being
a common suggestion; Usenet authorities tell me sci.commtech is better
as the former implies a second heirarchy.  Another good suggestion is
to call the group sci.infotech.  Please post your reactions to news.groups,
and watch for a call for a vote in the next couple of weeks.

Thanks for your interest, and those who have an opinion which has not
yet been expressed, I encourage you to post as soon as possible.

Thanks.
--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes - a few comments
Date: 15 May 89 19:18:42 GMT
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC  New York City


>[Moderator's Note: Why 411-611-911 are not used as area codes is pretty
>obvious, since they equal Information, Repair Bureau, and Emergency in
>that order. But why can't numbers like 210-310-311-511 be used? Or numbers
>like 410-510-710? They at least resemble area codes and would not be so
>confusing to a phone user.  PT]


Historically, the N10 codes were used by TWX (otherwise Telex II); whether
this is still true, I don't know.  AT&T set up TWX to compete with Telex,
and used a hitherto-empty part of its name space to avoid interference.
Later, AT&T had to sell off TWX, but the N10 codes are still treated as
sacred.  The last time I checked into the matter, which was maybe 15 years
ago, my local telco (New Jersey Bell) treated some N10 codes as "invalid
exchange" and others as "invalid area code", kind of randomly.


[Moderator's Note: But some readers have maintained, very vigorously, that
since Western Union central offices are in no way connected with or wired
through Bell central offices, their use of those numbers have no longer
any bearing on area codes. I put those codes (410-510-610-710-810-910) in
the master list of numerical area codes message run several months
ago, and finally took them out. What is the definitive answer on this? Will
someone from Bellcore or some other authoritative source please reply? PT]

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

From:    <[e-mail]>
Subject: University Telecommunications Programs:info wanted
Date: 16 May 89 16:25:44 GMT
Reply-To:    <[e-mail]>
Organization: Statistics Dept., U. C. Berkeley


Just happened to see a posting for these folks at my school

Graduate Program in Telecommunications Science, Management and Policy
this appears to be interdisciplinary betwee schools of Management,
Computer Science, and Political Science

write:    Director of Telecommunications
    Science, Management, and Policy
    Northwestern University
    1815 Chicago Avenue
    Evanston, Illinois 60201-9825

Jonathan

After 22 May reply to: [e-mail]



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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Paying for directory assistance calls.
Date: 13 May 89 21:41:26 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


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

>     Anyway, I got my phone bill the other day.  The DA call was $0.60,
> under the heading "Directory Assistance, Canada and Area Code 809".  I've
> never been charged for DA before, even DA calls to Canada, so this was

Where on earth have you been all these years? AT&T has been charging
for DA for YEARS now. Initially it was $.50 and then later raised to
$.60. I didn't realize that it was *only* $.60 to the Virgin Islands.
What a deal!
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #167
*****************************











Date:     Thu, 18 May 89 2:38:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #168
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 May 89 01:38:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Bit-oriented protocols - ISDN byte-oriented channels? (Tom Lyon)
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: telephone carriers (Dean Riddlebarger)
    Re: Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection! (Bernard Goldsmith)
    Radio Time Sources (Mark Roman)
    Re: Jack specifications (Dave Levenson)
    FCC computing device certification (Bob Langford)
    RJ21X and regulations (Ole J. Jacobsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Lyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bit-oriented protocols 'standard' for ISDN byte-oriented channels?
Date: 15 May 89 22:39:38 GMT


Someday, if we're all very lucky and still alive, the entire world will use
ISDN and it won't matter whether framing of packets in an ISDN channel uses
byte oriented or bit oriented techniques.

In the meantime, when there's a need for an ISDN device to talk to a non-ISDN
device they had better agree on a protocol and SDLC framing fits the bill
just fine.

The V.120 standard seems to be the emerging winner for communication between
ISDN and non-ISDN devices and it does indeed use SDLC framing.

In my opinion, it is neither the power nor the purpose of ISDN to provide 64Kb
channels between computers; rather, it is to make available all the
telecom/datacom things that the phone system provides today from a single
interface, and to provide continued interoperation with all the existing
devices hung off the phone system.

    Tom Lyon
    Sun Microsystems


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

Date: Wed 17 May 89 02:57:55-EDT
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
From: "Robert Gutierrez / MCI ID: 367-9829" <[e-mail]>


From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
>In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]
>(Brian Jay Gould) writes:
> I have seen numerous comparisons by carriers, of their noise levels
>(dropping pins and such).  The modem manufacturers specify data rates based
>upon noise free lines.

> So...  has anyone ever attempted to chart data rate versus carrier?
> (for several modem types)

>We have used three different LD carriers in recent years.  Our
>experience is that each of these (SBS Skyline, MCI, and AT&T) shows
>significant variation between different calls to the same place,
>using the same carrier.  The variation in data transmission quality
>varies even more among calls placed over the same carrier to
>different destinations.  The variation between these carriers was no
>more than the variation between different calls using the same
>carrier.

I could not agree more.  Even at MCI, the circut quality could even depend
on the time of day you call. Scenaro: You call from San Francisco to New
York. If you called at 9pm, your call would travel over our backbone fiber
that runs between San Francisco and Washington DC, then via digital radio
to New York (over-simplification here), but it is possible that you try at
9AM instead, and all trunks are busy on that fiber route, then we have to
find an alternate route for you call to terminate in New York. So, lets see,
we send you to Los Angeles first, then Phoenix, Arizona, then Dallas, Texas,
then St. Louis, Missouri, then......you get the picture.  Then there is
unexpected problems that can contribute, like "backhoe fade"....:-)

>We also find plenty of noisey intra-lata calls.  If the local
>carrier cannot deliver a clean dial-up circuit across town, how can
>they be expected to provide a uniformly clean interface to any of
>the inter-lata carriers?   It doesn't matter much how good the toll
>carrier is if the local carrier is bad.  A given circuit is as good
>as its weakest link, isn't it?

Ahhh yes, the local carrier lines.  I have a problem in that regard. I
am on Portal (cup.portal.com) in Cupertino, California.  I call from
Hayward, California, so, it is intralata.  I am calling from a 1AESS to
a DMS-100, distance: 25 miles.  I would hope to think that there are
directs between HYWRCA11CG0 (Hayward C.O.) and SNJSCA12CG0 (San Jose C.O.
serving Cupertino). When I call Cupertino at 2400 baud, I always get a bunch
of curly characters at the beginning of the transmission, usually
going away after repeated <cr>'s (or, during retraining/equalization).
This usually points towards frame errors/slips on a T-1 carrier, a common
problem on the DMS-100, but I have also gotten this while calling through MCI
which we have direct circuts to that C.O., but not from work, where we
route through San Francisco instead (I think it's San Francisco 10 or 12
were on).  I searched my own calls from work, and they terminate directly
into SNJS/12, but I have no way of searching my intralata calls to see
if I hit the tandem on their end (Santa Clara) or my end (Oakland), and see
if one of the tandems is screwing this up.

Of course, trying to explain all this to repair (611), and they usually
say "huh?".

Let us know if you do proceed with the modem experiments, and the results
and problems you encounter.

     Robert Gutierrez
     MCI Telecommuncations
     Western Region Trouble Management Center
     Hayward, California.


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

From: Dean Riddlebarger <buita![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: telephone carriers
Date: 16 May 89 14:08:03 GMT
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
> 1. Are codes like 10222 and 10288 supposed to work from residence and
>    business phones as well as pay ones?
>
> 2. I just passed through the Lynchburg, Va. area, and used a pay phone
>    (ostensibly C&P) to place a 0+ call inter-LATA, and it went via ITI.
>    (I guess that means: ugh.)


At a relative's home in Indianapolis 10288 works just fine [yep, I'm
trying to make a conversion....:-) :-)].  I would assume that nearly
all BOC locations can handle this now from residential locations, but
some of the smaller independents may still be a bit behind the times.

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


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

Date: Wed, 17 May 89 05:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernard Goldsmith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection!

I asked MCIMail as soon a s I had read your post.  They promised to answer
later this week  --  I'll be glad to share that reply with you.I've been using
MCIMail for about 3 years and ATTMail since last July. I had started with
EasyLink, but it was a disaster, even though their special deal with Boston
Computer Society promised very low rates.  Their billing was riddled with
errors and inattention.

ATTMail has been disappointing, but its growth has accelerated MCIMail's
expansion of services.  MCIMail support is MUCH better than ATT's, and
the protocol is much more rational.

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

From: Mark Roman <@cs.utexas.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Time Sources
Date: 17 May 89 15:53:04 GMT
Reply-To: Mark Roman <@cs.utexas.edu:[e-mail]>
Organization: Open Software Foundation



     I am trying to get some information on radio clocks, specifically
the kind used to provide a reliable standard time for a LAN.  I have been
recommended to Precision Standard Time Inc. in Fremont, CA.  They make a
dandy clock called the Time Source, which is perfect for my needs.
It's a radio receiver tuned to WWV in CO, which puts out serial data
on an RS232 port.  This data, as you might've guessed, is the decoded
time according to the NBS.

Now here's the rub:

It seems that PSTI has disconnected their phones.  Unfortunately, I
don't know if they have simply moved, or if they are out of business.
This, as you might imagine, makes it difficult for me to order
equipment.

Does anyone out there in netland have any information on PSTI or their
distributors?  If they have indeed gone belly up, does anyone have
information on other vendors of similar products?  Please forward this
on to anyone with knowledge.


Thanks in advance,

mark roman


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jack specifications
Date: 17 May 89 17:56:08 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, ucla-an!denwa!bongo!
[e-mail] (julian macassey) writes:

>     OK, let's start with the RJ-21X, because it is not "one of those
> rectangular connectors"...

>     An RJ21X is a 66 block that is used as the "Demarcation Point".


Actually, the code RJ-21X refers to the "Amphonol" 50-pin miniature
ribbon connector, and not to the "66-block" with which it is often
associated.  In a "by the rules" RJ-21X installation, the customer
equipment is required to be attached by an "Amphonol" which mates
with one supplied by the telco.

In the real world, the RJ-21X provided by most telcos is connected
to a 66-block which contains the demarcation straps described in
Julian's posting, and is then connected the service-entrance cables
at the station-protector.  A lot of premises equiment installers
will punch down wire pairs on the telco 66-block, and ignore the
"Amphonol" provided.  I have one customer, however, where the
66-block is under lock and key, and the RJ-21X is the only connector
accessible to the customer.  (The installers promptly installed
their own 66-block and cabled it with an "Amphenol" to the '21X!)

--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
...the man in the mooney


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

Date: Wed, 17 May 89 16:49 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FCC computing device certification

(this isn't telecom, but it _is_ FCC-related)

Can anyone tell me whether PCs MUST be FCC certified, or whether it's
optional?  I was talking to one company who said that certification was
pending for their machine, and that they were selling lots of them.  I thought
that it had to be certified before it could be sold.  Also, which class
of certification (A or B) is more restrictive?  (A co-worker and I disagree.)
What trouble could I get into if I run an uncertified or incorrect-class
machine at home?    Thanks.

             ...Bob Langford, Medical College of Virginia
             [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed 17 May 89 21:31:54-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ21X and regulations


Pacific Bell has quite a different idea about what an RJ21X should
look like.  As the person responsible for our company's phone system,
I was recently served with a "Violation Notice" and given two weeks to
wire our lines to the 66 block VIA the amphenol connector. The
straight "them on one side --- us on the other" with bridging clips in
between is NOT ALLOWED here.  I was told that if I did not correct the
problem, service would be terminated. If you receive service by means
of an RJ21X, the phone company wants to have the ability to disconnect
all of your lines with one simple yank of the amphenol plug, wonderful.


More recently I ordered yet another line (for a credit card
verification frob), and the installer wanted to put up a standard
network interface box (like the ones they use outside new residences)
rather than put the line next to the existing ones. (The RX21X is
inside a phone closet in the building). The reason is apparently that
you are not supposed to have lines with different "class of service"
on the same 66 block. When I explained that we already had a mixture
of stuff on the 66 block; 12 CO lines in hunt, 2 fax lines, and 2
modem lines, he agreed to punch the new line down with the rest,
mumbling about how the PUC makes them do all these silly things.

The guy that goes around snooping in everyone's phone closet to look
for this kind of stuff must have a fun job.....maybe I should apply :-)

Ole


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #168
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 20 May 89 1:10:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #169
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 May 89 00:57:23 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Radio Time Sources (Leonard P Levine)
    Re: Radio Time Sources (Gary Kendall)
    Re: Radio Time Sources (Daniel Senie)
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Brian Jay Gould)
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Regular noise/interference (Jeff Stearns)
    Re: Automated Operators (Thomas E. Lowe)
    Re: Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection! (A.V. Reed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Time Sources
Date: 18 May 89 16:53:17 GMT


From article <[e-mail]>, by @cs.utexas.edu:
[e-mail] (Mark Roman):
> It's a radio receiver tuned to WWV in CO, which puts out serial data
> on an RS232 port.

> does anyone have
> information on other vendors of similar products?

Heathkit, (Zenith) makes what they call an Absolute Clock with
just about the same standards.

Try that.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 May 1989 15:02:49 EDT
From: Gary Kendall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Radio Time Sources

In a recent posting Mark Roman asked for sources of radio timekeepers (WWV
signal variety).  I remember that Heathkit used to sell a kit for a similar
clock that would monitor WWV's data stream transmission to keep itself in
sync with their atomic clock; I'm not sure if it has a data output or not.

Find a Heathkit catalog or give 'em a call.

--Gary
Acknowledge-To: <DOCUMENT@VTVM1>

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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Time Sources
Date: 18 May 89 22:01:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, @cs.utexas.edu:marcus@
osf.osf.org (Mark Roman) writes:
>
>      I am trying to get some information on radio clocks, specifically
> the kind used to provide a reliable standard time for a LAN.

Heathkit makes such a device. It outputs to RS232. The cost is around
$300, I think. It is available both as a kit and assembled.
--
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: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 19 May 89 02:17:51 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I agree that the quality of call to call will vary.  Certainly, location
choices will have a significant effect upon results.  However, I have the
feeling that some trends can be realized.

We are still discussing whether to fund this research or not.  We also need
to find someone with the talent to lead the effort at a university if we
are to proceed.
--

- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]   BITNET gould@jvncc  -

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <ucla-an!denwa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 19 May 89 03:22:53 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <ucla-an!denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert Gutierrez / MCI ID: 367-9829) writes:

>From: westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail]
>>(Brian Jay Gould) writes:

>>using the same carrier.  The variation in data transmission quality
>>varies even more among calls placed over the same carrier to
>>different destinations.  The variation between these carriers was no
>>more than the variation between different calls using the same
>>carrier.

>I could not agree more.

Perhaps.  But certain carriers are bad all of the time.  Certain
resellers use compression to squeeze more voice circuits onto a channel
(i.e. DS1 or DS3).  This tends to send data throughput down the drain.

The company I am most familiar with is Telesphere (10555).  I find that
I consistently get about half the throughput I do with AT&T or Sprint.
The volume on voice calls is also a bit low.

When I confronted them about this, they said, "We are a voice service.
We make no claims about our ability to carry data."

With apologies to Mr. Gutierrez, I find that MCI still has the worst
voice quality of the major carriers.  They are still using way too many
analog microwave hops with the stations farther apart than they should
be (fog in the central California valleys kills connections from
Southern to Northern California for instance).
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: Jeff Stearns <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: regular noise/interference over long distance credit card calls
Date: 19 May 89 00:41:08 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Dyer <dyer@
ursa-major.spdcc.com> writes:

> I was travelling on business last month and attepted to use my trusty Toshiba
> laptop which comes with a 1200 baud modem...  Whenever I dialed direct with
> the credit card, I would end up getting an incredibly regular noise pattern:
> what seemed like <DEL>{ once a >second--you could set your watch with it...

Steve,

Most phone calls are transmitted as a stream of digital data.  (Odd, ain't it;
the modem converts digital to analog so the central office can convert it
back to digital for transmission...)

This digital data stream passes from one network switch to another. The network
switches probably aren't synchronized to the same clock.  One switch is running
slightly faster than the other; thus the digital data stream is constantly and
steadily "slipping" as it passes from one to the other.  The scrambled bit
pattern often contains characters ~ or } or DEL (they're rich in 1-bits).

A quick workaround?  Route the call along a different path.  Using a different
LD carrier is very likely to accomplish this.
--
    Jeff Stearns        John Fluke Mfg. Co, Inc.               [phone]
    [e-mail]   {uw-beaver,microsoft,sun}!fluke!jeff

PS - Calling all users of the Vitalink TransLAN IV Ethernet bridge! Please
     drop me a line.

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

From: "thomas.e.lowe" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Operators
Date: 19 May 89 12:37:15 GMT
Reply-To: "thomas.e.lowe" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


|> Just received an insert in this month's bill from Michigan Bell
|> (Ameritech). It seems that they are about to implement a form
|> of the automated operator services some of the COCOTs have
|> been using for collect and third party billing. According to
|> the flyer, if you are making a 0+ call withing the LATA and
|> do not enter a credit card number after the "bong", you may
|> get connected to a computer asking you to touch a number
|> corresponding to your billing request (collect or third
|> party). You will then be asked to record your name. The called
|> or billed number will then be called, a computer generated message
|> will be played with your name inserted appropriately, and the
|> receiver asked to touch a number corresponding to whether or
|> not they accept charges.

|What do they plan to do if the billed number does not have touch-tone?
|Some of us are still in the dark ages and connected to step offices...

|[Moderator's Note: We have something like this now in Chicago. You
|dial zero plus the ten digit number to make a call on your card, even if
|the call is in Chicago. After dialing those eleven digits, a gong rings,
|and a condescending recorded voice tells us, "Enter your calling card
|number, followed by a pound (#), or dial zero for an operator now!"
|If you do neither, then a live operator cuts in after about twenty
|seconds to handle the call manually. Phones known to be rotary dial are
|automatically routed to the operator following the gong signal.  PT]

I think you missed the point.  The call is going to be delivered by
automated equipment asking the CALLED party to enter a digit to accept
the charges.  What if the CALLED party has no touchtone phone?
I suppose it could time out after not getting a digit after 5 seconds
but that sounds like some invonvient delays.

I have also heard of VERY reliable speech recognition that is now available
that recognizes a VERY limited vocabulary  (yes, no, 0 1 ... 8 9).
Something like 95+% reliable.  If they implement that, this would be
an acceptable way of doing collect and third person billing.
--
Tom Lowe    [e-mail] or  att!hound!tel     [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
(R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T  (keep them lawyers happy!!)

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

From: "a.v.reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection!
Date: 19 May 89 20:32:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ


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

> ATTMail has been disappointing, but its growth has accelerated MCIMail's
> expansion of services.  MCIMail support is MUCH better than ATT's, and
> the protocol is much more rational.

I wonder - what exactly is this "protocol"? From a machine
registered with AT&T Mail, you send a letter by invoking your
favorite mailer - whatever that happens to be - with an address
like attmail!adamreed or attmail!othermachine!user. For more
complicated stuff, I use ksh functions, like this one for sending
a business letter, formatted with mm macros, to a FAX:

function sendfax {
        NUMBER=$1;ATTENTION=$2;shift;shift
        (echo "To: attmail!fax!$NUMBER(/$ATTENTION)";\
            nroff -mm -rL60 -rW65 $@ | col -bx)|\
            /bin/mail attmail!dispatcher
        }

What exactly is this "much more rational protocol" from MCI Mail?
In what ways is it "more rational" than the above? Note that
while I am from AT&T BL, I am NOT a company chauvinist, and I
firmly believe that learning from everyone - definitely INCLUDING
one's competitors - is the essence of wisdom. This is a serious
request for more information, NOT a flame.

                [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #169
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 20 May 89 2:03:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #170
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 May 89 01:41:19 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Answering machine and dialup modem (Kenneth H. Lee)
    LAST CALL: sci.commtech, sci.infotech, sci.informatics (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Re: RJ21X and regulations (Robert J Woodhead)
    MCI FAX Network (Lars Poulsen)
    Cellular Phone & 911 (David Dodell)
    My Wife & a cordless phone (Blake Farenthold)
    Call Forwarding Procedures?? (Steve Finberg)
    Neighboring area codes (Carl Moore)
    TV Interference from the telephone (William E. Evans)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 May 1989 17:19:34 EDT
From: "Kenneth H. Lee" <[e-mail]>
Subject: answering machine and dialup modem.

    My setup is as follows:

    Two phone lines coming into my room.  Line 1 is normally used
for voice calls and line 2 is used for my modem calls.

    All my jacks are wired back to an entrance bridge I have near
the telco network interfaces with 4-wire station cable.  I use six
inch modular to spade lug line cords to connect from the bridge to the
telco network interfaces.  Line 1 is supplied via the RED/GREEN pair
while line 2 is supplied via the BLACK/YELLOW pair of the jacks.

    My problem is that when I am logged onto any system via my
dialup modem and my answering machine answers my phone, my modem drops
carrier and my session drops.  I can also hear my modem carrier
whenever I use line 1 and the modem is in use.

    It seems to me that the answering is causing some sort of
glitch on line 1 that is being picked up on line 2 whenever it answers
an incoming call.

    Question 1: What can I do to prevent this from happening,
short of wiring a new jack which has two cables running to it, one
supplying line 1 and the other supplying line 2.

    Question 2: If I had wired my jacks using twisted pair cable
instead of the 4 wire station cable, would I still be seeing this
problem?  Would it make a difference if the cable were shielded?

    The reason for question 2 is if I ever move into a different
place, should I wired my jacks using 4 wire station cable or with
twisted pair cable?  I figure I might as well get things right the
next time around, since I will in all likelyhood have at least two
phone lines coming into my next house/apartment.

    Any help or insights would be greatly appreciated. /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]

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: LAST CALL: sci.commtech, sci.infotech, sci.informatics...
Date: 20 May 89 00:32:35 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.



I am about to issue the call to vote for a new newsgroup on communication/
information technologies and their impacts on society, media industries,
organizations and individuals.  The vast majority of responses have been
favorable, with some discussion needed to resolve a name for the group.

To summarize, sci.commtech is favored over sci.comm.tech because of the
additional level of heirarchy implied in sci.comm.tech.

sci.commtech may better reflect the emphasis on communication-related
technologies and issue than sci.infotech, but this is not clear

sci.informatics may be an excellent name from a European perspective as
the word does seem to reflect our intentions, but it may be less familiar
to U.S. users

One posting suggested that the topics proposed are already covered in
other newsgroups, but responses noted that having to wade through all
the other newsgroups for these topics of interest is a key reason for
establishing sci.commtech.

No strong feelings have been expressed about a moderator, so the leaning
right now would be to NOT have a moderator.

I wish to issue a call to vote possibly within the week.  (If anyone can
advise me as to how to set up my mailbox to automatically route YES and
NO votes to files, please let me know--I'm no unix programmer, but I know
this is possible and probably not difficult).

Thanks for the support so far, and please watch for the call to vote (no
votes have yet been tallied).

--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818

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

Date: Fri May 19 09:50:35 1989
From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ21X and regulations
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:
>The straight "them on one side --- us on the other" with bridging clips in
>between is NOT ALLOWED here.

Ah yes, the bridging clips.  Here in Ithaca, the phone company installers
do "them on the left and you on the right", and twice in the last 6 months
one of those clips has popped out or shifted just enough to screw up a
connection.  Plus, would you believe it, for 4 phone lines on an internal
phone system plus a modem and fax line, I have a total of 4 of these boxes
of various sizes, plus 2 boxes of an older vintage; some installed by the
phone company, some by the phone system company.

One of these days I'm going to have to spend an afternoon and trace all the
damn wires and figure it all out.  I mean, at the current rate, if I get
another modem line I'll run out of wall space in my utility closet!

--
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor | [e-mail]
"The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep."
     -- Woody Allen.


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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI FAX Network
Date: 19 May 89 23:14:24 GMT
Organization: Not Much


I just received a pretty, multi-colored brochure from MCI,
headlined "What a beautiful day for a revolution". The
revolution is that MCI now has "a dedicated FAX network". Is
this in the same sense that they have "dedicated customer
service", or do they really have a SEPARATE national
long-distance telephone network that exclusively carries FAX
traffic ?

It would seem to make no sense at all to maintain a dedicated
FAX network, when you already have a telephone network.

The brochures include a price list giving per-minute charges in
US mileage bands as well as internationally by country. I don't
have the MCI telephone price list hand; can I save this list and
use it as a price list for my MCI telephone calls ?
If the prices are different for phone and FAX, why ? If they are
lower than the phone prices, what's to stop me from pretending
my phone is a FAX ?

/ Lars Poulsen
ACC Customer Service
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 May 89 20:59:24 mst
From: David Dodell <stjhmc!stjhmc.fidonet.org![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone & 911


I was curious if Enhanced 911 can pick up the phone number when you are
calling from a mobile phone (either cellular or IMTS)?   Or is this one of
those trunk line situations, where they can only identify that you are
calling from a mobile phone, BUT not the specific number?

David

--
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
               uucp:  {decvax, ncar} !noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
        uucp:  {gatech, ames, rutgers} !ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15 or 1:1/0
                  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 09:29:02 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: My Wife & a cordless phone

With all the PhoneMate blasting going on I guess asking for digest readers
help in selecting a cordless phone is appropriate.

My wife has wanted a cordless phone for months now and I keep putting it off
because I never met a cordless phone I liked.  I have "sorta" been looking for
one but havn't found one I loved.

The newer AT&T phones seem to sound the best assuming you pick a channel that
one of your neighbors is not using.  There is a Sony that looks nice too (it
automaticly scans for the cleanest channel).

Any tips on what to look for?  What to stay away from?  Basicaly I'm not
overly worried about price, I just want one that sounds good.

Thanks!
______

UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!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

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

Date: Fri, 19 May 89 02:24 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call Forwarding Procedures ??

I am interested in the procedures used with call forwarding, as
supplied as a "Custom Calling Service" option on "normal" single
line phones.

In Mass we dial a 3 digit code (72#) wait for dial tone then the
number to be forwarded to, if it answers any following incoming
calls are forwarded.  If it doesn't answer repeating the
process once more is necessary.

While calls are being forwarded each incoming call causes the
original phone to ring once, however no pick up is possible.
Outgoing calls are still possible.

To cancel the original phone must dial 73#. Two beeps and dial
tone confirm the cancellation.

I am interested in any variation from this procedure,
particularly in the behavior of the bypassed phone.  How standard
is it across all the local operating companies ?

Steve Finberg



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

Date:     Thu, 18 May 89 11:32:37 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  neighboring area codes

Delaware and Maryland are neighboring area codes which differ
by only one digit: 302 and 301 respectively.

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

From: William E Evans <pyuxd![e-mail]>
Subject: TV Interference from the telephone
Date: 19 May 89 18:33:05 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


Can someone suggest a reason why we see television interference
whenever one of our telephones is picked up?  I can understand
there being interference when I use my modem; however, this
interference (zigzag lines in the TV picture) happens anytime
a telephone is picked up.

Is there an easy way to isolate and fix such a problem?

Thanks.

Bill Evans
Bellcore

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #170
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 20 May 89 10:44:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #171
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 May 89 10:29:55 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Illinois Bell Knocked Out For Four Hours! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: RJ21X and regulations (John Higdon)
    Honey-Danber UUCP and the Telebit Trailblazer (Eric S. Raymond)

[Moderator's Note: This issue of the digest is devoted primarily to
a technical discussion of the Telebit Trailblazer, cross posted by
Eric Raymond to several news groups. I was going to hold it until
Sunday, but decided to release it early in order to include a news
bulletin about the massive phone failure which hit parts of the
Chicago area on Thursday. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 20 May 89 10:26:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Illinois Bell Knocked Out For Four Hours!

Service to over 40,000 Illinois Bell subscribers in the northwest suburbs
of Chicago was disrupted for about four hours Thursday because of problems
with the computer in the switching center.

Phones were either dead or inoperative for incoming and outgoing calls between
9:30 a.m. and 1:40 p.m. because of a software glitch at the central office
in Hoffman Estates, IL. Most of the disruption occurred in Hoffman Estates,
Schaumburg, Arlington Heights, Hanover Park, and Streamwood, IL.

The exact nature of the problem was not discussed by the Bell spokesman who
reported that the outage had been corrected. Apparently the backup system
which is supposed to kick in also failed.

Patrick Townson


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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ21X and regulations
Date: 20 May 89 04:14:50 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:
> Pacific Bell has quite a different idea about what an RJ21X should
> look like.  As the person responsible for our company's phone system,

It's not Pacific Bell, it's whoever comes out to do the work. There are
two types of installers: those that want to get the job done and those
that like to play like little Nazis. I have been involved with phone
systems ranging from 2 line key systems to multi-site PBXs and there
are as many interpretations concerning what the rules say as there are
installers in the field.

> I was recently served with a "Violation Notice" and given two weeks to
> wire our lines to the 66 block VIA the amphenol connector. The
> straight "them on one side --- us on the other" with bridging clips in
> between is NOT ALLOWED here.  I was told that if I did not correct the
> problem, service would be terminated. If you receive service by means
> of an RJ21X, the phone company wants to have the ability to disconnect
> all of your lines with one simple yank of the amphenol plug, wonderful.

If any repair person pulled the amphenol off any of my RJs in the
process of testing one line, he would be looking for a new job--I
guarantee it.


> inside a phone closet in the building). The reason is apparently that
> you are not supposed to have lines with different "class of service"
> on the same 66 block. When I explained that we already had a mixture

On one RJ21X block in Pac*Bell land I have the following:

8    Ground Start PBX incoming trunks
4    Ground Start PBX outgoing trunks
3    Sprint Pro-Wats Lines
1    Pac*Bell Metro 800 Line
1    Ground Start DISA access Line
2    Loop Start Modem Lines
1    PBX outgoing OPX

No one, but no one has ever given me the slightest comment about this.
If anyone ever does, he will be given certain directions concerning
impossible anatomical acts he can perform on himself.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Honey-Danber UUCP and the Telebit Trailblazer -- a how-to
Date: 14 May 89 18:34:54 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems (per request of TELECOM Moderator)


This is revision 2 of the everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-the
Trailblazer-but-were-afraid-to-ask posting. It supersedes my posting
<eUTug#2jxipt=[e-mail]> of 16 Dec 88 23:29:53 GMT. I have bothered with
this revision because Telebit's documentation, while relatively quite good for
a product of this type, makes too many assumptions about what the user
already knows and can do.

Here's how to set up your system to use a Telebit Trailblazer modem for uucp,
cu and kermit (almost all of this applies to the Telebit T1000 and T2000 modems
as well). First, I describe how to set up dial-out use; then, how to
enable dial-in.

First, get one of your serial ports to talk to the 'Blazer via kermit or cu.

To do this via kermit, you'll need to `set line' to the UNIX device associated
with the serial port, `set speed' to 9600, and perhaps `set parity' to N. To
use cu, you'll need a Devices file entry that
looks like

Direct tty000 - 9600 direct

and you'll invoke cu as

cu -l/dev/tty00

where tty00 should be replaced with the name of the serial port your modem is
connected to. It's possible your cu may also need an `-s 9600' option; to see
what it does as it tries to connect, use -d.

Once connected, you want to enter the following commands:

AT &F Q6 S51=4 S52=2 S53=3 S54=3 S55=3 S58=2 S66=1 S92=1 S95=2 &W &N

Note: these settings work on a System V 3.0 running on generic 80386 AT-bus
hardware with 8250-based serial ports. See the notes below for what to do about
strange machines like the T5100 or AT&T 7300.

If you enter incorrect settings, you can correct after hard-resetting the
'Blazer. Older versions have a microswitch on the back of the modem; on newer
ones, you just turn off the power, hold down the T/D switch, and power
on again. Keep T/D pressed until the 'MR' light comes on.

If the 'Blazer hangs up when you type <CR> after the above command, you
have incorrect settings; probably S53 and/or S58 are wrong. Hard-reset and
see note 3 below.

Explanation of the settings above follows:

AT &F        ; Reset to factory defaults
AT Q6        ; Return result codes only on outgoing calls.
AT S51=4    ; Use constant 9600bps speed to modem (but see Note 1)
AT S52=2    ; Reset to configuration memory values on DTR drop.
AT S53=3    ; DCD on carrier detect, DSR on when modem off-hook.
AT S54=3    ; Pass BREAKs transparently.
AT S55=3    ; Don't allow escape to command mode
AT S58=2    ; Use hardware (RTS/CTS) flow control.
AT S66=1    ; Lock CPU-to-'blazer speed at S51 value
AT S92=1    ; Try PEP tones at end of autobauding sequence (see Note 2)
AT S95=2    ; Enable MNP if other side wants it
AT &W        ; Put these parameters in the configuration memory
AT &N        ; Check the configuration values for correctness

What you're doing is setting the modem up to use a fixed speed of 9600bps to
talk to the CPU, but autobaud outgoing calls with PEP tones last (the settings
of registers 51, 66, and 92 accomplish this).

The Q6 command disables generation of some command responses in answer mode.
The S52=2 tells the modem to reset to default values at the end of a call (this
is necessary, because some of the dialer scripts will change settings).

The S53=3 is important; without it, UNIX will think the modem line is active
all the time and uucico/cu/kermit may not be able to get past a deathless getty
hanging on the port (this happens on Microport 3.0e). However, on some other
configurations you can and must set S53=0; the AT&T 7300 and T5100 need this,
but the getty will be interruptible and everything should function normally.

S54=3 prevents the BREAKS that you put in expect/send
scripts in order to force the callee to autobaud from getting intercepted
by the modem. S55=3 guarantees that your modem won't be dumped into command
mode by an escape sequence showing up in binary data.

S58=2 enables the cleanest kind of RS232C flow control between the modem and
your serial card. If you are using 8251-based port hardware (in particular
if you are using a Toshiba T5100 or other portable with CMOS-only innards)
this may not work! See the discussion of flow control below, Note 3.

The significance of the S92 register is covered in Note 1 below. Finally,
S95=2 enables MNP protocol checks (some dialer scripts turn this off).

These settings make you back-compatible with a Hayes, so that kermit's dial
command will still work through a vanilla ACU/hayes device connected to the
Trailblazer port. Other cases are handled by commands in the Dialers scripts.

Do *not* set S67=1! This looks logical but doesn't work. Also, you don't need
to change S110 or S111 to get compression and 'g' protocol spoofing; by
default, callers can select it, and the Dialer scripts will do the right
things for outgoing calls.

Note 1: the promise and peril of 19200
    If you're willing to give up using kermit(1) 4D (which only supports
a 9600bps maximum) you can jack the CPU-to-modem speed up to 19200 (S51=5).
In that case the `9600' speed fields in your Devices and Systems files should
all change to `19200'. If you have kermit source it is not hard to hack it to
support 19200 -- but your serial port drivers may not be able to handle this
without clist overflow!

   Some UNIXes on AT-bus machines are rumored to have problems this way
(Microport is one such). If you can use RTS/CTS handshaking (see note 3) the
modem will, effectively, do buffering for you and the problem goes away. If
you're using a smart multiport card like the ACE, also no problem. But if
you're stuck with a 16Mhz or slower processor, a dumb serial card and no
handshaking, you may lose characters at any speed above 2400(!) baud.

Note 2: catering to old slow broken modems.
    You may well be able to run with S92=0, the default (PEP tones first).
The S92=1 setting is conservative; it guarantees you compatibility with 2400bps
modems that are either too dumb (so they mistake the PEP multi-carrier burst
for a V.22 answer tone) or too smart (so they think it's a human voice and hang
up). V.22 modems built to spec shouldn't do either. The cost of this
conservatism is that 'Blazers running firmware release 2.2 or older, or
with the S7 carrier wait time set to less than 60 seconds, may not be
able to recognize yours; and you impose a longer handshake sequence (with
increased chance of uucico timeout) on all Trailblazers.

Note 3: handshaking considerations
    8251-based ports have only one handshake line; the T5100 appears to
use this for the DSR/DTR pair. Therefore RTS/CTS handshaking won't work.
If setting S58=2 causes your 'Blazer to hang up, but you are not sure there's
an 8251 in the woodwork, try S58=1 (half-duplex RTS/CTS). Human dial-ins may
not like the effects of this setting, however.

    If neither of these work, you *may* (repeat *may*) have a problem. XON/XOFF
handshaking can cause lossage as UUCP 'g' processing tries to interpret ^S/^Q.
Therefore you are stuck with S58=0, no handshaking. This is certainly OK if
the sites you talk to always use PEP or g-protocol spoofing, these modes
disable flow control anyhow.

    It is alleged by the uunet people (who have one of the world's largest
collections of 'Blazers, and thus ought to know) that connections through
the 'Blazer at 1200/2400 cps work just fine with no handshaking. And I have
been using a T5100 connected this way for a couple of weeks without obvious
problems. So all of this may be a non-issue. Comments from RS-232 experts
or anyone else with solid practical knowledge are invited.

Further note: if your installation is outside the U.S.A. you may need to tweak
the S90 and S91 registers, either to new default values or within the dialer
scripts. See the Trailblazer documentation for details.

Add the following lines to your Dialers file:

##########
#     Telebit Trailblazer Plus, T1000 or T2000
#
# assumes Q6 X1 S51=4 S52=2 S53=3 S54=3 S55=3 S58=2 S66=1 S92=1 S95=2 in EEPROM
#
tb1200    =W-,    "" \d\K\dATE0 OK ATS92=0S50=2S95=0DT\T CONNECT\s1200
tb2400    =W-,    "" \d\K\dATE0 OK ATS92=0S50=3S95=0DT\T CONNECT\s2400
tb2400n    =W-,    "" \d\K\dATE0 OK ATS92=0S50=3DT\T CONNECT\s2400
tbPEP    =W-,    "" \d\K\dATE0 OK ATS92=0S95=0S50=255S7=60S111=30DT\T\r\n\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\c CONNECT\sFAST
tbPEPc    =W-,    "" \d\K\dATE0 OK ATS92=0S95=0S50=255S7=60S110=1S111=30DT\T\r\n\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\c CONNECT\sFAST
#

The magic parts of these scripts are the delays after connection, which hold
off handing control to uucico so it won't time out during the PEP negotiation.

Now add the following lines to your Devices file:

# --- Telebit Trailblazer/T1000/T2000 devices ------
#
# Devices for access to a 'blazer on tty00
ACUTB tty00 - 9600 tbPEP
ACUTBC tty00 - 9600 tbPEPc
ACUTB2400 tty00 - 9600 tb2400
ACUTB2400N tty00 - 9600 tb2400n
ACUTB1200 tty00 - 9600 tb1200

If you have more than one Trailblazer, just duplicate the list above once for
each tty device connected to one.

All your Systems file entries that are associated with any of the Trailblazer
devices should have a speed field of 9600 (to match the speed in the Devices
file). You set the actual speed of the connection by which ACU you pick -- note
that the PEP entry corresponding to ACUTB autobauds, so you can usually just
use that.

The ACUTBC entry may be better for mail and news feeds, as it enables data
compression for up to a 2:1 cut in transmission time. Compressed PEP with
g-protocol spoofing running on reasonably clean phone lines can often give
your UUCP a throughput of as much as 14K text characters per second!

The low-speed entries avoid throwing PEP tones at modems that may be confused
by them. ACUTB2400 should fall back to 1200bps if it needs to. ACUTB2400N may
be useful for Telenet MNP access. The N- and C-suffix devices request
compression and MNP modes from the remote respectively.

The above is designed so your ACU entry can be untouched and still work for use
with the kermit dial command (which doesn't know what to do with the tb*
devices). If you don't care about kermit, you can call the tbPEP device ACU.

Now for dial-in access. First, you need to create appropriate gettydefs and
inittab entries. First, add the following to your /etc/gettydefs file:

BLAZER# B9600 HUPCL OPOST ONLCR TAB3 BRKINT IGNPAR ISTRIP IXON IXANY ECHO ECHOE
    ECHOK ICANON ISIG CS8 CREAD # B9600 HUPCL OPOST ONLCR TAB3 BRKINT
    IGNPAR ISTRIP IXON IXANY ECHO ECHOE ECHOK ICANON ISIG CS8 CREAD
    #login: #BLAZER

(whitespace added for clarity; this must be all one line). This instructs a
getty running at BLAZER speed to look for logins at 9600bps only (you can
use 19200 instead if your hardware can handle it and you've set S51=5 as
described above). It differs from a normal entry in that HUPCL is set (this
is generally a good idea for dial-in lines).

Next, add the following line or one like it to your inittab:

00:23:respawn:/usr/lib/uucp/uugetty -r -t 60 tty00 BLAZER

Now do a `telinit q' from root to start the getty. Finally, use kermit or cu
to tell the modem

AT S0=1 &W

and you're set. This instructs the Trailblazer to auto-answer on the first
ring, using as little as possible of uucico's fixed 3-minute timeout.

Note: on Microport, you want to use the M-prefixed `modem' devices and an
ordinary /etc/getty without -r and -t options.

Have fun!
--
      Eric S. Raymond = [e-mail]    (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)


[Moderator's Note: Please address any follow-ups direct to Mr. Raymond or
to 'comp.dcom.modems' -- *not* to this Digest. It is cross-posted here as
a courtesy to people who may not ordinarily read the modem group.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #171
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 21 May 89 7:56:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #172
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 May 89 07:31:22 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    DC area NXX code update ([e-mail])
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: FCC computing device certification (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: Radio Time Sources (Vernon C. Hoxie)
    Re: Illinois Bell Knocked Out For Four Hours! (Bruce Klopfenstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 May 89 22:33:38 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC area NXX code update



             CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY

                      NEW NXX CODE OPENINGS

                                       UPDATED THROUGH May 8, 1989

NPA   NXX   RATE AREA               SERVICE DATE      REMARKS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
703   706   Alexandria-Arlington    03/04/89
703   716   Alexandria-Arlington    03/04/89
703   914   Falls Church-McLean     03/04/89
804   337   Richmond                03/18/89
703   994   Pulaski                 03/18/89
703   776   Roanoke                 03/18/89
703   224   Roanoke                 03/19/89
703   204   Falls Church-McLean     04/29/89
703   846   Falls Church-McLean     04/15/89
804   832   Lynchburg               05/06/89
703   633   Radford                 05/06/89
804   235   Richmond                05/20/89
703   587   Bedford                 05/20/89
804   354   Richmond                04/25/89
703   712   Falls Church-McLean     05/14/89
703   818   Failfax-Vienna          06/04/89  Please note - code introduced
                                              6-4-88. Not all switches updated.
703   415   Alexandria-Arlington    06/02/89
804   383   Richmond                05/20/89  Opening being expedited
703   709   Fairfax-Vienna          07/14/89
703   516   Alexandria-Arlington    07/07/89
301   960   Baltimore               11/26/88
301   805   Bowie-Glendale          11/26/88
301   808   Capital Heights         11/26/88
301   507   Berwyn                  12/03/88
301   402   Bethesda                01/15/89
301   638   Bel Air                 01/15/89
301   414   Damascus                01/28/89
301   816   Kensington              02/12/89  Cancelled code 417 - Replaced
                                              with 816.
301   487   Myersville              03/19/89
301   608   Silver Spring           08/05/89
301   309   Rockville               08/12/89
301   312   Columbia                04/01/89
301   780   Essex                   04/15/89
301   931   Parkville               05/20/89
301   409   Berwyn                  05/28/89
301   996   Catonsville             08/01/89
301   979   Catonsville             08/01/89
301   331   Hagerstown              07/14/89
301   998   Pikesville              09/01/89
202   404   Washington              04/15/89
202   613   Washington              05/06/88
202   605   Washington              06/03/88
202   504   Washington              06/17/88
202   307   Washington              06/01/88  Date changed from 06/24/88
202   915   Washington              06/10/88
202   310   Washington              09/15/88
202   213   Washington              09/18/88
202   954   Washington              10/26/88
202   610   Washington              02/03/89
202   319   Washington              03/17/89
202   416   Washington              02/10/89
202   514   Washington              03/17/89
202   708   Washington              05/05/89
202   906   Washington              09/23/88  Code activated 9-23-88  Not all
                                              switches updated.
202   408   Washington              10/13/89
202   812   Washington              06/30/89
202   917   Washington              06/30/89
202   806   Washington              07/28/89
304   544   Huntington              10/17/87
304   627   Clarksburg              09/12/87
304   639   Wheeling Zone 1         02/15/88
301   633   Huntington Zone 1       02/05/88
304   281   Wheeling Zone 1         04/04/88
304   479   Weirton                 05/13/88
304   542   Charleston Zone 1       08/22/88
304   691   Huntington Zone 1       10/01/88
304   353   Charleston Zone 1       10/01/88
304   545   Charleston Zone 1       10/08/88
304   481   Parkersburg Zone 1      11/15/88
304   284   Morgantown              07/15/89


[this is the whole list (typo in the original included in 304 land).
 In the future, I will send new exchange opening announcements as
 I get them]

Doug

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 21 May 89 01:53:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


[e-mail] (Brian Jay Gould) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 160, message 3 of 8
>So...  has anyone ever attempted to chart data rate versus carrier?

The April 25 issue of |Data Communications| has an article "A quality
comparison: Which carrier tests best?"  They tested AT&T, MCI, and Sprint
with 9600bps V.32 modems (specifically Codex 2264's).

They summarized the results of the tests saying:

    Despite Sprint's new fiber network, AT&T was still the winner in
    terms of error-free data connections over all links.

    Not surprisingly, AT&T also won hands down in terms of call-setup
    time. [...]

    In terms of signal loss, Sprint was the winner, showing an average
    receive signal level of -10dBm [...]  But when comparing link by link,
    there was no clear winner.  Besides, all the carriers fell well within
    the acceptable limits for voice.

In their tests, they compared:  call-setup time, receive-signal level,
and bit and block error rate.  Their overall summary for connections with
data errors (that is at least one error occured during the 1.5 minute
BERT with a 511 pattern) was:

    AT&T    ================ 15%

    SPRINT    ==================== 19%

    MCI    ============================== 29%

        |---------|---------|---------|---------|
        0%        10%       20%       30%       40%

    "Percent of total tested connections with at least one
    block errored in transmission."


However, as others have pointed out, the end-to-end connection is only
as good as every link in the chain.
--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 21 May 89 04:45:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


Jim Gottlieb <ucla-an!denwa![e-mail]> writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 169, message 5 of 8
>Certain resellers use compression to squeeze more voice circuits onto a
>channel (i.e. DS1 or DS3).  This tends to send data throughput down the drain.

The only tariffed service using compression is M44, which uses the 32K
ADPCM speech compression algorithm.  It is so named because the 24 8-bit
channel bandwidth of a T1 line is allocated as 44 4-bit voice channels
and 2 8-bit bundled signalling channels.  The ADPCM algorithm has been
engineered specifically to support modems.  The Europeans had a G.721
ADPCM algorithm months before the ANSI T1Y1 committee approved theirs.
What was the holdup?

They wanted to get modem traffic right!

Turns out that the original algorithm was found to have problems with
V.22bis and some patches were made to account for this.  The CCITT has
since gone back and updated their standard with this same algorithm.

There is no compression done at the DS3 level.  In practice, DS3 is used
in the public network only to multiplex several DS1's.

I don't believe that ADPCM is commonly used by carriers for their normal
public lines.  Even if it were, most modem traffic would be unaffected.
(I'm not sure about PEP or V.32.)  There are lots of reasons for modem
problems, but I don't think this is one of them.

The assertion that compression is a problem is possibly qualified by
mentioning "resellers".  True, there is stuff out there which can make
anybody sound like an old 78-rpm record which went through a car wash.
But I would think you would have to go out of your way to get a super-cheap
economy service to get this kind of stuff.
--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC computing device certification
Date: 20 May 89 09:11:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


[e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 168, message 7 of 8
>Can anyone tell me whether PCs MUST be FCC certified

Certification under Part 15 is mandatory.

>I thought that it had to be certified before it could be sold.

I've heard of FCC people showing up at PC shows & trade fairs and shutting
down booths where folks are dumping cheap imports without certification.

>Also, which class of certification (A or B) is more restrictive?

Class B is much more restrictive.  It applies to consumer appliances.
Class A is industrial appliances.  The difference between the two is about
10 to 20 dB, depending upon the specific test and measurement frequency.

>What trouble could I get into if I run an uncertified or incorrect-class
>machine at home?

At the very least, the EMI-police can prevent you from operating it.
However, the seller of the equipment can come into some really big time
trouble.  From what I've seen, the FCC vigorously pursues reported and
discovered violations.

--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337

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

Date: Sat, 20 May 89 13:33:01 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Time Sources

In article <[e-mail]>, @cs.utexas.edu:marcus@
osf.osf.org (Mark Roman) writes:

>      I am trying to get some information on radio clocks, specifically
> the kind used to provide a reliable standard time for a LAN.  I have been
> recommended to Precision Standard Time Inc. in Fremont, CA.  They make a
> dandy clock called the Time Source, which is perfect for my needs.
> It's a radio receiver tuned to WWV in CO, which puts out serial data
> on an RS232 port.  This data, as you might've guessed, is the decoded
> time according to the NBS.


Try calling the National Bureau of Standards at Boulder, CO.  They
have digital time available on 303-494-4774 at 300/1200 baud.  Type
an 'H' immediately after connecting for a blurb about the format and
accuracy.  The blurb tells how you can get the time to a couple of
milli-seconds at your location.  They calculate the round-trip propagation
time and adjust their timing accordingly.  Don't worry about excessive time
charges, they disconnect after 50+- secs. so that your call will always
be less tha one minute.  This also makes the 8 or 10 lines available for
more users.

The 1200 baud message has more information such as Daylight Time change
dates, Julian date etc. but the 300 baud is more accurate. (2-3 ms vs.
5-6 ms).

Good Luck.

Vernon C. Hoxie               {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.                    voice: 303-477-1780
Denver, Colo., 80212                     uucp: 303-455-2670


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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Knocked Out For Four Hours!
Date: 21 May 89 11:02:25 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
edu (TELECOM Moderator):
> Service to over 40,000 Illinois Bell subscribers in the northwest suburbs
> of Chicago was disrupted for about four hours Thursday because of problems
> with the computer in the switching center.
>
[goes on to note other details including the failure of the backup syqtem]

Are the implications of this outage as serious as they appear to be on
the surface?  To a non-telephony insider, this appears to be about as big
a crisis as one could imagine.  Am I cynical in thinking that before this
happened, Illinois Bell would have said that this incident was impossible?
(Shades of Exxon?)


--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818


[Moderator's Note: While the numbers seem large, forty thousand subscribers
out of four million plus in the northern Illinois area is one percent or
less of the total. I'll grant you, it certainly shows how vulnerable
we are to computer failures. Several months ago, we had a similar outage
in the CO next to me (Chicago-Irving) which lasted about five minutes.

And the latest joke about Exxon is a twist on the old folk song:
"What do you do with a drunken sailor?
Put him in charge of an Exxon tanker!"

See you tomorrow, IBT willing!   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #172
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 22 May 89 1:03:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #173
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 May 89 00:35:47 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    International Reach Out Plans (TELECOM Moderator)
    Area Codes and N10 style numbers (Michael J. Sonnier)
    Re: answering machine and dialup modem (Dave Levenson)
    Re: MCI FAX Network (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Cellular Phone & 911 (Dave Levenson)
    Re: The Jason Project (Victor Schwartz)
    Arpanet question (G. Karmi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 22 May 89 0:33:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  International Reach Out Plans

Some discussion here about AT&T's Reach Out Plans recently prompted my contact
at AT&T to send me some detailed information about the three international
Reach Out Plans currently offered. As you will note, they differ from the
plan offered domestically in the United States in the time of day they are
in force, as well as how the charges are calculated.

REACH OUT UNITED KINGDOM

This plan offers 30 minutes of calling per month, for a flat rate of $22.00.
Additional half hours are also $22.00, and are pro-rated at 73 cents per
minute, which is less than the usual discount rates. Hours for calling are
1 PM to 6 PM, local time, meaning the call arrives in the UK between around
5 PM and 2 AM next day, depending on your exact time zone here. On Saturday
and Sunday, the hours are 7 AM to 6 PM both days, meaning calls can be
received there between around noon through 2 AM. There is a one time $10.00
sign up fee.


REACH OUT PHILIPPINES

This plan offers 30 minutes of calling per month, for a flat rate of $35.00
for the first half hour, and $33.50 for each additional half hour. Additional
half hours after the first are pro-rated to $1.12 per minute. Again, this
is substantially less than the normal rate or discount period rate for calls
to the Philippines. Plan hours are Monday through Friday from 2 AM to 11 AM,
meaning your call arrives there in the time frame of late afternoon through
early morning next day, depending on the originating US time zone. On weekends
the Philippines plan allows calls between 12:01 AM and 11 AM; then again
between 5 PM and midnight; and after a two hour break, can be resumed beginning
at 2 AM Monday morning. There is a $10 enrollment fee here also.


REACH OUT ISRAEL

This plan is the exception to the bulk, purchase by the half-hour plans.
Instead, there is a continuing $5 per month 'subscription charge' which
entitles you to purchase whatever time desired during plan hours at a much
less than normal or discount rate. Plan hours and rates are as follows --

Monday through Friday:  5 PM to midnight = 85 cents per minute
                        12:01 AM to 8 AM = $1.05 per minute

Saturday and Sunday:    same as above, but an additional window --
                        8 AM to 5 PM     = $1.20 per minute

There is no plan discount available 8 AM to 5 PM weekdays.


While the UK and Philippines plans do save you money once you amortize the
initial one time enrollment fee into your total charges, the Israel
plan -- which also has a $10 enrollment fee -- will only save you
money if your monthly billings are large enough to absorb the monthly
$5 subscription charge and still save money. Based on the few cents
per minute difference in the plan rates versus the least expensive economy
rates, you would need a couple hours per month of calls to Israel to make
it worth while to sign up.

Like all discount phone rates, the hours are bound to be somewhat inconvenient
for either the caller or the person called, with the exception of Saturday
and Sunday calls. And while for the UK plan, persons originating calls from
EST or CST zones would probably have the most compatibility in calling
at times convenient to the UK, the opposite is true of the Philippines plan,
where PST/MST zones would have the greatest flexibility at finding the other
end up, awake and available.

Regards Reach Out America, I've come to the conclusion that although we
in the midwest probably have the most convenient calling window based on
either direction of call other than calls straight 'up or down' within your
own time zone; the fact is we wind up paying more for calls. At 11-12 cents
a minute, calls have to be at least several hundred miles in distance before
the rates would be any higher anyway. Folks on the east, west or southern
coasts at least have the ability to make calls of greater distances.
It reminds of me of the rationale used by telemarketing companies
which locate in the middle west: we have the cheapest WATS rates of anywhere;
after all, you can only call a couple thousand miles one way, or a thousand
the other.

Anyway, to sign up for any of the three international Reach Out Plans listed
here, call AT&T at 1-800-222-0300. I do not believe there is any requirement
that AT&T be your default carrier.


Patrick Townson


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

Date: Sun, 21 May 89 20:12:14 EDT
From: Sonnier <nvuxg![e-mail]>
Subject: Area Codes and N10 style numbers
Organization: Bell Communications Research, NJ

>[Moderator's Note: But some readers have maintained, very vigorously, that
>since Western Union central offices are in no way connected with or wired
>through Bell central offices, their use of those numbers have no longer
>any bearing on area codes. I put those codes (410-510-610-710-810-910) in
>the master list of numerical area codes message run several months
>ago, and finally took them out. What is the definitive answer on this? Will
>someone from Bellcore or some other authoritative source please reply? PT]

While I am NOT AN EXPERT on network numbering, I do happen to have the
answer on a reference on my book shelf.  ALL possible disclaimers
obviously apply!

Quoting from Section 3 of "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks (1986)"
(Bellcore document TR-NPL-000275, Issue 1)

Paragraph 2.04
"[...] codes of the format N 0/1 X be used as NPA codes except for codes of
the format N11, which would be reserved as special functions.  This provides
a total of 152 area codes as follows. [...]"

Paragraph 2.06
"While most N 0/1 X codes are used for the purpose of designating a specific
geographical area known as an NPA, a few codes have been assigned for
special uses and are known as Service Access Codes (SACs)."

Paragraph 2.08
"Currently, there are four NPA type codes assigned in the NANP that are
included in the SAC designation.  These codes are: 700, 800, 900, and 610
(610 SAC is assigned in Canada for TWX service and is included in this
section for completeness. [...]) [...]"

Paragraph  4.05
"Currently, only 19 of the 152 usable NPA codes in the N 0/1 X format
are unnassigned."  [Note:  This is 3 year old data.  A couple of new
NPA codes have since been assigned.]  "Five of these 19 are of the format
N00, and seem better suited for use as Service Access Codes (SACs) than
for use as geographical NPAs.  Therefore, the codes 200, 300, 400, 500, and
600 have been reserved for use as SACs and will not be assigned as NPAs.
[...]"

So, the bottom line is that all N11 and N00 codes are reserved, for the
obvious reasons.  The N10 codes (except 610) are all included in the
unassigned codes.  This can be ascertained by looking at the tables of
assigned NPA codes, and see which 19 are not assigned.
The 610 code is (apparently) used in Canada, so is reserved.

---
Michael J. Sonnier @ Bellcore; Navesink Research & Engineering Center
Logical: [...]!bellcore!nvuxg!mjs1   |   Audible: [phone]
Physical: 331 Newman Springs Rd #2Z419; Red Bank, NJ 07701
Disclaimer:  How can you infer this is the opinion of my employer?
             I don't even know if it's mine yet!


[Moderator's Question: So does this mean codes 210-310-410-510-710-810-910
*will be* used as area codes or *won't be* used?  If not, why not? I think
the thing with 610 is that unlike here where Western Union operates the
telex machines, in Canada many (or all?) are run by the telephone people.
If those numbers, plus the two 'regular' left overs are still available,
then indeed it will be several years before we run out, no?   PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: answering machine and dialup modem.
Date: 21 May 89 13:24:18 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Kenneth H. Lee) writes:

> ... Line 1 is supplied via the RED/GREEN pair
> while line 2 is supplied via the BLACK/YELLOW pair of the jacks.
>
>     My problem is that when I am logged onto any system via my
> dialup modem and my answering machine answers my phone, my modem drops
> carrier and my session drops.  I can also hear my modem carrier
> whenever I use line 1 and the modem is in use.


I think there are two problems here:

    The answering machine is probably configured/designed to
interwork with 1A2 key telephone units, and is shorting the second
pair when it answers the first pair.  That can probably be corrected
by changing the configuration options to "SINGLE LINE" or something
like that in the answering machine.  If it doesn't have
configuration options, modify its cord so that it only connects to
one pair.

    The crosstalk is caused by running two lines in the same
quad station wire.  Use cables with two (or more) twisted pairs, and
the crosstalk should be eliminated.

--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
...the man in the mooney


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI FAX Network
Date: 21 May 89 14:12:53 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> It would seem to make no sense at all to maintain a dedicated
  ...
> use it as a price list for my MCI telephone calls ?
> If the prices are different for phone and FAX, why ? If they are
> lower than the phone prices, what's to stop me from pretending


The fax network is actually a non-real-time (i.e. store & forward)
fax delivery service..  It will accept your fax traffic using a fax
modem.  I don't think it will hear your voice!  By compressing a lot
of fax traffic into high-speed data packets, they can send it to a
dis-assembly system near the destination and then re-sent from a fax
modem to the recipient's fax machine.  This makes it less expensive
than voice, but not interchangeable.

--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
  ...the man in the mooney


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911
Date: 21 May 89 14:17:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, stjhmc!stjhmc.fidonet.
org![e-mail] (David Dodell) writes:
> I was curious if Enhanced 911 can pick up the phone number when you are
> calling from a mobile phone (either cellular or IMTS)?   Or is this one of


Here in NJ, I have called my office (we have Caller*Id Service) from
the car.  No calling number is displayed (it says: Out of Area).
When I dial 911, who I get seems to depend upon where the car is.
If I'm driving in New Jersey, I reach the NJ State Police.  When I
call from New York City, I get the NYC 911 operator.  While they may
not get my mobile number, they do make some use of the mobile
telephone system's knowlege of where I'm calling from, probably
based upon which cell site is handling the call.

The above applies to Cellular, using MetroOne in the NYC area.  IMTS
and other cellular systems may be different.

--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
...the man in the mooney


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

Date: 21 May 89 12:24:04 PDT (Sunday)
Subject: Re: The Jason Project
From: [e-mail]


To John Wheeler,

Re: The Jason Project/"If anyone saw the show at any museum sites, I'd love
to get feedback."

I'm sorry to say that I didn't see the show, but I attended a series of
"TechTalks" at DeAnza College last fall.  At one of these talks, Dr. Robert
Ballard was the speaker, and he gave a fascinating presentation on his
work, and described the upcoming Jason Project in which you took part.

I'm happy to hear that it was accomplished without any major problems.  If
you ever hear of plans for a more public showing of this event, please
share this with us.

Sincerely,

Victor Schwartz
Xerox Corporation
Sunnyvale California


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

Date: Sun, 21 May 89 13:11:17 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Arpanet question

I'm not sure this is the forum but maybe somebody can further
direct me. I need for my thesis values of "real" packet switched networks'
diameter as a function of their size (Arpanet would do). Is anybody out
there aware of a possible source ?

Thanks beforehand !
                                gadi.

Bitnet : [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #173
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 23 May 89 0:26:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #174
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 May 89 00:21:18 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Pac Bell Gets Okay for 900 Audiotex Prefixes (TELECOM Moderator)
    AT&T Rates currently in effect (as of 1 April 89) (John R. Covert)
    Re: Radio Time Sources (Will Martin)
    Re: My Wife & a cordless phone (Pete Brown)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 23 May 89 0:19:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Pac Bell Gets Okay for 900 Audiotex Prefixes

Californians, not normally a prudish lot, raised so much cain with Pac Bell
and the California Public Utility Commission over the subject of 'dial-a-porn',
that the CPUC has given its blessings to Pac Bell's plan to segregate
allegedly harmful audiotex programs on the specially reserved, blockable
900-303 exchange, for which Pac Bell will *NOT* provide billing services.

The plan is intended to allow Pac Bell to disassociate itself from offensive
programming while simultaneously promoting other 900 services such as
sports scores and horoscope readings that are considered more legitimate.

Previously, Pac Bell subscribers wishing to block any audiotex programs
had to deny service to all programs. Under the new scheme, blocking will
be provided free of charge for any subscribers wishing to limit access to
the 900-303 prefix for sex lines; the 900-505 prefix for random conference
calls; or the 900-844 prefix for the more traditional recorded messages
and entertainment services.

Blocking will in fact be the *default condition* for 900-303 unless the
subscriber specifically requests having it turned on.

Under California's revised penal code, passed last year with support from
Pac Bell, 'harmful' programming is deemed as any matter which appeals to
prurient interests, represents sexual conduct which is patently offensive,
and lacks serious artistic and literary merit. As such, it closely
resembles the federal code for obscene speech.

A Pac Bell spokesman was blunt in his assessment of the matter: "Our goal
is to disconnect 'dial-a-porn'. But until/unless we have the legal authority
to do that, we've designed out 900 service to solve the problems some
consumers have had with 976.

Will this plan work? Maybe not. Several information providers, led by Sable
Commuications of Los Angeles, are challenging a federal statute for 'obscene'
and 'indecent' interstate programming which could well have a bearing
on the California law. Sable also notes they believe it is discriminatory
for Pac Bell to provide billing services for some IP's while declining to
do so for others of whom they disapprove.


Patrick Townson


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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 May 89 13:07
Subject: AT&T Rates currently in effect (as of 1 April 89)

I just noticed that there were some minor changes in the preliminary info
that appeared in Telecom V9#73 about AT&T's rates as of 1 April 89.  Here
is what actually went into effect:

Standard Rates:

 Mileage          Initial Minute   Additional Minutes  Discount Periods
   1-10            .18        .17
  11-22            .21        .20           33% off Sun-Fri 5P-11P
  23-55            .23        .22
  56-124        .23        .23           48% off Every day 11P-8A
 125-292        .24        .23             All day Saturday
 293-430        .24        .23             Until 5P Sunday
 431-925        .25        .24
 926-3000        .26        .25
3001-4250        .31        .30
4251-5750        .33        .32

Residential Reach-out-America:

Night & Weekend Plan:   Makes the night period begin at 10 PM instead of 11 PM.
            $7.20 per month includes first hour of N/W calling.
            $6.90 per additional hour, billed at .11.5 per minute.

N/W/Evening Plan:    $8.20 per month includes the Night & Weekend Plan.
            Provides an additional 15% discount on normal rates
            during the 5 PM to 10 PM period.

            Hourly charge Boston to    Washington    $7.86
                        Charlotte    $8.20
                        Los Angeles    $8.54
                        Honolulu       $10.93

24-Hour Plan:        $8.70 per month includes the above plans and
            provides 5% discount on daytime rates.

Another reduction is planned for 1 July 1989

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

Date:     Mon, 22 May 89 9:03:24 CDT
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Radio Time Sources

Several postings to the list have pointed the original inquirer to the Heathkit
"Most Accurate Clock" as something that would fill his requirements for an
off-the-air source for, as he put it, "reliable standard time for a LAN".
[I just went to look this up so I could post the model and be sure I got
the facts right, and it seems that my Heathkit catalog here at work has
walked off the shelf... Grrr...]

It may purport to provide that service, but I would like to point out that
reviews of that clock that appeared on the Info-Hams list some years back
really panned it. It was most definitely NOT "reliable". The main problem
seemed to be that the shortwave-receiving section, which was supposed to
automatically tune the best signal from WWV on 2.5, 5, 10, or 15 MHz (don't
recall if it tuned 20 MHz) was not very good, and often lost all trackable
signals on any frequency. When it did that, it was supposed to switch
over to its internal clock and then sync back up when it could receive a
trackable WWV signal again. Well, the internal clock was inaccurate!

That seems incredible in these days of $5 drugstore watches that keep
better time than the finest mechanical movements did a few decades ago,
but it seemed to be the case. More than one owner of this clock reported
that as a problem to the net.

Maybe Heath has improved this model since that time, but I would be VERY
wary of putting my trust in it, and slaving automated
system-time-setters to this device. There are commercial firms that sell
far-more-expensive versions of this sort of time standard, and you
really so seem to get what you pay for in this area. The more expensive
sets tune the VLF WWVB signals, not the shortwave, so as to avoid the
vagaries of shortwave propagation.

You might luck out and get a Heath model that works fine, or be skilled
enough to tinker with it and tweak it to better performance, but, if you
are spending your company's money and not your own, I would recommend
going with a professional piece of equipment.

As I recall, the bad reviews were not only on the net, but also Radio
Canada International's SWL Digest program, which has monthly receiver
reviews by Larry Magne, reported these problems also.

Regards, Will Martin

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

Date:     Mon, 22 May 89 9:11:33 PDT
From:     Pete Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: My Wife & a cordless phone


>From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
>Subject: My Wife & a cordless phone
>
... (deleted stuff)...

>Any tips on what to look for?  What to stay away from?  Basicaly I'm not
>overly worried about price, I just want one that sounds good.

I had a bad experience with a UNIDEN cordless... non-user-replaceable
batteries kept failing.  I spent as much in shipping it back to South-
ern California as I did to buy the thing!

About a year ago, bought an AT&T 5200 which has worked like a charm:
batteries ARE user-replaceable (but haven't needed to yet,) two channels
which are user-selectable from the remote, excellent signal quality,
a fully-charged battery lasts about a week, no spurious noises on the
line (like the UNIDEN had!), no neighbors on the line, etc.

The only problem I've encountered is this: the system generates one
of 4096 "security codes" when you remove it from the charger/base on
a "random" basis; on occasion, the handset has gotten out of sync with
the base - and all control is lost until I cycle it through the base.

All in all, I'm happy as a clam with the 5200, despite its being an
AT&T product! :-)

Good luck!


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #174
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 24 May 89 1:46:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #175
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 May 89 00:38:28 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Strike Likely Over Weekend (TELECOM Moderator)
    What's a local call? (Blake Farenthold)
    National Listing of Independent Telcos (Pat Chicas)
    Re: Cellular Phone & 911 (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Cellular Phone & 911 (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Jack specifications (James Harvey)
    Re: Using "800" LD access from COCOTS (Rob Warnock)

[Moderator's Note: Somehow issue 174 fell between the cracks. It left
here the first time about 12:30 AM Tuesday morning. As of 23 hours
later, apparently *no one* had received it. It was retransmitted about
half an hour ago, Wednesday at 1:00 AM.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 24 May 89 0:36:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T Strike Likely Over Weekend

It is likely that the Communications Workers of America and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers will strike the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company over the forthcoming three day holiday weekend.

Members of the CWA voted overwhelmingly to authorize their leaders to strike
AT&T as of 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, Saturday May 27, if no agreement
is reached on a new contract by that time. The IBEW has been bargaining
jointly with the CWA since April 5, and its members will be in sympathy
with the CWA in the event a strike is called. The CWA represents 135,000
employees of AT&T; while the IBEW represents 40,000 employees.

CWA negotiation representatives say that AT&T is not bargaining with the
union in good faith, but AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen said the company is
still hoping to negotiate a new contract without a work stoppage. Union
officials however say the two sides remain far apart on three major issues:
employee contributions to health insurance, pay and job security.

T"At this stage, AT&T has yet to seriously address issues of concern to our
members," said union President Morton Bahr. "Our unions are detirmined to
bargain vigorously and intensively to achieve a contract that provides a
full measure of economic justice and job security for our members and their
families."

The union struck for 26 days in 1986 before agreeing to the present contract
which expires at midnight this Saturday night, May 27. Some bitterness remains
to this day between CWA and IBEW, which have been bitter rivals in the past.
During the 1986 strike, IBEW workers remained on the job, after a promise
by AT&T that they would receive any benefits the CWA won through its strike.
As a result, AT&T suffered little disruption during the 1986 strike, since
about 90 percent of its long distance service is totally automated; and
the IBEW workers who remained on the job kept things running, although
somewhat sporadically.

Morton Bahr has stated that although he has full authority to order a strike
at any time after Saturday night, if there is an indication that an
agreement is close at hand -- within a few days -- no strike will be called,
and the workers will remain on the job without a contract for the interim.
But if no progress is made at the meetings this week, then the workers will
walk out on schedule, or shortly thereafter.

IBEW President John Barry said a strike was '...just one of several tactics'
under consideration at this time. Among other tactics being considered is
a nationwide boycott of AT&T's long distance service by union employees
and sympathizers, as well as other unions in the United States. Bahr and
Barry noted that such a boycott would cost AT&T upwards of ten million
dollars per month while it was in progress.

The boycott plan calls for participants to temporarily switch their long
distance calls to Sprint -- which ironically is a *non-union* shop. John
Barry noted that the success of such a boycott depended on the cooperation
of union members everywhere -- not just CWA/IBEW people.  Barry and Bahr
said a final announcement on the strategy to be employed; strike, boycott
or both would be announced when a decision is reached this weekend whether
to continue negotiations with AT&T or break off talks and take other action.

AT&T spokeswoman Stacy Dixon said she was confident the dispute would be
settled before the weekend deadline. She noted that "...in the past, we have
continued to operate with management and temporary workers, and will do
so again if we must."

Affected by a walkout would be almost every department of AT&T, including
long distance operators; business office representatives; technicians and
other clerical personnel.

Patrick Townson

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 22 May 89 23:31:01 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's a local call?

I just signed up for Starlink, a service that is supposed to compete with PC
Pursuit.  Starlink uses Tymnet's Async Outdial service and offers off peak
(7p-6a) calls to BBSes or other online services for $1.50/hr plus phone
charges. (charges from the outdial modem)

The plus phone charges are what worry me.  If you access one of their outdials
and make a toll call you get hit with the toll.  By "toll" I'm refering not
only to typical 1+ long distance calls but the zone charges some phone
companys impose on "local" calls.

Starlink doesn't seem to know what calls are free from the outdial port and
what calls are not.  I would think Tymnet would have to know so they could
bill Starlink (who in turn bills the user) or there would be a HUGE billing
lag, but for whatever reason Tymnet isn't saying.  All the user knows is the
NPA-NXX of the outdial port.

Is there a way to find out whats a free call and what charges, if any, are
associated with a call from a remote area.

Starlink has made 3 suggestions all of which I don't like..

1) Go to the library and look at the phone books of ALL of the outdial
   citys and determine whats a local call.

2) Call the phone co. or operator in the remote city and ask... I have
   a great mental picture of trying to convince an operator to tell me
   what zone charges, if any are associated with calls to every NXX
   from some place other than where I'm calling from.

3) Ask the remote computers Sys Admin. if his site is a local call from
   NPA NXX (try this with a 15 year old BBS Sysop)

Any suggestions of how/where to get this information in a useable form?

This seems to me to be another good argument for the "if the calls gonna cost
you HAVE to put a 1 or 0 in front of the number (1-976, 1-512-... 011-44-01...)"
if the BOC's and independants would adopt this it would save lotsa people
lotsa headaches.. no more "I didn't know that 976 call cost $30" just teach
the kids not to dial 1+, like my mom did to me.
______

UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!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


[Moderator's Note: Starlink was discussed in great detail here earlier this
year. See Vol. 9 Issues 37, 38, 49, 51 from the last days of January and
the first week of February. Also, Vol. 9 Issue 65 of February 17. Starlink
does not appear to be any bargain at all. Rather than worry about which
calls are local and which are toll, either sign up for PC Pursuit or use
Reach Out. Regretably, Starlink is more expensive and less economical than
either of these other two options. Telenet only charges $1 per hour
with no telco surcharge. Intrastate tolls from Starlink terminating modems
are frequently equal to or exceed, minute per minute, the charges for Reach
Out America. Read the issues mentioned and decide for yourself.  PT]

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

From: Pat Chicas <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Listing of Independent Telcos
Date: 23 May 89 01:55:39 GMT
Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA)



I am looking for a National Listing of Independent and Rural Co-op
Telephone Companies. My primary interest in obtaining this information is
in gaining employment away from my present metropolitan location..
Information thereof or instructions on where to procure this information
will be greatly appreciated...


Please excuse my grammar, I live a life of acronyms... (Bell Employee)


+-----------------------------------------------+
| From the keyboard of: Patrick J. Chicas       |
+-----------------------------------------------+
| UUCP: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!pat       |
| Internet: [e-mail]                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+

--
Patrick J. Chicas
Santa Ana, CA.
(voice) 714-662-3277, 714-549-7886
uucp: ...{trwrb,hplabs}!felix!dhw68k!pat    InterNet: [e-mail]

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911
Date: 23 May 89 13:12:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


The more interesting question is which 911 operator you get
when you dial 911 from a cellular phone, since the cellular
coverage areas almost always span more than one 911-service
area.

My guess is that it's just handled by the MTS operator.

-Ron

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

From: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911
Date: 23 May 89 09:27:24 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <amdcad![e-mail]>
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA


westmark![e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:
+---------------
| org![e-mail] (David Dodell) writes:
| > I was curious if Enhanced 911 can pick up the phone number when you are
| > calling from a mobile phone (either cellular or IMTS)?
| ...When I dial 911, who I get seems to depend upon where the car is.
| If I'm driving in New Jersey, I reach the NJ State Police.  When I
| call from New York City, I get the NYC 911 operator.  While they may
| not get my mobile number, they do make some use of the mobile
| telephone system's knowlege of where I'm calling from, probably
| based upon which cell site is handling the call.
+---------------

In the Bay Area, the CA Highway Patrol apparently likes the help it's been
getting from drivers with cellular phones... so now *all* cellular 911 calls
go directly to the CHP. If it's not a CHP-servicable call they re-route you to
the "appropriate" authority. Oddly enough, they seemed to consider a three-car
accident I reported on US-101 ("The Bayshore Freeway") to be a "local" matter;
they transferred me to the Palo Alto police!

I don't know if they have ANI or not. They do ask for your name and cellular
number (they know it's cellular), but that may be just for prank detection.
[Does anybody know if they have access to cell site?]


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

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


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

From: James Harvey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jack specifications
Date: 23 May 89 12:27:40 GMT
Organization: Michigan Bell Telephone Company


In article <[e-mail]>, westmark!dave@rutgers.
edu (Dave Levenson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, ucla-an!denwa!bongo!
> [e-mail] (julian macassey) writes:

>>     OK, let's start with the RJ-21X, because it is not "one of those
>> rectangular connectors"...

>>     An RJ21X is a 66 block that is used as the "Demarcation Point".

> Actually, the code RJ-21X refers to the "Amphonol" 50-pin miniature
> ribbon connector, and not to the "66-block" with which it is often
> associated.  In a "by the rules" RJ-21X installation, the customer
> equipment is required to be attached by an "Amphonol" which mates
> with one supplied by the telco.

This is true.  The customer is NOT supposed to use the punchdown
terminals.


> In the real world, the RJ-21X provided by most telcos is connected
> to a 66-block which contains the demarcation straps described in
> Julian's posting, and is then connected the service-entrance cables
> at the station-protector.  A lot of premises equiment installers
> will punch down wire pairs on the telco 66-block, and ignore the
> "Amphonol" provided.  I have one customer, however, where the
> 66-block is under lock and key, and the RJ-21X is the only connector
> accessible to the customer.  (The installers promptly installed
> their own 66-block and cabled it with an "Amphenol" to the '21X!)

This is the standard way of dealing with the Amphenhol (why do
people insist on calling it a 50 pin Centronics?) connector.

--

Jim Harvey                        |      "Ask not for whom the bell
Michigan Bell Telephone           |      tolls and you will only pay
29777 Telegraph                   |      Station-to-Station rates."
Southfield, Mich. 48034           |

ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh



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

From: Rob Warnock <amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using "800" LD access from COCOTS
Date: 23 May 89 09:04:27 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <amdcad![e-mail]>
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) writes:
+---------------
| >>From: [e-mail] (Jerry Glomph Black)
| >3) What has failed in only the rarest of COCOT situations is to use
| >   Sprint's LD service via the 800-877-8000 access.  A few of them shut
| >   off the keypad's tone generator after the connection is made [...]
| Try telling the Sprint operator, "I'm calling from a pay phone and the
| owner doesn't want me to use Sprint, so my keypad is turned off...
+---------------

Or pop about $20 for the handy little (about 3.5" x 2" x 1") Radio-Shack
portable DTMF tone generator.  I keep one in my briefcase for *exactly*
this kind of situation. (Well... for controlling my home/office answering
machine remotely, but the same problem -- fascist COCOTs.)


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #175
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 26 May 89 0:25:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #176
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 May 89 00:03:30 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Automated Operators (Paul Guthrie)
    404 area code now required dialing within 404 (John Wheeler)
    Re: Cellular Phone & E911 (James J. Sowa)
    Southern Bell Area Code Changes in a/c 404 (Scott Barman)
    Re: Area Codes - a few comments (David Lewis)
    Off-hook signal (Davin Milun)
    Re: More TSPS ANI confusion (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Cellular Phone & 911 (intercon![e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 24 May 89 15:34:40 GMT
Subject: Automated Operators


The problem with automated operators, at least the ones I've played
around with is that after the question of whether or not they will
accept the call is asked of the called party,  the calling party can
generate the DTMF (or say "Yes" for voice recognition).  Simply
cutting off the calling party from the call is also not a good idea,
as sometimes the calling party is needed to generate additional info
or at least speak to be recognized.  Also, the voice recognition would
have to deal with foreign languages in (e.g.) heavily Spanish speaking
areas.  Anyway, this technology has a long ways to go.

--------
Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul
Zippy says:
OKAY!!  Turn on the sound ONLY for TRYNEL CARPETING,
 FULLY-EQUIPPED R.V.'S and FLOATATION SYSTEMS!!


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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: 404 area code now required dialing within 404
Date: 25 May 89 00:44:50 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


Semi-quoting page B1 of the Atlanta Constitution of May 24, 1989...

Population growth...will require callers in North Georgia to
dial the 404 area code after a <1> or <0> in addition to the
number when making long-distance calls within that area code.
Walter Sessoms, Southern Bell's vice president for Georgia,
said the phone company has run out of central office codes...
 ...The new system would permit the use of digits reserved for
area codes to be used as prefixes...Theoretically, the new
system would create about 1.5 million new numbers for 404...
Southern Bell has an application for a new area code pending,
but it will not be issued until all the new available
central (office) numbers are used up.
There is currently a total of almost 2 million access lines
in area code 404, about 1.5 million in the Atlanta calling
area...

--
          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: "james.j.sowa" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & E911
Date: 25 May 89 13:26:21 GMT
Reply-To: "james.j.sowa" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> westmark![e-mail]
(Dave Levenson) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 173, message 5 of 7

>In article <[e-mail]>, stjhmc!stjhmc.fidonet.
>org![e-mail] (David Dodell) writes:
>> I was curious if Enhanced 911 can pick up the phone number when you are
>> calling from a mobile phone (either cellular or IMTS)?   Or is this one of

This is from memory and may have changed but probably
not to much.

First of all E911 means two things:
1) an ability to route the calling number to the proper
serving PSAP. This means if one house has Police A and Fire
A and the next house has Police B and Fire A the 911 call
would go to the primary answerer (maybe police) in this
case both calls go to poilce A at the PSAP when it is
determined it is a fire call all the PSAP attendant will do is
press a button labeled fire and the call will route
correctly to the proper Fire department .

This function is now being applied to cellular as the next
author states.

>Here in NJ, I have called my office (we have Caller*Id Service) from
>the car.  No calling number is displayed (it says: Out of Area).
>When I dial 911, who I get seems to depend upon where the car is.
>If I'm driving in New Jersey, I reach the NJ State Police.  When I
>call from New York City, I get the NYC 911 operator.  While they may
>not get my mobile number, they do make some use of the mobile
>telephone system's knowlege of where I'm calling from, probably
>based upon which cell site is handling the call.

>The above applies to Cellular, using MetroOne in the NYC area.  IMTS
>and other cellular systems may be different.

>Dave Levenson

Call routing should be done on serving antenna instead of
cell since it would be a finer geographcal area to define.

2) After having the ability to transmit the calling number
to the PSAP. The PSAP will then do a database lookup the
interpret the ANI DN into an address of telephone of the
calling party. This information aids in dispatch,
redialing, aiding callers who don't know their location.

It is an open item today as what to transmit to a PSAP from
a cellular phone and how much information is needed at the PSAP
- calling number? 10 digits
- serving cell?   x digits

Besides, if the DN to address translation is done at the
PSAP from their database, how could they have all the
mobile DNs from all over their area translated into their
database. (much less updated.) How would they translate roamers?


                    Jim

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

Date: Thu, 25 May 89 12:54:43 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Subject: Southern Bell dialing changes in 404 area code
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA


Southern Bell announced on Tuesday (5/23) that beginning October 2, all
long distance calls within the 404 area codes will require the caller to
dial the 404 after the 1 (i.e. 1-404-xxx-xxxx).  Southern Bell reports
that they are running out of central office exchages in the 404 area
becuase of an increase of 600,000 access lines (mostly in the Metro
Atlanta area).

It was reported that SB is doing this because it is a cheap, short term
solution and its a prelude to adding a new area code to the area (Metro
Atlanta will get its own area code).  Programming is in effect now that
will allow people to reprogram their auto-dialers and speed calling
numbers now.  Starting 10/2 calls will not go through and the caller
will get one of those wonderful (and usually ear-splitting loud)
recordings.

They are trying to put off the inevitable.  I understand that since I
was living in New York when they made Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten
Island area code 718.  Initially, it really can be confusing and
frustrating and I guess New York Tel. dropped a bundle in advertising.
--
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott


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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes - a few comments
Date: 25 May 89 18:21:51 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John Cowan) writes:
> >[Moderator's Note: Why 411-611-911 are not used as area codes is pretty
> >obvious, since they equal Information, Repair Bureau, and Emergency in
> >that order. But why can't numbers like 210-310-311-511 be used? Or numbers
> >like 410-510-710? They at least resemble area codes and would not be so
> >confusing to a phone user.  PT]


> Historically, the N10 codes were used by TWX (otherwise Telex II); whether
> this is still true, I don't know.  AT&T set up TWX to compete with Telex,
> and used a hitherto-empty part of its name space to avoid interference.
> Later, AT&T had to sell off TWX, but the N10 codes are still treated as
> sacred.  The last time I checked into the matter, which was maybe 15 years
> ago, my local telco (New Jersey Bell) treated some N10 codes as "invalid
> exchange" and others as "invalid area code", kind of randomly.


> [Moderator's Note: But some readers have maintained, very vigorously, that
> since Western Union central offices are in no way connected with or wired
> through Bell central offices, their use of those numbers have no longer
> any bearing on area codes. I put those codes (410-510-610-710-810-910) in
> the master list of numerical area codes message run several months
> ago, and finally took them out. What is the definitive answer on this? Will
> someone from Bellcore or some other authoritative source please reply? PT]


According to "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks -- 1986", Bellcore
TR-NPL-000275...

700, 800, 900, and 610 are SACs, or Service Access Codes, which are
currently assigned.  610, as stated elsewhere, is assigned in Canada for TWX
service and is not used in the BOCs; but, as numbering assignments are
according to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), not the US
Numbering Plan, 610 is unavailable in the US.

The other N00 codes (200-600) have been reserved for use as SACs and
will not be assigned as NPAs.

N11 codes are reserved for special functions.

N10 codes (aha, he finally gets to it) are among the remaining legally
assignable NPA codes.  As of the publication of Notes, 19 codes of the
N0/1X format were unassigned.  These included the 5 reserved for SACs,
leaving the 7 available N10 codes plus 7 N0/1N codes.  I believe the N10
codes will be the last to be assigned as NPAs.

Disclaimer: This is taken from the reference; I don't work in Numbering
Plan Administration.  As far as I know, though, the TR represents the
most recent policy (although some NPAs have been assigned since then).

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David G Lewis        "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
Bellcore                                 201-758-4099
Navesink Research and Engineering Center     ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for providing this information. I consider
it an authoritative answer. Therefore, to those who have said otherwise,
we are NOT 'running out of area codes' (we still have 7+2=9 left of the
more or less conventional form). And I may be wrong, but I'll bet they
hold 909 open until after the other 8 have been assigned, and Telenet will
continue using it for switching calls in their network.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Off-hook signal
Date: 25 May 89 20:47:03 GMT
Reply-To: Davin Milun <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science


I'm sure that this is a very simple, but I need a device (LED & resistor??)
to tell me when another extension on my phone line is in use? Can I just
put this together myself with an LED and resistor (if so, what resistance),
or else is there a cheap one I can purchase?

Mail replies, as posting seems unnecessary.

Thanx in advance.

Davin Milun    Internet:  [e-mail]
               uucp:      ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!milun
               BITNET:    [e-mail]

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

From: Dell Ellison <gtephx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More TSPS ANI confusion
Date: 25 May 89 20:20:06 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <[e-mail]>, mit-amt!rdsnyder%mit-
[e-mail] (Ross D. Snyder) writes:
-> The other day a friend of mine was making an AT&T operator-assisted call,
-> and the person she wanted to reach was not there, so she told the person
-> who answered the called line to have the desired person call her back at
-> a different number than the one she was calling from.  The problem occurred
-> when, after she had said "...call me back at NPA-NXX-", the operator broke
-> the transmitted audio path from my friend and completed the number with
-> "XXXX" read from her TSPS console.  Of course, the last four digits the
-> operator read were not the last four digits that my friend intended to say.
-> After I thought about this situation, I started to get upset, realizing that
-> there is really no recourse for my friend other than making a DDD call
-> and giving the person the correct number.  The operator had already hit
-> "position release" and was off to continue to unknowingly confuse other
-> customers.




What do you expect for a free phone call?
Maybe the operator should not have cut the individual off.
   However, the person should have been charged for that call because the line
was used to communicate information.  (At least, IMHO.)



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

From: intercon![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911
Date: 25 May 89 23:36:56 GMT
Reply-To: intercon![e-mail]
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation


I have had several occasions to use 911 from my cell phone.  On all of them I
might as well have not called.  It seems that, at least in the Metro DC area,
I always get Prince Georges County Police.  Even when I am in Virginia.  This
has caused no end of problems when I was trying to report a serious accident
on a little two lane highway that block both lanes.  I got routed to PG County
in Maryland who told me tough that I would have to get ahold of the proper VA
department, they didn't know who are even have a phone number for me to try.
Then I called the operator (a person who should know what the VA police's
number is) who ended up passing me off to PG County again.  After 20 minutes
of trying to be a good guy I gave up.  Went to a gas station and called it in
from there.  CellOne could do a better job of pointing calls in the correct
direction.  Oh well.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #176
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 27 May 89 10:18:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #177
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 May 89 09:42:31 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone & E911 (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Cellular Phone & 911 - two replies (John Higdon)
    Routing Incoming Calls on Home Phone (Dave L. Speed)
    Automated Operators (Neil Ostroff)
    Re: Area Codes and N10 style numbers (David Lewis)
    Hum on local loop (Chuck Forsberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & E911
Date: 26 May 89 15:50:25 GMT
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


In article <[e-mail]> "james.j.sowa" <jjjs@
cbnewsc.att.com> writes:

->First of all E911 means two things:
->1) an ability to route the calling number to the proper
->serving PSAP. This means if one house has Police A and Fire
->A and the next house has Police B and Fire A the 911 call
->would go to the primary answerer (maybe police) in this
->case both calls go to poilce A at the PSAP when it is
->determined it is a fire call all the PSAP attendant will do is
->press a button labeled fire and the call will route
->correctly to the proper Fire department .

The routing function is applied on a number-by-number basis, so that a single
exchange may have more than one primary answerer, if the exchange slops over
multiple jurisdictions (as many do).

In my area in California, we got Police and Fire from two different dispatch
centers, (because we use the county sheriff for police, and a neighboring city
for fire).  The sheriff put up quite a fight to get us to dispatch through the
county com center.  We finally prevailed, and now all calls go first to fire
dispatch.  This is because over 2/3 of all calls to fire are for medical aid,
and may be life threatening -- so we felt fire response time optimization was
more important.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911 - two replies
Date: 27 May 89 01:50:13 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, intercon![e-mail].
net writes:
> I have had several occasions to use 911 from my cell phone.  On all of them I
> might as well have not called.

On the other hand, one of the most satisfying calls I ever made in my
life was to 911.

I was driving I5 to Los Angeles, about 50 miles north of Grapevine.
Traffic was relatively light. As I approached a slow-moving vehicle in
the right lane, I prepared to move momentarily to the left to pass.
Suddenly, the other car sped up and when the driver realized that his
increase in speed would not in any way prevent my passing him, he
suddenly veered into the left lane, forcing me into the median strip.

When I got back onto the roadway, I approached him again (he was poking
along at around 40 MPH) and he sped up again. This time I backed off
and watched as another motorist tried to pass him and got the same
response that I had earlier. That did it. I picked up the phone and
dialed 911. It was the Bakersfield system that responded and I was
connected to the CHP, the initial call handling agency.

I described the car and its actions and location. Not five minutes
later, two CHP cruisers zipped onto the highway, and off in the
distance I could see the gentleman being forced to the side of the
road. You talk about instant gratification!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Natalie) writes:
> The more interesting question is which 911 operator you get
> when you dial 911 from a cellular phone, since the cellular
> coverage areas almost always span more than one 911-service
> area.
>
> My guess is that it's just handled by the MTS operator.

In California, or at least in the San Francisco area, the calls from
both cellular providers are handled by the CHP. The operator asks for
your mobile number (they don't see it on a display), your location, and
type of emergency you are reporting. You are then connected to the
appropriate agency. The calls are free of all charges. *All* mobile
telephones are allowed to call 911, regardless of roaming or service
status. You can even call 911 with a test NAM in your radio.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: 25 May 89 19:25:27 PDT (Thu)
From: "Dave L. Speed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Routing Incoming Calls on Home Phone

I'm experiencing a lot of demand on my "home" phone line; home phones, home
office phone, answering machine, modem(s), and a fax machine.  In addition,
I'm besieged with telephone solicitations. With today's use of
telecommunications, I don't think I'm alone in this situation.

One solution might be a home PBX, where a caller gets a second "dial-tone"
and selects the proper internal line with a touch-tone code (perhaps with a
10 second wait default to the answering machine line). This and roll-over on
busy from outside line A to outside line B would go a long way towards
congestion relief.

I've seen only two "home" type PBX systems advertised so far; one from Nutone
in the $1200 range and one from Toshiba in the $400 range.  I have requested
literature on both; that which was sent to me was inadequate to make any
rational decision. Would either of these offer a realistic solution? Are there
other systems available?  Are they compatible with modems (both 2400 baud
and/or Telebits?  Are they compatible with (common) fax systems? Are they
reliable?  What necessary questions am I not asking?


  Dave Speed (dspeed)   :      "Don't Crush That Dwarf,              :
  8908 Van Gogh Circle  :      Hand Me The Pliers" - Fireside        :
  Fair Oaks, CA  95628  :                                            :

   UUCP: (known universe) pacbell!sactoh0!dspeed   BELL: [phone]
   >>> As a matter of fact, my opinions *are* those of my company <<<

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

From: Neil Ostroff <wasatch!cs.utah.edu!cuatro.bellcore.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Operators
Date: 26 May 89 16:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: Neil Ostroff <wasatch!cs.utah.edu!maestro.bellcore.com!nao@cs.
utexas.edu>
Organization: Bellcore (Red Bank, NJ)


Whether automated operators work 100% is not the issue for it is easily
solved.  When the voice/tone recognition system detects an invalid (or no)
response it simply times out and repeats one or more times.  It could say
something like, "I'm sorry but I did not understand your answer, I have a
collect call from [caller's name], will you accept the call.  Please answer
'yes' or 'no' now."  After two or more failures to get a valid answer, the call
would be routed to a human operator.  In a very short time, many people would
get used to this treatment and some may even welcome not having to deal with a
human when making an operator-assisted call.  For the few percent where the
automated system doesn't work, those calls would be routed to human operators.
Yes, you won't be able to eliminate the need for all operators, maybe only
80%.  That represents a HUGE savings.  In my humble opinion, there are many
reasons automated operators are not more popular.

1.  Unions (although being an operator is probably not very
    interesting, it pays and has benefits).
2.  Many people will resent having to deal with a machine (not
    the ones who use automated tellers).
3.  Regulators may need to approve the use of automated operators.
4.  It's an expensive technology.
5.  Phone companies want the public to know people are behind
    their network, not impersonal computers.
6.  Lack of patience - it takes time to plan, engineer and
    install automated operators.

Neil Ostroff
Bell Communications Research  |  UUCP:  bcr!maestro!nao
100 Schultz Dr.  NVC-5J443    |  ARPA:  [e-mail]
Red Bank, NJ  07701           |  PHONE: [phone]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes and N10 style numbers
Date: 26 May 89 12:47:23 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


In article <[e-mail]>, nvuxg!mjs1@bellcore.
bellcore.com (Sonnier) writes:

] So, the bottom line is that all N11 and N00 codes are reserved, for the
] obvious reasons.  The N10 codes (except 610) are all included in the
] unassigned codes.  This can be ascertained by looking at the tables of
] assigned NPA codes, and see which 19 are not assigned.
] The 610 code is (apparently) used in Canada, so is reserved.
]
] [Moderator's Question: So does this mean codes 210-310-410-510-710-810-910
] *will be* used as area codes or *won't be* used?  If not, why not? I think
] the thing with 610 is that unlike here where Western Union operates the
] telex machines, in Canada many (or all?) are run by the telephone people.
] If those numbers, plus the two 'regular' left overs are still available,
] then indeed it will be several years before we run out, no?   PT]

Will be used.  They're included in the list of unassigned codes; to
clarify what Mike said, the list of unassigned codes is the list of
legally-assignable but as-yet-not-assigned codes.

The same source Mike was quoting (Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks
(1986)) estimates that the 152 available NPA codes will be exhausted in
1995.  At that time, it'll be necessary to go to NXX format NPA codes;
that also occupies several pages of Notes explaining what that'll be all
about.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David G Lewis        "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
Bellcore                                 201-758-4099
Navesink Research and Engineering Center     ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

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

Date: Fri May 26 03:39:58 1989
From: [e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Hum on local loop
Organization: Omen Technology Portland OR

Recently the local phone company (US West) replaced two junction/arrestor
boxes and three cable drops to my houseboat with a single multi-pair cable
and a 5 or 6 pair junction box.

This rewiring is the result of a month's complaining about static on one of
the lines.  The lineman swore he'd replace the junction box with a style that
allows for isolating the internal wiring UNTIL he discovered a loose connection
in a telco distribution box.

With the new junction box, connecting the box's ground to a "ground line"
running along the boardwalk induces an annoying hum on one and one of the three
lines - the other two are not affected.

The lineman that responded to the hum complaint is convinced my computers are
causing the problem.  Nevermind that the two lines that *do* have computers
(modems/fax) on them are NOT affected!  The voice line has three regular phones
and one feature phone on it.  Obviously a fault in my wiring or the feature
phone could cause a hum, but an MSEE and 25 years electronics experience
doesn't give me any idea how my wiring or equipment would cause a hum that
depends on the grounding of the phone company's arrestor block.

Faced with a choice between an aggravating hum and leaving the ground off, I
told the lineman to get rid of the hum. Obviously there is something wrong with
the arresting block or the juction box wiring, but there doesn't seem any way
to convince US West of that.  Meanwhile what little protection was afforded by
the ground wire (which appears to be connected to the power line neutral) is
gone. Between US West and me, one of us has been smoking bad dope.

Has anyone run into something similar?


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #177
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 29 May 89 11:16:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #178
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 May 89 11:07:30 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T, Unions Resolve Differences (TELECOM Moderator)
    New Enhancements From the BOC's (TELECOM Moderator)
    Three or more phone lines in residence (Thomas E. Lowe)
    Re: More TSPS ANI confusion (Nicholas J. Simicich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 29 May 89 10:37:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T, Unions Resolve Differences

AT&T and its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
and the Communications Workers of America, announced agreement on a new
contract Sunday that both sides said provided a radical change in
family care benefits.

A tentative contract was announced late Saturday night, just minutes before
the strike deadline. With the major difference of health care being resolved,
negotiators for both sides agreed to extend the old contract on a day
by day basis, to give them time to resolve several minor issues.

The new three year contract covers 135,000 members of the CWA and 40,000
members of the IBEW, who bargained jointly with AT&T.

CWA President Morton Bahr, speaking on behalf of both unions shortly after
the final agreement was reached, called the new contract 'an unprecedented
breakthrough in labor-management relations with respect to family care.'
AT&T Vice President Raymond Williams agreed, saying, "This contract is the
most progressive ever negotiated by AT&T."

AT&T went into the negotiations April 2 wanting to share some of its health
coverage costs with union members. It said health coverage for employees
was costing one billion dollars per year. The plan finally agreed upon does
not shift any of the cost to employees.

The new agreement also contains innovative provisions on child care
and care for elderly parents, as well as improving pay and profit-sharing
plans.

An AT&T employee is now paid an average of $500 per week. The new contract
will give them a lump sum payment ranging from 4 percent to 8 percent, with
annual increases from 2.25 percent to 3.5 percent, based on skill levels.

Bahr noted that AT&T Chairman Bob Allen had said a company goal was to prove
that a unionized telecommunications firm could compete against non-union
firms, and the agreement was a response to that.

AT&T's two major competitors in the long-distance calling business, MCI
and Sprint are both non-union, as is its rival in computers, International
Business Machines.

The new agreement also provides one-year unpaid leave for newborn or adopted
children and improved benefits for those persons on leave. Only time will
tell what effect all these changes have on rate-payers across the country.
If AT&T can buffer these additional expenses without any impact on the costs
passed along to customers, all well and good. Supposedly, according to
Morton Bahr, they can do so.


Patrick Townson


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

Date:     Mon, 29 May 89 11:04:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New Enhancements From the BOC's

Three of the Bell Operating Companies have started new innovative services
in recent weeks. Here is a summary of each --

MICHIGAN BELL now allows customers in several suburban Detroit communities
to order Touch-Tone service and Custom Calling features on a trial basis
using an automated dial-up system that turns on the services within minutes.

The service is available 24 hours per day. The system provides ordered
services within 15 minutes, according to the telco, compared with the previous
waiting period of up to 48 hours.

The service is accessed by dialing an 800 number, and features recorded
information and prompts for users of tone-dial phones. The trial is scheduled
to continue until the end of the year. About 200,000 customers are in the
test area.

BELL OF PENNSYLVANIA now is offering something called 'I.Q. Services', which
is a combination of Custom Calling and CLASS services into a single personal
call-management system.

I.Q. enables subscribers in the Philadelphia area to redial busy/no answer
numbers automatically, block unwanted incoming calls, assign a special ring
to selected numbers, forward only on selected calls, and initiate a trace.
Custom calling services of course include call-waiting, three-way calling,
call forwarding and speed calling. CLASS call-management services include
return call, priority call, repeat call, call block, select forward, and
call trace.

The CLASS offerings *do not* include caller identification service at the
present time, as this feature is subject to Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission review at the present time.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL has begun a telemetry trial that allows utilities to read
home utility meters over a single telephone line. The test is being conducted
at about fifty homes in Kansas City, MO.

Water and gas meters at each site are equipped with meter encoder/digitizers
that link to a telemetry interface unit at each home.

Readings collected at each site are sent over the telephone line to meter
reading access circuits at a Southwestern Bell central office, which relays
the readings to computers at the gas and water company offices. The system
delivers a reading in about ten seconds, and automatically disengages if
the subscriber is using the phone.

Southwestern Bell also announced they have signed a contract with MCI to
provide billing and collection services for MCI's long distance service,
beginning in the fourth quarter, 1989. Southwestern Bell subscribers in
that company's five-state region who opt to use MCI will begin seeing long
distance charges from that company on their October, 1989 phone bills.


Patrick Townson


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

From: "thomas.e.lowe" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Three or more phone lines in residence
Date: 29 May 89 01:14:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I live in brand new development where all utilities are underground.
Our nearest telephone junction box is Three houses away.  (Should
have been right in front of our house, but they screwed up.  Seems
they forgot to put one there).  We have a two pair cable running
from the junction box to our Network Access box outside.  This limits
me to two phone lines, unless I want to have more cables pulled
underground.

Does anyone know if the phone companies (New Jersey Bell in my case)
have the ability to multiplex phone lines in a residential service?
I would need independant lines for modems, fax machines, etc.
Any ideas of pricing?  What's the service officially called?

I tried asking our business office, but they don't know their (BLEEP)
from a hole in the ground, and two different technicians didn't even
know what kind of switch we have here.  (One thought it might be a
Western Union switch ((Yes, Union, not Electric)))

Thanks for any ideas!
--
Tom Lowe    [e-mail] or  att!hound!tel     [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
(R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T  (keep them lawyers happy!!)

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

From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <bywater!scifi![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More TSPS ANI confusion
Date: 27 May 89 18:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <bywater!scifi![e-mail]>
Organization: Nick Simicich, Peekskill, NY


In article <[e-mail]> gtephx!ellisond@asuvax.
asu.edu (Dell Ellison) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, mit-amt!rdsnyder%mit-
[e-mail] (Ross D. Snyder) writes:
--> The other day a friend of mine was making an AT&T operator-assisted call,
--> and the person she wanted to reach was not there, so she told the person
--> who answered the called line to have the desired person call her back at
--> a different number than the one she was calling from.  The problem occurred
--> when, after she had said "...call me back at NPA-NXX-", the operator broke
--> the transmitted audio path from my friend and completed the number with
--> "XXXX" read from her TSPS console.  Of course, the last four digits the
--> operator read were not the last four digits that my friend intended to say.
  (.....)
-What do you expect for a free phone call?
-Maybe the operator should not have cut the individual off.
-   However, the person should have been charged for that call because the line
-was used to communicate information.  (At least, IMHO.)

Well, traditionally, one benefit of spending the extra money for a
person-to-person call was that you could leave a message to call a
certain person back at a certain number, free, if that person wasn't
there.  I suspect that the theory was that it would add to the revenue
of the phone company when that person called you back.

Once the decision has been made to support person-to-person calling,
the provider of that service has opened themselves up to people
passing messages via code, assuming that you were willing to cheat the
phone company by building a code list of people to call.  So allowing
"Joe" to know that "Karen" called and wants to be called back at
NXX-4315 simply means that three code words can be communicated in one
call rather than three calls, one for "Joe", one for "Fred", and one
for "Sam".

Assuming the honesty of the individual, it only makes sense for them
to allow people to leave a number where they can be reached.

In this case, I would have called back, gotten another operator, asked
them to place another call and correct the message.  Failing that, I
would have asked to speak to a suporvisor.  But I almost never call
person-to-person anyway.



--
Nick Simicich --- uunet!bywater!scifi!njs --- [e-mail] (Internet)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #178
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 30 May 89 7:50:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #179
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 May 89 07:37:30 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's (Scott D. Green)
    Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: Cellular and 911 (Lou Judice)
    More 911 cellular experience (Ron Schnell)
    NPA, etc... (Mike Morris)
    Re: Three or more phone lines in residence (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Three or more phone lines in residence (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 May 89 18:49 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's

Yes, Bell of PA has started offering CLASS services, with no subscription
necessary.  All of the features are available right now for your (and the
kids') endless enjoyment.  Here's the list of codes, services, and rates:

*57    Call Trace                $1.00/use
*60    Call Block                $.50/day or $5/month
*61    Distinctive ring (up to 6 #'s)        $.50/day or $2.75/month
*63    Selective Call Forwarding (up to 6 #'s) $.50/day or $3.50/month
*66    Auto Redial                $.25/use or $1.75/month
*69    Return Call                 $.25/use or $2.50/month


Bell of PA has apparently realized that, once the kids get ahold of these
codes, they are going to be pretty popular at recess.  In fact, on their
in-house newsline last week, they felt it necessary to warn their employees of
exactly that, suggesting that customers may be in for a shock when the bills
come in.  Bell asked their employees to tell their kids not to play with the
IQ services.

Is it really fair, though, for the BOC's to offer these value-added services
to a customer's line without his or her consent or even knowledge?  Is this
something akin to the flap over 976- services, which led to the BOC's offering
no-charge blocking of these numbers as well as placing the racier material on
exchanges that require advance sign-up in order to access them?  Where is the
PUC?  Is this arrangement a concession to Bell of PA, because of the
investigation of the CallerID service (proposed at $6.50/month)?

Just wondering.

-scott green

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's
Date: 30 May 89 02:16:08 GMT
Organization: M. R. Smith Consulting, New Brunswick, NJ


Our home in NJ (Tenafly) has had telemetry on our water meter for some
time.  The new meter has a box connected to it, with a line running to
our (nearby - just 6 feet above the meter) telephone service
terminator (whatever it's supposed to be called - the box on the
outside of the house except that ours is inside).  I have no idea how
it works, but the phone does not ring, nor are we charged for a call
(could be local).

Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
61 Tenafly Road          that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
Tenafly, NJ 07670-2643         rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 May 89 17:59:39 PDT
From: "I'll be back..." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular and 911


I've tried 911 from my cellular phone on MetroOne in Central New Jersey
(specifically the I287 corridor from Piscataway to Bedminster) and gotten
nothing but "invalid" messages.

I have the State Police Edison and Somerville barracks numbers programmed
into my phone though. About a year ago, I called to report an accident.
The MetroOne Operator did not even have a *listing* for the State Police
Edison Barracks (their territory). So I asked for the Totawa Division HQ.
They *REFUSED* to report the accident to Edison, and did not have the
number handy for the Edison barracks so the operator could call!!

I wrote a letter to the State Police, answered by a Captain in their
communications division. The letter said, in the future, just use 911.
But it did not work, at least up to a few months ago!

Nevertheless, with the direct numbers programmed in, it's easy to be
a good samaritan now and then...

/lou

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

From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: More 911 cellular experience
Date: 30 May 89 06:06:40 GMT
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facility, Cambridge, MA



Last week I was driving in Los Angeles and I came upon an overturned
van.  The accident had occured within the previous two minutes so I
figured I would call 911 to make sure that the proper people knew
about it.  The conversation went something like this:


Woman's voice: Mobile 911 emergency, what freeway are you calling from?
Me: I'm not calling from a freeway, I'm on Westwood Blvd in Westwood, there
    is an overturned van in the intersection.
Woman: Are there any injuries?
Me: Possibly, there are people trying to pry someone out of it.
Woman: Hold on, I will transfer you to L.A. Police.

(Several clicks later a phone started ringing and continued to ring about 10
times)
Finally...
Another woman's voice: <garble garble> please hold...
(I could then hear her talking in the background):
"How many people? ... What time?  And you say you had a reservation?"
Woman (to me): <garble garble> Restaurant may I help you?

By the time I finally redialed and got through to the right people, I
was informed that they already knew about it. And no, I didn't make a
reservation.

#Ron
--
            #Ron
            (ronnie@mit-eddie.{UUCP,ARPA})
            Home: (914) 352 - 7694

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA, etc...
Date: 29 May 89 23:31:53 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Organization: What - me organized?


Recently there has been a discussion of the n10 area code and the fact that
it is in use in Canada for TWX machines, but not used in the US.  Well,
I decided to try dialing it and see what happened.  I got the local ANI!
It seems that both 1223 and 1610 goes to the same set of ANI trunks.

as Spock would say, "Interesting..."

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 May 89 13:42:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Three or more phone lines in residence

> I live in brand new development where all utilities are underground.
> Our nearest telephone junction box is Three houses away.  (Should
> have been right in front of our house, but they screwed up.  Seems
> they forgot to put one there).  We have a two pair cable running
> from the junction box to our Network Access box outside.  This limits
> me to two phone lines, unless I want to have more cables pulled
> underground.

In most jurisdictions, the telephone company is obligated by tariff to
provide as many lines as you want to your Network Access box for no more
than the standard turn-on charge per line, whether there are wires
already in place or not.  If they have to pull an extra wire, the cost
is averaged in with the costs of all the other hookups where they charge
you $50 for nothing more than making a few entries at a terminal to turn
on an existing line.  They may choose, of course, to multiplex (FDM or
TDM) several circuits on one wire if they decide that is cheaper.  My
guess, however, is that they will find it much less expensive to simply
pull a new wire from the junction box to your house, and that they will
do just that if you order a third line.




Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University
internet:  [e-mail]
bitnet:    ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Three or more phone lines in residence
Date: 30 May 89 03:49:54 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(thomas.e.lowe) writes:
> Does anyone know if the phone companies (New Jersey Bell in my case)
> have the ability to multiplex phone lines in a residential service?

Trust me, you *don't* want that! It is known as "subscriber carrier"
and is General Telephone's answer to undercapitalization. They use a
device that multiplexes a second subscriber on a telephone pair by
means of a supersonic carrier. If you are the metallic subscriber,
there is little problem. If you are the carrier subscriber, your
telephone service isn't worth the powder to blow it up.

The unit is "phone line powered", which means that it sits there and
trickle-charges its nicads during the metallic subscriber's on-hook
periods. If he talks a lot, or the carrier subscriber gets a lot of
calls (the device has to supply ring voltage), the batteries run down
and phone service phades away. The audio is terrible, and there is no
loop current signaling for answering machines, etc.

I suspect that our various telcos (General being the worst) never
anticipated the "information age" and felt that planning for two drops
per housing unit would be more than adequate. Although no one at
Pac*Bell has said anything, I suspect that my nine lines have put
somewhat of a strain on the neighborhood facilities. My friends in
southern California (who are served by General Telephone) marvel, not
just at being able to get nine lines, but at the fact that they're all
metallic.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the BOCs have used subscriber
carrier. And for good reason.

> I would need independant lines for modems, fax machines, etc.
> Any ideas of pricing?  What's the service officially called?

The service you want is "enough pairs to serve your needs". You will
(probably) have to do a little trenching yourself, but it's the only
real solution.

At least until ISDN.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #179
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 31 May 89 0:07:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #180
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 May 89 00:01:03 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Further Thoughts on Starlink (Blake Farenthold)
    TC Institute (Jeffrey Bary)
    Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 Service (C. E. Reid)
    Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: Modems and LD Carriers (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: NPA, etc... (Ross D. Snyder)
    Area Code 710 (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans (Mike Trout)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 29 May 89 23:24:37 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Further Thoughts on Starlink

>  [Moderator's Note:...  Starlink does not appear to be any bargain
>  at all.

Unfortunatly, there are few bargains left in this world.

>  Rather than worry about which calls are local and which are toll,
>  either sign up for PC Pursuit or use Reach Out.

Reach out America _is_ a good deal for a lot of calls and I use it
(to the tune of about $300/mo for my bbs to exchange mail).  ROA may
not, however, out-perform all of the alternatives.  Reach Out Texas
is a HUGE rip off.  The time is way over priced.  The Texas PUC
doesn't seem to wanna let go of AT&T.

>  Regretably, Starlink is more expensive and less economical than
>  either of these other two options.

I'm not SURE this is still true see below.

>  Telenet only charges $1 per hour with no telco surcharge.

This is dead Wrong.  The last letter I got from Telenet offered me 3 options
for my PCPursuit account:

Regular membership:  30 hours at $30.

Family membership:  60 hours at $50

Handicapped membership: 90 hours at $30

Any useage over membership minimums are billed at _$3_ per hour.

PCP was much nicer when I was a beta tester and it was free 24 hours a day.

>  Intrastate tolls from Starlink terminating modems are frequently
>  equal to or exceed, minute per minute, the charges for Reach Out
>  America.

Yea that's what I wanna find out.. what tolls are associated with what
calls.  It really hacks me off no one at Starlink can tell me.  And
Why Oh Why cant the Bells just require you to dial a 1 if the call
is gonna cost.


>  Read the issues mentioned and decide for yourself.  PT]

I read them when they came out.  What convinced me to try Starlink was
the fact they are now $1.50 / hr and have _cancelled the excess
kilocharacter charges_  They also now go to a boat-load of cities.
In Texas PCPursuit only goes into Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth.
Starlink goes into Ammarillo, Arlington, Austin, Corpus Christi
(my home town!), Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Ft. Worth, Houston,
Killeen, San Antonio, and Waco.

Starlink does, however maintain the 5 minute minimum per connection.
This could add up in a hurry if you are trying to call a busy host
system.  If they'd do away with the 5 min minumum and give you the
first minute free (so if the bbs is busy you can disconnect w/o
incurring a charge) I'd dump PCP all together.  Throughput on
Starlink is appears to be faster than PCP but I havn't run any
definitive tests.

I don't work for anyone involved in this I just want cheap modem calls.
______

UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!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


[Moderator's Note: My arithmetic has never been very good. In fact in school
when the teacher claimed 'pies are squared' I told him he was a liar;
that all the pies I have ever seen were round. But be that as it may, if
Telenet charges $30 for 30 hours, that comes out to $1 per hour in my handy
TI-58 calculator. And at $50 for 60 hours, that comes to 83 cents an hour.
A dollar per hour or 83 cents per hour is less than $1.50 per hour. Unless
or until you use more than 60 hours per month -- more than two hours per
night each night of the month -- Telenet is still cheaper on an hourly basis.

But that is not all. Those first 60 hours cost $50 on Telenet versus
(60 x 1.50 = $90) on Starlink. The next 30 hours on Telenet cost ($3 x
30 = $90) versus ($1.50 x 30 = $45) on Starlink. So after 90 hours per month
on the modem -- 3 hours per night -- we have spent $140 on Telenet versus
$135 on Starlink. So 'savings' on Starlink don't even enter the
picture until after around 88 hours per month. That is an awful lot of time
on line for those of us who also work 40 hours a week and sleep a few hours
each day. Finally, Telenet allows you to purchase multiple accounts;
that is, 2 'family' accounts at $100 per month for 120 hours, or 3 at $150
per month for 180 hours, etc.    PT]

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

Date:     Tue, 30 May 89 16:15 EDT
From: Jeffrey Bary <[e-mail]>
Subject:  TC Institute

TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Seventh Annual Institute
June 12-15, 1989

WHO SHOULD ATTEND
     Faculty and administrators who are using or wish to
introduce telecommunications in their institutions.
Interested graduate students can earn two graduate credits.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN
     Outstanding leaders in the field will discuss their
innovative and successful programs.

TOPICS/TECHNOLOGIES DISCUSSED & DEMONSTRATED

Business-university linkages               Audioconferencing
Programming for teleconferencing           Slow scan T.V.
Library Support for distant learners       Telecourses
Computer conferencing                      Electronic mail

Register for low-cost, campus housing in Greenwich Village
by May 22, 1989.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
     Prof. Deane G. Bornheimer, Director
     Program in Higher Education
     School of Education, Health, Nursing and
     Arts Professions
     New York University, 300 East Building
     New York, N.Y. 10003  Tel:  [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 30 May 89 09:31 EDT
From: "C. E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service

Readers might find this interesting.  I found this article in my local
newspaper, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, today (5/30) on page
6D:

        ATLANTA PHONE COMPANY OFFERS 800 SERVICE FOR HOME DIALING

           TelecomUSA, a long-distance services company based in Atlanta, is
offering the nation's first 800-line service aimed specifically at the
residential market.  Known as the "Personal Hotline," the service allows
consumers to phone home without using a credit card, operator assistance or
even a quarter for the pay phone.

           So far, about 2,500 residential customers have signed up for the new
service, which was launched in Jaunary, and is available in every state.

           Much like the toll-free services commonly used by businesses, the
Personal Hotline accepts incoming calls only, at no charge to the caller.  To
call a residential 800 line, callers dial 1-800 plus the regular seven digits
of the number.

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 30 May 89 15:41:25 GMT
Subject: Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

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

>SOUTHWESTERN BELL has begun a telemetry trial that allows utilities to read
>home utility meters over a single telephone line. The test is being conducted
>at about fifty homes in Kansas City, MO.

A similar trial was conducted in Toronto, Ont., over ten years ago.  I
presume it involved Bell Canada and whatever Toronto utilities were
interested.  Anyone know what came of it? As a repairman at the time, we
were only told about it so we wouldn't accidentally disconnect the
telemetry device.  I never heard any more about it.
--
     Gerry Wheeler                           Phone: [phone]
Mortice Kern Systems Inc.               UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels
   35 King St. North                             BIX: join mks
Waterloo, Ontario  N2J 2W9                  CompuServe: 73260,1043

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and LD Carriers
Date: 30 May 89 18:34:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


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

>The only tariffed service using compression is M44, which uses the 32K
>ADPCM speech compression algorithm.
> ...
>They wanted to get modem traffic right!

People who build V.29 modems tell me that they didn't get it right
enough. I've seen a paper on V.29 error performance over cascaded
ADPCM lines, but I forget where.
>--
>Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor /
214-450-5337

                Peter Desnoyers

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

From: "Ross D. Snyder" <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA, etc...
Date: 31 May 89 02:13:46 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
gov (Mike Morris) writes:

> It seems that both 1223 and 1610 goes to the same set of ANI trunks.

One thing worth noting when you find two ANI numbers for the same CO is that
one of the numbers may provide the ANI recitation of calling number to the
calling line only, while the other may announce the number on a loudspeaker
in the CO.  This was the case when I had a chance to tour the Northwestern
Bell SxS CO in my hometown in southern MN about four years ago, before it
was cut over to a 5ESS.  With this setup, the men on the frame could dial
ANI and not have to put the buttinski up against their ear.  I assume there
were other uses too.  This may account for people's complaints about the
telco changing the ANI number shortly after they learn the number; CO
personnel simply get tired of ANI yanking away randomly.
-Ross



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

Date:     Tue, 30 May 89 23:06:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Area Code 710

According to Harry Newton, in the June, 1989 issue of [Teleconnect Magazine],
'area code' 710 is now assigned to Government Services.

Would anyone care to comment, elaborate or refute his claim? By Government
Services, does he mean an 'area code' under which all FTS and/or Autovon
lines are handled for billing purposes, etc?

Inquiring Moderator wants to know.



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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moderator Replies: MCI vrs. AT&T Plans
Date: 30 May 89 19:06:38 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


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

> I'm sure you realize that a large percentage of the readers of Netnews
> and this news group are AT&T employees.  Try to keep that in mind when
> posting future articles.

And a large percentage of the readers of Netnews and this news group are white
males.  Should Patrick bear that in mind as well?

If this is intended to be a forum for "news," Patrick's responsibility is to
report what's happening.  And that's regardless of what AT&T, MCI or anybody
else wants or likes.  And it seems to me that that's exactly what he's been
doing.  When Patrick was criticized for being both pro-AT&T and anti-AT&T, I
knew he must be doing something right!

--
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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it a lot. See
you all tomorrow!    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #180
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 1 Jun 89 0:34:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #181
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Jun 89 00:00:15 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dave Barry on Call Waiting (Will Martin)
    Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's (John Gilmore)
    The Pound Sign (Clive Carmock)
    Re: AT&T, Unions Resolve Differences (David Fischer)

[Moderator's Note: In the first of two digests today (mail is heavy), a
little humor intended to bring a smile to your face. It *is* June, after
all; and nothing, they say, is quite so rare. I hope you enjoy this
special selection from recent mail.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 31 May 89 14:40:10 CDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Dave Barry on Call Waiting

Though you might like to see this, which came over the "dave-barry"
mailing list:

[05/06/89]
               An Invention That Really Clicked
                 by Dave Barry

Today I want to *click.* Excuse me.  OK.  Today I want to talk about *click.*
Excuse me again.  OK, where were we?  Oh, yeah, I was saying that *click.*
Never mind, just ignore it.  I was saying that I want to *click* about this
major stride forward in *click*phone technology called "call waiting," which is
such a big *click*ing *convenience* that I'd like to find the *click* who
invented it and ...

No, wait, let me just calm down here.  Some readers may not even know what I'm
talking about.  Some readers are probably living in backward, soybean-infested
regions that don't even have the incredible convenience of "call waiting."  So
let me explain how it works: If you're on the phone with Party A, and Party B
tries to call you, both you and Party A will hear an interruption noise, which
alerts you to press your disconnect button so you can talk to Party B, who
trust me has absolutely nothing important to tell you, so you say you'll call
back and resume talking with Party A for 10 full seconds, until you hear
another interruption noise indicating that you have a vitally unimportant call
from Party C, and so on down the alphabet until Party A decides to drive over
to your house and strangle you with your phone cord.

Doesn't this sound terrific, soybean people?  Doesn't it sound *modern?* To
give you a clear picture of what you're missing, let me compare "call waiting"
to an everyday domestic situation.  Let's say I'm having dinner with my wife
and 8-year-old son, and my wife and I are discussing the kind of important
issue that normal, mature married adults discuss at dinner:

   ME: It does *what* when you flush it?

   MY WIFE: It makes kind of a banging sound.

   ME: A *banging* sound?

   MY WIFE: Yes.  And there are these little like electric sparks coming...

   OUR SON (interrupting):  How come...

   MY WIFE: Robert, please don't interrupt.

   ME: Sparks?

   MY WIFE: Yes, and they're...

   OUR SON (interrupting): But I was just gonna ask you...

   MY WIFE: Wait, Robert!

   ME: There are *sparks?*

   MY WIFE: Yes, they're coming from...

   OUR SON: But this is *important!*

   MY WIFE: *ALL right,* Robert.  What *is* it?

   OUR SON: How come my left arm tastes saltier than my right arm?

"Call waiting" is very similar to this.  It's kind of like an electronic
8-year-old who is simply incapable of shutting up while you are conversing with
somebody else.  The differences are that (1) an 8-year-old does not have the
gall to charge you a monthly fee for this service; and (2) an 8-year-old can
interrupt you only if he's in the same room, whereas with the incredible
capabilities of "call waiting," your conversations can be interrupted by
*everybody in the entire world who has access to a telephone.* It doesn't even
have to be a person.  A computer can interrupt you.  In fact, through a
combination of "call waiting" and "auto-dialing," it is now technically
possible for your telephone conversations to be interrupted by a *trained
chicken.*

And whom do we have to thank for this amazing communications breakthrough?  My
guess is that it came from the prestigious Institute of Irritating Technology,
whose hard-working staff of former Nazi medical researchers also developed: the
beeper; the non-openable fast-food ketchup packet that contains a total of four
ketchup molecules; the machine that inserts those hateful little cards that are
forever falling out of magazines; and the empty self-service elevator that for
no apparent reason closes its doors just as you get to it, then emits a clearly
audible computerized chuckle.

But I think the boys at the institute really outdid themselves with "call
waiting," although I should point out that we don't have it in our own
household.  We feel that we can obtain the same benefits, without the monthly
service charge, by simply whacking ourselves with hammers.  But it seems as
though almost everybody we know has this powerful feature, the result being
that we have learned to speak in very short sentences, which we squeeze between
the clicks ("What's new?"  *click* "Mom's dead."  *click* "Too bad!"  *click*).
It's just so darned convenient that I can hardly wait to see what exciting new
services the telephone people will come up with next.  Maybe they'll offer
"Call Fabricating," wherein your phone becomes bored and rings for no reason;
or "Call Misrepresenting," wherein your callers' voices are electronically
altered so that you hear the *opposite* of what they actually said ("Mom's
Dead."  *click* "Great!"  *click*).

But what I, personally, would like to see -- call me a dreamer -- would be some
kind of service wherein if you were talking to somebody, and a third person
tried to call either of you, *your call would not be interrupted.* Instead, the
third person would hear a special tone -- we could call it a "busy signal" --
telling him that a conversation was already in progress, so he'd have to try
again later.  But I doubt we'll ever see this come about.  The concept is far
too complex to be grasped by a certain type of telecommunications consumer.  I
am thinking primarily of the chicken.

----- End -----

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 16:49:46 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's

> *57    Call Trace                $1.00/use
> *60    Call Block                $.50/day or $5/month
> *61    Distinctive ring (up to 6 #'s)        $.50/day or $2.75/month
> *63    Selective Call Forwarding (up to 6 #'s) $.50/day or $3.50/month
> *66    Auto Redial                $.25/use or $1.75/month
> *69    Return Call                 $.25/use or $2.50/month

Gee, I knew the price of DRAM was high, but 50c/day for a few bytes?

Of course, the service that provides the calling number to customer
equipment will cost even more than this.  People would figure out that
rather than paying $5 or $10/month, they could buy a smart answering
machine that would do all this for them, and start saving money within
a year.  So do-it-yourself will be even more expensive than
"rent my DRAM...please".

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

From: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Pound Sign
Date: 30 May 89 18:57:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK


An interesting point has just cropped up.  Does anyone know of the origins
of calling '#' a pound sign?   It seems to be used quite often in automated
telephone systems, where the user is told to follow some code or other with
'the pound key'.   In the UK the '#' symbol is generally called a 'hash'.

I wonder if this confusion over nomenclature caused the REAL pound sign to
be missed from that ASCII character set altogether.  So if I type the pound
sign key on this terminal, it is echoed back as `  !!!

Clive Carmock


[Moderator's Note:  And just about the time you thought the subject of
octothorpes was dead! The return of the living octothorpes. Please see
Volume 8, Issue 190 (12-1-88) for a special issue of the Digest entitled
"All You Ever Wanted To Know About Octothorpes". There is one good use for
the 'tic-tac-toe key', and that is to play the game of the same name. All
you need is a pencil or pen with a very tiny, microscopic point on it.
After each game, use a sponge to wipe the key off so you can play a new
game. PT]
------------------------------

From: "david.fischer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T, Unions Resolve Differences
Date: 31 May 89 15:20:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> The new agreement also provides one-year unpaid leave for newborn or adopted
> children and improved benefits for those persons on leave.

Gee I think one year is a bit much for a newborn. I say make them come in at
six months, when they can be productive.
:-) :-) :-)
--
the grass aint greener   || Dave Fischer
the wine aint sweeter    || att!hound!dfis
either side of the hill  || or (on arpanet)  [e-mail]
                         || or various combinations of the above

Moderator's Humble Note:  Touche! That'll teach me to take AT&T news releases
and print them without correcting their grammar and syntax.

Issue 182 will be released in about one hour, with a special report on new
legislation intended to ban the sale of 'beepers' to minors.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #181
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 1 Jun 89 1:44:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #182
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Jun 89 01:38:46 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    HR 1504 (Beeper Abuse Prevention Act) (John Gilmore)
    MCI Fraud (Jonathan Alan Solomon)
    Statewide Uniformity (Carl Moore (VLD/VMB))
    Strange Phone Problem (Andrew Duane)
    Re: Cellular Phone & E911 (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Southern Bell dialing changes in 404 area code (Dave Levenson)
    Re: What's a local call? (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 16:55:52 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: HR 1504 (Beeper Abuse Prevention Act)

The bogonz in congress assembled are at it again.  Three years in jail
for selling a pager to a minor?  If you didn't believe when Abbie Hoffman
said that the drug hysteria was just an excuse for more control of the
citizens, think again.

    "Pagers don't commit crimes, Congressmen do."

From: [e-mail] (Richard Thomsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The future is now - future bans are being considered
Keywords: drugs, beepers, bans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 May 89 19:16:49 GMT

There were some articles guessing what would be banned next, after guns
were banned and did not have an effect on the war on drugs.

I was given a copy of _USA_ _Today_, and saw a "face-off" on the issues.
According to this article, Representative Kweisi Mfume (D-Md) says the
following (reprinted without permission, spelling errors are probably mine):

    The drug business is using the  latest technology to promote
    its deadly trade.  One such advance, the paging device, or
    beeper, is now appearing in classrooms and schoolyards.  I
    have introduced the Beeper Abuse Prevention Act to curtail
    the use of beepers by young people who deal drugs.  It would
    require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe
    regulations that would restrict the possession and use of
    paging devices by persons under age 21.

    Law officers say dealers and suppliers send coded messages
    via beeper to youths in school.  The codes translate into
    messages like "meet me at our regular place after class to
    pick up the drugs."  Drug traffickers are even using 800
    numbers now available with regional paging services.  A
    supplier could actually conduct a transaction in Baltimore
    from Miami, for example.

    My bill, H.R. 1504, would require any person selling or renting
    paging devices to verify the identification and age of every
    customer; encourage parents and businesses to take more
    responsibility in their children's or employees' activities;
    make it unlawful for a person to knowingly nad willfully rent,
    sell or use paging devices in violation of rules prescrived by
    the FCC (there are provisions for stiff fines and up to three-
    year prison terms for adults who illegally provide beepers to
    youths); and require parents or businesses who allow the use of
    beepers to state that intention with and affidavit at the time
    of purchase.

He goes on to say that he recognizes that there are legitimate uses of
beepers, but we can no longer stand by and watch drugs flow into our
neighborhoods.  The opposite side is taken by Lynn Scarlett, from Santa
Monica, CA.  She asks what beepers have to do with the drug trade, and
regulating their use will not put a dent it it.  She also says that there
is little evidence that gun control keeps guns out of the hands of
gangsters, and it will take a good dose of wizardry to keep beepers away
from bad guys.  She finishes with:

    The logic of the Beeper Abuse Prevention Act opens the door for
    laws to make us sign promises that we won't, we swear, use these
    things for illicit acts when we buy them.  De Tocqueville, that
    eminent observer of our nation, waned that our loss of freedom
    would sneak in through passage of quiet, seemingly innocuous
    and well-intended laws  --  laws like H.R. 1504.

So all of you who were guessing the next thing to be banned did not
guess the real truth.  I saw no guesses that it would be beepers.

Before you ask, I cut the article out of the newspaper, and did not cut
out the part that shows the date of the paper.  But it was last week,
which means from 22 to 26 May.  It was probably the Wednesday or Thursday
(21 or 22 May) issue, on the opinion page at the bottom.

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 1989 16:35:55 EDT
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI fraud

    ATTENTION MCI 800 service people.

Apparently MCI is unable to disconnect 800 service right now.
Apparently they can create new 800 numbers, but once a number is in
the database, it is permanent and they can't disconnect it.

The problem I face is the legal implications of that problem. I was an
800 service customer, and I now have my 800 numbers on my residence
lines. I previously disconnected one of them, and had to reconnect it
because it became clear that MCI would be unable to disconnect them.
That cost me $35.00 or so from New England Telephone (I happened to
disconnect one of my numbers to get that line back, so they didn't
have to send out an installer.)...

I reconnected that line because they are still billing me for the
service, even though I disconnected it, and even though one of the MCI
people insisted that I wasn't responsible for the lines.  I believe
she didn't have authorization to say that, and now MCI is trying to
back out of her agreement with me. Sending me the bills is there way
of keeping track of what the usage is, which is their way of covering
their ass.

As for usage, I don't mind paying for what I use, I'm not into fraud,
but they are continuing to bill me the $20.00/line maintainence fee as
well. I think they think I am still responsible for the lines, which
means the girl at MCI lied to me. Either way I'd like to get a
statement from MCI directly, either that I am responsible for the
bills or not. If  I am, I'd like them to tell me that in writing.
If I am not, then I'd like them to tell me that in writing.

Can anyone out in TELECOM land help with this? When I dial the MCI main number,
and ask to talk to *anyone* I always get their MCI VOICEMAIL mailbox, or some
secretary. They NEVER let you talk to anyone.  I need a *good* lawyer to deal
with this.  Recommendations?

Apparently there is no place within the MCI structure to resolve complaints.
I guess they think they are perfect.

I signed up for MCI's competetion to reach-out-america service (don't
know what they call it, sigh), twice. The first time they said it would be
ready June 1st, the second time was on june 1st to ask them if it was up.
It was not even in their computers. They took the information again and now
I am waiting for NET to switch my carrier.

I hope MCI gets their act together soon, they have the potential to be
an excellent asset to the international telecommunications systems.

BTW: My 800 numbers are gone, looks like persistance paid off.

--jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon was the founder of TELECOM Digest and the
original moderator here for several years.   PT]
------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 31 May 89 16:41:14 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Statewide Uniformity

Recent messages in telecom say that area code 404 in Georgia is apparently
preparing for N0X/N1X prefixes.  Does this affect area 912? (912, by the
way, is an "easier-to-dial" area code on a dial telephone.)

Other cases where a state has 2 area codes, one of which got N0X/N1X prefixes:

New Jersey, areas 201 and 609; 201 got N0X/N1X, and the new dialing require-
ments also applied to area 609 for statewide uniformity (and later, two N0X/
N1X prefixes were made local to Barnegat, in area 609).

Virginia, areas 703 and 804; 703 got N0X/N1X, apparently limited to the DC
area suburbs (all but the outermost ones also being reachable in area 202).
804 did NOT get the new dialing requirements (however, DC and Maryland did,
so that 703, 202, and 301 all now dial long-distance and 0+ calls the same
way).

(Did 817 get the same dialing requirements as 214 did when the latter got
N0X/N1X?)

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 13:42:24 -0400
From: Andrew Duane <ginosko![e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Phone Problem


OK, all you telecommers. Here's a bizarre little problem that happened
at a friends house last night. Anyone got any clues?

BACKGROUND: a single line house, in Newton, MA (617-244-XXXX),
        with 4 phones: 2 AT&T desk pushbuttons,
        1 IT&T desk pushbutton, 1 Radio Shack cordless.

PROBLEM: the 2 AT&T phones suddenly and simulatenously lost their
        ability to dial. They work fine for incoming calls,
        get dial tone, etc. Both other phones (and a spare
        IT&T from the car) worked fine the whole time.
        When you pushed a button, the dial tone went away
        while the button was down.

Anyone got a guess? My friend is going to return the (leased) AT&T
phones, to see if that helps. I will let you know if/when it is fixed.

Andrew L. Duane (JOT-7)  w:(508)-685-7200 X122  h:(603)-434-7934
Samsung Software America     decvax!cg-atla!ginosko!duane
1 Corporate Drive              uunet/
Andover, MA.   01810


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & E911
Date: 31 May 89 12:44:32 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(james.j.sowa) writes:
 ...
> It is an open item today as what to transmit to a PSAP from
> a cellular phone and how much information is needed at the PSAP
 ...
> Besides, if the DN to address translation is done at the
> PSAP from their database, how could they have all the
> mobile DNs from all over their area translated into their
> database. (much less updated.) How would they translate roamers?

The mobile number is probably less useful than the approximate
current location of a mobile telephone.  If I see an emergency
situation while driving, I'd like to be able to report it to the
local authorities, not the PSAP who handles the home address
associated with the mobile number (which may be hudreds of miles
away!)

--
Dave Levenson (the man in the mooney)
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southern Bell dialing changes in 404 area code
Date: 31 May 89 12:49:53 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Barman) writes:
(regarding the new area code in the Atlanta, GA area)...

> They are trying to put off the inevitable.  I understand that since I
> was living in New York when they made Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten
> Island area code 718.  Initially, it really can be confusing and
> frustrating and I guess New York Tel. dropped a bundle in advertising.

I read in the Newark NJ Star-Ledger that New Jersey Bell plans to
spend approximately $7Million on "consumer education" in preparation
for the new area code (908) coming to parts of Northern and Central
New Jersey in 1991.  (I think this includes reprinting the
directory, but they do that every year whether or not they're
changing the dial-plan, don't they?)

--
Dave Levenson (the man in the mooney)
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's a local call?
Date: 31 May 89 17:24:24 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


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

> This seems to me to be another good argument for the "if the calls gonna cost
> you HAVE to put a 1 or 0 in front of the number (1-976, 1-512-... 011-44-01)"
> if the BOC's and independants would adopt this it would save lotsa people
> lotsa headaches.. no more "I didn't know that 976 call cost $30" just teach
> the kids not to dial 1+, like my mom did to me.

The problem is that 1+ is recommended for use to distinguish 7-digit
dialed numbers from 10-digit dialed numbers where interchangeable NPA/office
codes are introduced (currently only a few locations; will eventually be
very widespread because of code exhaustion).  Some 10D calls are "local"
calls; some 7D calls are toll calls.

Example:  You live in Queens (NPA code 718) and are calling someone in
Manhattan, 212-NNX-XXXX.  It's a "local" call, though.  If 1+ means a
toll call, the switch has to have some other way of recognizing that
212NNXX is not a home NPA dialed number -- it has to wait and expect
more digits after the first 7.  So when you call someone in Queens, say
at 218NNXX, the switch has to wait four seconds or so in case you're
really dialing someone at 218-NXX-XXXX (your buddy in Minnesota).  If 1+
means a 10-digit dialed number, the switch can interpret the first
digit; if it's a 1, it leaves the tone generator on line until it gets
10D; if it's anything else, it takes the tone generator off line and
gets on with call processing after getting 7D.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David G Lewis        "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
Bellcore                                 201-758-4099
Navesink Research and Engineering Center     ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #182
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 2 Jun 89 0:43:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #183
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Jun 89 00:15:04 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Lars J Poulsen)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem ([e-mail])
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Skip La Fetra)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (A. M. Boardman)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Steve Elias)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Gerry Wheeler)
    Re: The Pound Sign (Curtis E. Reid)
    Review of SMU Statistics Course (Marvin Sirbu)
    NEC Electra Mark II (Michael Smith)

[Moderator's Note: Another very heavy mail today. A second digest, issue
184, will be processed in about an hour.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Date: 1 Jun 89 22:45:47 GMT
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 182, message 4 of 7

>OK, all you telecommers. Here's a bizarre little problem that happened
>at a friends house last night. Anyone got any clues?

>BACKGROUND: a single line house, in Newton, MA (617-244-XXXX),
>        with 4 phones: 2 AT&T desk pushbuttons,
>        1 IT&T desk pushbutton, 1 Radio Shack cordless.

>PROBLEM: the 2 AT&T phones suddenly and simulatenously lost their
>        ability to dial. They work fine for incoming calls,
>        get dial tone, etc. Both other phones (and a spare
>        IT&T from the car) worked fine the whole time.
>        When you pushed a button, the dial tone went away
>        while the button was down.

It sounds like the CO is no longer accepting tone dialling on this line.
On 5ESS exchanges, there is a status bit to indicate tone service, and
if tone service is turned off, it will behave as you describe. The
phones are okay.

Tone dialling is an extra-cost option - $1/month/line in most areas.
Most BOCs have implemented the blocking for subscribers that don't pay
for it by now; used to work whether you paid for it or not, but they
might start billing you if you used it.

--
/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
  ACC Customer Service               Affiliation stated for identification only
          My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 20:22:40 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Organization: UCB Mathematics Department

In article <[e-mail]> the author writes:

   [Moderator's Note: See first item for problem description]

Many AT&T phones will not dial when the polarity of the phone line
is reversed.  Try switching the wires around, either at the incoming
junction (preferable) or inside the phone itself.

Eric Hughes
[e-mail]   ucbvax!math!hughes

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

From: Skip La Fetra <hp-sdd!hpcuhb.HP.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Date: 1 Jun 89 15:03:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino



 From the little that I know, it sounds like the polarity of the phone
line became reversed.  This affects some, but not most, touch-tone
phones.  I believe the ATT phones are among the ones affected.

- Skip

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 11:29:19 EDT
Subject: Strange Phone Problem
From: [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Again, problem deleted. See first item. PT]


Depending on how the non-ATT phones are put together, iut sounds like your
line polarity may have been reversed.  Flipping the line pair where it
comes into your home should do the trick.

NY Telephone did the same to me a few months back; I knew what had happened
but wanted to see what NYT would make of it.  The lineman only tested my line
with a rotary test set (why, I dunno...) and they subsequently tried to bill
me for a needless service call.  If that is the problem, it'll be a lot easier
to just fix it yourself.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
{backbone}!columbia!cunixc!ab4

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

Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 89 11:50:10 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

simple problem really:  the polarity on the pair of wires for your line got
reversed.  older pushbutton phones cannot deal with this very well; newer
ones (like the cordless) can.


 ...ben
----
ben ullrich           consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc., emeryville, ca
+1 (415) 596 - 3500             "skinheads are pinheads!" -- greg sullivan
[e-mail]                   {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben

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

From: chipcom.chipcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 89 08:31:54 -0400


Andrew Duane describes a problem with touch tones at his friends house...

the cause is probably a polarity change at the CO or somewhere else
along the line...  most modern phones can handle either polarity, but
some older models must be wired for the proper polarity.

you can probably fix the ATT phones by opening them up and reversing
the tip and ring leads (the only 2 wires that do anything).  this
task is easier said than done for some people...  i've messed up many
a phone by trying to change polarity.  (i'm color blind).


-- Steve Elias
-- ([e-mail]) or ([e-mail])
-- voice mail: 617 239 9406  [this number will change in June]
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 1 Jun 89 16:54:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada


In article <[e-mail]> ginosko![e-mail]
(Andrew Duane) writes:

>PROBLEM: the 2 AT&T phones suddenly and simulatenously lost their
>        ability to dial.

Sounds to me like the line polarity has been reversed.  Some phones have
rectifiers so they don't care about polarity, but others can't hack it
and the keypad shuts down.  That would explain why two phones work but
two don't.
--
     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: Thu, 1 Jun 89 09:26 EDT
From: "C. E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Pound Sign

>Does anyone know of the origins of calling '#' a pound sign?

        I can offer an explanation of using the term "pound key" for '#'.  When
I used to work in a warehouse, shipping/receiving packages uses these symbols
to indicate the weight in pounds.  For example, a package weights 100 pounds
can be expressed in one of the following ways:

                "100 pounds"
                "100 lbs."
        or      "100 #"

        Hope this brings a light to this mystery.

                        Curtis


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

Date: Thu,  1 Jun 89 09:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Review of SMU Statistics Course

I've just taken another look at the syllabus for the statistics course
from SMU.  It is more heavily weighted towards statistics and less
towards probability theory than I would have liked.

Does it cover, for example,

Exponential and Poisson distributions
Transformation of Random Variables
Joint and Conditional Density Functions
Correlation between random variables
central limit theorem
generating functions
introduction to random processes.

Marvin

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 21:30 EDT
From: Michael Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEC Electra Mark II

    If anyone has ever programmed an NEC Electra Mark II system,
please contact me via e-mail.  I could really use some help.

Michael Smith

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #183
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 2 Jun 89 1:30:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #184
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Jun 89 00:53:05 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Running out of Area Codes (Keith Brown)
    How much do cellular phones cost to use? (Steve Elias)
    Request for DS3 Tranmsit/Receive Equipment (Pat Ogmundson)
    Re: MCI fraud (John Higdon)
    USADirect Clone (Hector Myerston)
    Re: My Wife & a cordless phone (W. W. Scott)
    Re: Statewide Uniformity (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service (William Mihalo)
    Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service (John Higdon)
    Area code data for Autovon number (Chuck Stern)
    Re: Area Code 710 (Thomas J. Roberts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 27 May 89 02:48:06 PDT
Subject: Running out of Area Codes
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR


I know this must seem too obvious, but why not stop issuing gobs of
subscriber numbers to PBXs?  If my company has 30 incoming lines, all
hunting to each other, and disappearing into a big black box anyway so
they can't be reasonably identified from one another, -- do I need
thirty DIALABLE numbers assigned to me?  One will do, and in my local
CO, the switch can say to itself: "There's got to be a xxx-xxxx around
here somewhere I can connect this call to."  Of course the other
circuits would have identifiers for tracing and troubleshooting and
all that, but the public network doesn't need to know about how many
circuits there are, only the local CO.  Usually, these extra numbers
aren't listed anyway.

I realize this plan falls flat for Centrex-type direct inward dialing
services, but (sorry telcos) this isn't the majority of use (at least
not yet?).

My guess is that it would free up at least 30% of the dialable capacity
nationally, and closer to 50% in metro areas (like Atlanta;-).

Comments?  ( <-what a stupid thing to ask, but it's 3am.).

--
Keith Brown
UUCP:  {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs}!tektronix!reed!keithb
BITNET: [e-mail]       ARPA: [e-mail]
CSNET: reed![e-mail]     CIS: 72615,216


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

From: chipcom.chipcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: How much do cellular phones cost to use?
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 89 08:34:09 -0400


could any cellular phone users out there tell me how expensive it is
to use a cellular phone?  what are the different minimum rates, charges
per call, local calling areas??  (as you can tell, i have no concept
of the cost of using cellular phones -- the phone prices have gotten
low enough to attract my attention, though!)


-- Steve Elias
-- ([e-mail]) or ([e-mail])
-- voice mail: 617 239 9406  [this number will change in June]
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: Pat Ogmundson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for DS3 Tranmsit/Receive Equipment
Date: 1 Jun 89 16:33:41 GMT
Reply-To: Pat Ogmundson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada


I am interested in obtaining a piece of equipment
to tranmsit and receive DS3 (45.570 MBit/s +/- 20ppm)
signals. Schematically:

                           ________________________
        Binary (TTL?) ---->| Line Code Conversion |----> DS3 (B3ZS)
                           | and Pulse Shaping    |
                           |                      |
        Binary (TTL?) <----| Line Code Conversion |<---- DS3 (B3ZS)
                           | and Clock Recovery   |
                           ------------------------
                                        |
                                        |
        DS3 Clock <----------------------

I need this hardware to interface my binary data source/sink to
a DS3 fibre optic tranmsission system.
This is a prototype digital transmission system, and I am trying
to avoid DS3 equipment development.

Ideally I would like to obtain a PCB module, but if its a
stand-alone piece of hardware (or if a portion of a larger
piece of equipment could be made available) I  would be interested.
Pat Ogmundson             |
Microtel Pacific Research |
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby  |
B.C. Canada, V5A 4B5      |

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI fraud
Date: 2 Jun 89 04:24:07 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jonathan Alan Solomon) writes:

> Apparently there is no place within the MCI structure to resolve complaints.
> I guess they think they are perfect.

I had considered signing up for MCI's reach-out-america-type service
but was faced with not only the above, but the fact that MCI is still
analog to most of the country. After sitting on hold for 30 minutes
waiting for a salesperson, I figured that if I ever had a billing
problem I would wait even longer (since I assume they are more
interested in sales than service). I'll stay with AT&T. They are the
provider of my statewide 800 number and I am very happy with them.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 11:10:37 PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: USADirect Clone

    Saw an ad in a [military] newspaper for a USADirect clone.
It sounds like an AOS-like overseas operator.

    THE AD [abridged but without comments]:

    To call the States from Overseas and to charge the call to a
        Credit Card or Phone Company Calling Card
        or to Call Collect
        or to call Person-to-Person
        or to an 800 number
        or to directory assistance..In English..In the USA ...and in
        Dollars
        Just dial any Toll Free number below:
        (list on number in most of Europe, Australia and parts of the
        Far East)

    THE SMALL PRINT:
        Charge calls = $4.80 plus $1.35 (UK) per minute or part
                                  $1.55 (Europe)     "
                                  $1.95 (Asia)       "
        $3 surcharge for person-to-person
        800 calls are NOT toll-free and cannot be charged to Telco cards
        In several European countries there is a local charge for the
        "Toll-free" access number

The company is not named other than "A service of Credit Card Calling
Systems Inc, Suite 2411 67 Wall St, NY, NY, 10005"

MY OPINION:  It is a true test of your confidence in mankind to be
travelling overseas and give someone in "suite" in New York City
your credit card number over the phone. %-)


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

From: W W Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My Wife & a cordless phone
Date: 1 Jun 89 16:55:12 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


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

> >From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: My Wife & a cordless phone
> >
> ... (deleted stuff)...
>
> >Any tips on what to look for?  What to stay away from?  Basicaly I'm not
> >overly worried about price, I just want one that sounds good.

We bought a Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone 1700 in January '88 and have
been very pleased with it.  The batteries are user-replaceable, it has 10
user-selectable channels, user-selectable security codes, a speaker phone
on the base, you can dial from the base or the handset, and you can store
up to 10 numbers in the handset for auto-dialing.  I had a problem with
interference from a baby monitor, so I just changed to a different channel
and haven't had a problem since.  The antenna is replaceable also.  But to
avoid having to replace a broken one, just go to Radio Shack and get a
flexible antenna for about $5.  That has saved me a lot of grief.

My mom and both sisters have had lots of problems with the older ATT phones
- the 4400 series.  They give false rings, are prone to interference and
they cut out a lot.  Avoid them at all costs.

Wayne Scott

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Statewide Uniformity
Date: 1 Jun 89 19:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: John W. Bridges & Associates, Inc., Lewisville, Tx.


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

- X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 182, message 3 of 7

- (Did 817 get the same dialing requirements as 214 did when the latter got
- N0X/N1X?)

    Yes.  Since Fort Worth is in 817, and Dallas is in 214, and
there is a large base of Metro telephone numbers in Dallas/Ft. Worth.
Perhaps I should say that Ft. Worth got the same dialing requirements
as Dallas  ( and I should know, an old girlfriend lives in Ft Worth,
and I have a Dallas area Metro number, and we have to use 10 digit
dialing )

    As for statewide uniformity, I don't think that is currently in
place in Texas, except the regions around Dallas/Ft. Worth, and
Houston, and remember that Texas (currently) has seven (7) NPA's  (
which seven is left as an exercise to the reader :-)


--
Eric Schnoebelen,            JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
[e-mail]                ...!killer!u-word!egs
    Real Programmers:   Real Programmers have trouble suppressing
        homicidal tendencies when asked, "Are you sure?"

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

From: William Mihalo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service
Date: 1 Jun 89 21:35:44 GMT
Reply-To: William Mihalo <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix


The number to call for Telecom USA is 1 800-476-9000

They have a $10 installation fee and a $2.75 monthly fee. The rates
that were quoted over the phone were $0.29/minute 8 AM to 5 PM and
$0.21/minute all other times.

BTW, when I called Telecom USA I could barely hear the person at the
other end. It was a very poor connection. I don't know if they are using
their own 800 numbers for business purposes. I just thought I'd mention
this.

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service
Date: 2 Jun 89 03:59:16 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, CER2520%ritvax.bitnet@
eecs.nwu.edu (C. E. Reid) writes:
> [Information about Atlantic Bell offering residential 800 service]
>            Much like the toll-free services commonly used by businesses, the
> Personal Hotline accepts incoming calls only, at no charge to the caller.  To
> call a residential 800 line, callers dial 1-800 plus the regular seven digits
> of the number.

So I have had a statewide 800 number in my home for my personal use for
years. It's tied in with my Commstar II (residential centrex) so that I
can answer it from any line in my home. My question is this: What makes
residential 800 service different from business 800 service? My
"business" 800 service couldn't be much cheaper, and I had no trouble
at all associating it with my residential service.

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

Subject: Area code data for Autovon number
From: [e-mail]
Date: 01 Jun 89 11:07:30 EDT

/* Written  2:20 am  May 27, 1989 by [e-mail] in S41:comp.dcom.telecom */
/* ---------- ""area code" data for Autovon number" ---------- */
>I'd like to mash a copy of the area code program to return locations
>for Autovon prefixes (and vice-versa).  Does anyone have an online
>copy of Autovon prefixes+locations I could grab for this purpose?

>--Frank
/* End of text from S41:comp.dcom.telecom */

I'd like to point out here to anyone who might be listening in on this is that
what Frank wants to do is Not Especially Legal, at least according to what I
know about DSN (Defense Switched Network).

DSN is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.  So are its phone books.  That means that the
information contained therein is for use only by DoD employees (civilian
and military) and contractors, and for business only.  That we give out DSN
phone numbers in clear text over the phone is not relevant here.  Please,
Frank, cease and desist.  For anyone to want that information is a bit
suspect, and sets of a flag with <insert favorite agency here>.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Stern                    "Keep your feet on the ground, keep reaching for
Prime Computer, Inc.            the sky, pray for rain, keep the humor dry and
500 Old Connecticut Path        keep eating those Powdermilk Biscuits"
Framingham, MA 01701
[e-mail]

/*  I do not claim to even KNOW who speaks for Prime, much less claiming that
     I do so myself. */

[Moderator's Note: As a point of clarification, the original message to
which Mr. Stern is replying was NOT in this Digest. The notations with the
message would indicate it appeared in (or was written to) one of the various
local telecom bulletin boards receiving the Digest for redistribution. PT]
------------------------------

From: "thomas.j.roberts" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 710
Date: 1 Jun 89 19:14:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
edu (TELECOM Moderator):
> According to Harry Newton, in the June, 1989 issue of [Teleconnect Magazine],
> 'area code' 710 is now assigned to Government Services.
>
Area Code 710 is used for "Special" government services, NOT FTS, FTS-2000,
or AUTOVON. It is wierd.

Tom Roberts
att!ihnet!tjr

[Moderator's Note: So, can you please explain what are 'Special' government
services? What would happen if I dialed one of those numbers? How are they
accessed from government phones?  Details, please....spare no details!
Anybody??  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #184
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 3 Jun 89 2:05:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #185
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Jun 89 01:47:39 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    4-Party Lines vs. ESS (Daniel Senie)
    NPA-NXX databases (Wayne Hamilton)
    Re: Cellular Rates (John R. Covert)
    Re: How much do cellular phones cost to use? (Gary W. Sanders)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Daniel Senie)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Kevin L. Blatter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: 4-Party Lines vs. ESS
Date: 1 Jun 89 14:35:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


My dad has a summer cottage in western Mass. which currently is on a 4-party
line. I have been looking in to the pricing alternatives for him for switching
to single party service, since a Rabbi and his wife are also on the same line
and talk for 3 or 4 hours at a time. NET charges about $3.50 per month for the
service, which we can't complain about... My dad is willing to pay the
extra $4.26 per month for private service, but does not want to pay $32 for
the privilege of conversion.

One interesting thing came up in the conversation I had with NET. The CO is
supposed to become an ESS (probably a satellite off a 5ESS) in 1992. During
the year prior to the conversion, the 4 party lines are eliminated by
offerring 2-party lines, single party timed, or single party unlimited
service. It seems there  is no way to support 4-party service on an ESS. I
was surprised that a 2-party service would work. (With party lines it is
required by law that you be able to hear the other party talking when you
pick up the phone -- so that you can tell them to get off in an emergency).
During the conversion period, NET will do the conversion free.

I'm somewhat surprised that they don't just do it for free now if desired.
The party line service is responsible for at least 5 service calls a year of
the variety where they need to come out on a Sunday (all summer cottages).
The best service call was to CUT the line to one of the other houses when
they plugged in an answering machine... All long distance calls are operator
assisted, since it is not possible to determine which house is originating
calls.

Thought people on the net would be amused by the archaic equipment we deal
with in the little forgotten towns...

--
Daniel Senie               UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts
Stratus Computer, Inc.     ARPA: anvil!cloud9![e-mail]
55 Fairbanks Blvd.         CSRV: 74176,1347
Marlboro, MA 01752       TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 89 19:10:14 -0500
From: Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA-NXX databases

I found a file on a BBS, containing a program and data files to
provide a NPA-NXX to zipcode cross-reference.  I quote here from
the README file that accompanied the package:
=======================
(start of quoted section)

                         ZIP-PHONE
                        Version 1.2
                 Copyright (c) 1986, AT&T
                       Not for Resale

 ZIPPHONE was created to provide cross-references between
 ZIPCODES and NPA-NXXs.  It is not meant to fufill all possible uses
 of the information. However, ZIPPHONE can create data files that
 may be used as input to other programs that would be able to address
 a specific need.

 Because of the amount of information, the ZIPPHONE hase been split
 onto two disks that cover the continental United States
 (48 states and the District of Columbia):

            Disk 1 contains: Eastern and Central States
                             ME,VT,NH,MA,NY,PA,NJ,RI,CT,LA,
                             WV,VA,NC,SC,GA,FL,AL,MI,WI,IA
                             AR,MO,IL,TN,KY,OH,IN,MI,MN,DC,
                             DE,MD

            Disk 2 contains: Western and some Central States
                             WA,OR,CA,NV,ID,MT,WY,CO,NM,TX
                             AZ,ND,SD,NE,KS,OK

 To execute ZIPPHONE from the A: floppy disk drive, type the following:
            A:  <cr>
            ZIPPHONE  <cr>
 Then select the item desired from the displayed menu.

 For your convenience, ZIPPHONE is not copy-protected.  You may
 make backup copies or copy it onto your hard-disk.

 ZIPPHONE is composed of the following files:
            ZIPPHONE.EXE
            ZIPSTATE.DAT
            NPAxxx.ZIP   (where xxx is an NPA)

 -----------------------> For Programmers <------------------------

      The ZIPPHONE data files that contain the NPA-NXX to Zipcode
 translations (npaxxx.zip) are in Binary Coded Decimal (BCD).
 Consequently, other programs cannot directly access the information
 contained therein, unless the program uses a programming language
 such as C Language which provides bit manipulation facilities.
 The BCD format produces a 70% disk space reduction over the
 ZIPPHONE format in Option 10, and the format also decreases execution
 time by reducing disk I/O.

 The information in the NPA BCD file is sorted by NXX and ZIPCODE.
 The general format is:
         NXX
         First digit of the valid zipcodes for the NPA
         Number of Zipcodes for the NXX
         List of the Last 4-digits of the Zipcodes for the NXX

 Specifically, for each NXX in the NPA BCD file, the format is:
       bits 4-7 of byte 1 = 1st digit of NXX
       bits 0-3 of byte 1 = 2nd digit of NXX
       bits 4-7 of byte 2 = 3rd digit of NXX
       bits 0-3 of byte 2 = 1st digit of Zipcodes for this NPA
       bits 4-7 of byte 3 = tens digit of no. of Zipcodes for this NXX
       bits 0-3 of byte 3 = ones digit of no. of Zipcodes for this NXX

       For each ZIPCODE for the NXX, the format is:
          bits 4-7 of byte x = 2nd digit of a Zipcode for this NXX
          bits 0-3 of byte x = 3rd digit of a Zipcode for this NXX
          bits 4-7 of byte x+1 = 4th digit of a Zipcode for this NXX
          bits 0-3 of byte x+1 = 5th digit of a Zipcode for this NXX
       where 'x' starts at byte 4 is increased by 2 for each Zipcode
       for the NXX.

(end of quoted section)
======================
My first question: is this a proprietary product that should not have
been available for download?  Or is it something that AT&T gives away,
like those little pocket phone directories?

Then my second question: where can I legitimately obtain more
up-to-date data of this sort?  I have heard about the V&H tapes; I
gather that they contain city names and location coordinates for all
NPA-NXX's.  I would like to have that kind of data to play with.  I
have the impression that the tapes themselves are rather expensive.
Since I don't require the most recent edition for my casual personal
use, would it be feasible to get it "second-hand" somewhere?  I'm a
programmer, so I'd be more interested in having raw data to build my
own applications than in buying a commercially avaliable software/data
package.  Some of the things I'd like to do with this data are: plot
maps of phone numbers, check that phone numbers match addresses,
estimate long-distance charges, and the like.

    wayne hamilton
    U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL
UUCP:    {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton
ARPA:    [e-mail]    USMail:    Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801
CSNET:    [e-mail]    Phone:    [phone]

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jun 89 08:51
Subject: RE: Cellular Rates

Steve Elias ([e-mail]) asks:

>could any cellular phone users out there tell me how expensive it is
>to use a cellular phone?  what are the different minimum rates, charges
>per call, local calling areas??

This is a complicated question -- there are over four hundred different sets
of rates depending on location, and they vary drastically, from incredibly
low rates such as Washington, D.C., with a $10/month off-peak rate INCLUDING
100 minutes of off-peak usage to very high rates such as in L.A. with $45/month
and no minutes included.

Since you're in Boston, you would probably take service from NYNEX Mobile or
Cellular One (Southwestern Bell).

NYNEX rates are: (monthly - peak minutes - off-peak minutes)
A: $19 .45 .30
B: $45 .35 .30
C: $ 5 .65 .65
D: $9.95 .60 .25 (best plan for non-business users)
E: $44 .45 .30 includes 60 minutes peak

On outgoing calls, in addition to air time, you pay the same rates a business
telephone user would pay.  For local calls, this means that you pay for a local
call from one of: Boston, Providence (RI), Worcester, New Bedford, Framingham,
Brockton, Lynn, Lowell, or Lawrence regardless of where you are in the three
state area (Eastern Mass, Rhode Island, Coastal New Hampshire).  Local calls
are charged in message units of .111 cents each, and for calls to places local
to multi-message unit towns, such as Burlington (charged from Boston) you'll
pay .333 cents for the first three minutes and .111 each additional minute
(same as from a Boston phone).  For non-local, intra-LATA calls, you'll pay
the toll charge from the closest points.  Since I have a Boston number, I don't
know whether all inter-LATA toll is charged from Boston or if it is charged
from the zone office (one of the nine above) which corresponds to your mobile
number.

When you're roaming in the Nashua/Manchester (Contel) system, the Biddeford, ME
(Star Cellular) system, or the Portland, ME (Maine Cellular) systems, you'll
pay .45/minute regardless of time of day.  Note that you are _not_ roaming in
Southern Massachusetts if you're a NYNEX customer; it is one continuous system.

NYNEX has nationwide roaming agreements with mostly B but many A carriers,
allowing you to choose the lowest rate and best service in many other cities.
In particular, in New England and the Northeast, you are less likely to be hit
with daily usage fees when roaming if you're a NYNEX customer.  You'll also
have roaming agreements with companies in San Francisco and Los Angeles, which
Cellular One does not currently have.

Cellular One rates are:
$19 .44 .29
$44 .43 .28 w/ 60
$59 .42 .27 w/ 100 after 300 mins .35 .27

The points of interconnection for Cellular One are:
Lynn, Lawrence, Waltham, Framingham, Worcester, Quincy, and Brockton

When roaming on the A carriers in Nashua/Manchester, Biddeford, ME, Portland,
ME, New Bedford, MA, and Providence, RI, you pay .44 and .29.

When roaming outside this area, you will have roaming agreements with mostly
A and some B carriers.  You will be more likely to encounter daily fees,
especially in the Northeast.

Please realize that charging algorithms vary drastically from company to
company and from city to city.  For example, Contel in Nashua/Manchester does
not charge a local call or toll call charge for anywhere in either their system
or in the NYNEX system, even when roaming (or so I'm told by their customer
service department).  U.S. West in the Seattle area charges you for outgoing
calls based on where you are and where you're calling within the area.  Rates
are changing faster than anyone can keep up with them (mostly going upward as
fast as the market will bear).

/john

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

From: "Gary W. Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How much do cellular phones cost to use?
Date: 2 Jun 89 12:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: "Gary W. Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> chipcom.chipcom.com!
[e-mail] writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 184, message 2 of 11

>could any cellular phone users out there tell me how expensive it is
>to use a cellular phone?  what are the different minimum rates, charges
>per call, local calling areas??  (as you can tell, i have no concept

    Cellular phone prices vary with location. Around here, Columbus,Ohio
you can get cellular phone service for $15.00 a month, plus .35 min peak
(8am-7pm) and .25 min off peak. Phone cost also varies. There are several
local stores selling 3watt cellular phone for $50, but you must commit to 1
year phone contract with the local cel company. Most phones run $200+
depending on the gizmos and gagets you get.

--
Gary Sanders (N8EMR) gws@cbnews (w) gws@n8emr (h)
614-860-5965 (353-5965 cornet)

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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Date: 1 Jun 89 14:55:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, ginosko!duane@oddjob.
uucp (Andrew Duane) writes:

> PROBLEM: the 2 AT&T phones suddenly and simulatenously lost their
>         ability to dial. They work fine for incoming calls,

The problem is most likely due to the reversal of the pair. To check this,
open one of the ATT phones and exchange the red and gree wires where they
enter the phone and are first attached. ATT made the phones sensitive to the
polarity of the phones once-upon-a-time. This allowed the RBOC to flip over
the line to keep people who did not order Touch-Tone from using it. Of course
the breakup changed all of that... If your friend does not pay for TT service
(and nobody should have to...) then just reverse the pairs.

Most other telephone manufacturers put a diode bridge in the telephones so that
polarity didn't matter. The ONLY negative impact that I have found is that
telephones with the diodes require modification to work on party lines.

--
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: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Date: 2 Jun 89 13:13:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


> PROBLEM: the 2 AT&T phones suddenly and simulatenously lost their
>         ability to dial. They work fine for incoming calls,
>         get dial tone, etc. Both other phones (and a spare
>         IT&T from the car) worked fine the whole time.
>         When you pushed a button, the dial tone went away
>         while the button was down.

Since the AT&T phones are leased, return the phones and get new ones
(I think at no cost).  Since DTMF signals are generated by the phone
set, the problem definitely sounds like it is the phones themselves.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs



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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #185
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 5 Jun 89 23:38:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #186
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Jun 89 23:12:40 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 186

Today Topics:                              Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Clarification on 617-244 - Newton, MA (Jon Solomon)
    Correction of a previous address (Carl Moore)
    The High Cost of Teleco Features (Michael Krause)
    Network market research information (Gary Knight)
    Re: MCI fraud (Ted Ede)
    Re: My Wife and a Cordless Phone (Bruce Carlson)
    Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service (Kevin L. Blatter)
    Re: Area code data for Autovon Number (Bruce Carlson)
    Re: Call-Waiting (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    The Term "Touchtone" -- No Longer Protected? (Dr. T. Andrews)

[Moderator's Note: I extend a special greeting to the several new BITNET
and FIDONET subscribers to the digest in recent days. Please feel free to
send your submissions to share with the list.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1989 13:47:07 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clarification on 617-244  - Newton, MA

BTW: 617-244 (Newton Mass) is a DMS switch (probably a 200 or a 1000).
There is ESS (#1) presence from Watertown (a nearby town), but it is not
actually for the use of the General Newton population (yet?).


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

Date:     Sat, 3 Jun 89 0:46:35 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Correction of previous address

This apparently was in a recent telecom digest:

Center for Telecommunications Management, UCLA
School of Business Administration
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0871
213-743-0304

90089 zipcode and 213-743 phone prefix seem to indicate
USC, not UCLA.

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

Date: 2 Jun 89 08:17:34 PDT (Friday)
Subject: The High Cost of Telco Features
From: [e-mail]

I'm getting nauseous hearing about all of these phone services being talked
about on this dl.  You people toss references to the services around like
they're free or something.  (Sarcasm mode has been on since the begining of
this msg, no hook-up charge involved).  In Wayne County, NY New York Tel
will let us, those of us who already pay over $35 just for the grand
pleasure of using the noisey, intermittant pulse only services of a private
line, will let us pay an additional $2.21 per month to be able to dial our
phones with TONES!!  And if we sign up for these services before July 21 we
won't be charged the $9.20 hook-up charge!!  We can also enjoy the
furturistic features of call waiting, call blocking, speed dialing (max of
8 numbers) and who knows what all else as a package deal.  Buy now to avoid
the $15.50 hook-up charge and you can then begin to pay $13+ per month.
Sorry, you missed the deadline, Sarcasm Mode turned off.
Is NYT for real, do real people in the rest of the world get charged rates
like this?  It's not like NYT has to get out of their chair or anything to
enable these services, is it?  I thought it was bad when I paid a base rate
of just over $30 to get a lousy connection that might let me carry on a
short 300 bps modem conversation to my office just 30 miles away, long
distance at that.  Do I really want to pay almost $50 per month to utilize
the telephonic state of the art?

Mike Krause
Xerox Corporation

The remarks above are my own and do not reflect the opinions of any other
irrational human being.

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

From: Gary Knight <[e-mail]>
Subject: Network market research information
Date: 2 Jun 89 15:59:32 GMT
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX


I'm looking for market research data for every aspect of large-scale
distributed networks.  Specifically, I need numbers on size, dollar value,
etc., for any and all component technologies for such networks, looking at a
5-10 year time frame.  If you know any company, individual, or other source
who might provide this kind of information, or that might lead me to same, I'd
appreciate your passing the info along.  Thanks,

--
Gary Knight                              Technology Analyst
MCC/Int'l Liaison Office                       [e-mail]
3500 W. Balcones Ctr. Dr.                  fax [phone]
Austin TX 78759-6509                     phone [phone]

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

Subject: Re: MCI fraud
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 89 17:25:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> jsol writes:

[about the difficulties of disconnecting an MCI 800 line]

>Can anyone out in TELECOM land help with this? When I dial the MCI main number
>and ask to talk to *anyone* I always get their MCI VOICEMAIL mailbox, or some
>secretary. They NEVER let you talk to anyone.  I need a *good* lawyer to deal
>with this.  Recommendations?

Try misc.legal.

Why (when you are planning on taking legal action against MCI), ...

>I signed up for MCI's competetion to reach-out-america service (don't
>know what they call it, sigh), twice. The first time they said it would be
>ready June 1st, the second time was on june 1st to ask them if it was up.
>It was not even in their computers. They took the information again and now
>I am waiting for NET to switch my carrier.

do you purchase more MCI service?  In my book, this defies logic.

>I hope MCI gets their act together soon, they have the potential to be
>an excellent asset to the international telecommunications systems.

I don't understand.  MCI can't accomplish the simple task of removing
and 800 number from service, but they have the potential to be an
asset to the international telecommunications systems.

I'm sure this is a religious issue, and I don't want to start a
flamefest, but why do people take abuse from a phone company and
remain loyal?  Switching LD companies is not like divorcing a spouse;
it's just phone company, try another one.

|Ted Ede -- [e-mail] -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road|
| linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B015 -- [phone] |
|                   - this line intentionally left blank -                  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+


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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Carlson)
Subject: Re: My Wife & a cordless phone
Date: 1 Jun 89 19:32:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bruce Carlson)

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

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 170, message 6 of 9
>With all the PhoneMate blasting going on I guess asking for digest readers
>help in selecting a cordless phone is appropriate.
>My wife has wanted a cordless phone for months now and I keep putting it off
>because I never met a cordless phone I liked.  I have "sorta" been looking for
>one but havn't found one I loved.
>The newer AT&T phones seem to sound the best assuming you pick a channel that
>one of your neighbors is not using.  There is a Sony that looks nice too (it
>automaticly scans for the cleanest channel).
>Any tips on what to look for?  What to stay away from?  Basicaly I'm not
>overly worried about price, I just want one that sounds good.

I bought an AT&T 5300 about 3 months ago and have been very pleased with it.
The 5200 is very similar, but doesn't have the intercom feature and the
5310 adds a memory dialer and extra phone cradle to the 5300 features.

At the local phone center I also saw a new 40xx series phone that has the
looks (and supposedly the voice quality) of the 5xxx, but its cheaper.
However, I can find the 5xxx models at a lot of stores and the new 40xx was
only in the phone center, at straight list price.
They also had the 5200 at a lease to buy price of about $20 a month for
6 months, but didn't offer several of the better models under the lease to
buy program.

My 5300 has very good voice quality and so far has been very durable.  I
dropped it twice on a ceramic tile floor and managed to break the antenna, but
the shell and the electronics survived without any problems.
The 5300 has a poor design for wall mounting because the line cord and AC cord
end up on top and you have to route them down and around the phone base.
The phone base needs its own wall mount (included) because it won't
fit on a standard Bell wall mount (is this too much to expect?).
The handset also doesn't catch very well in the cradle when wall mounted,
which is why I have dropped mine twice while hanging it up.

Based on quality I would buy another AT&T phone, but they could use a little
more work on ergonomics and general design features.

Bruce Carlson


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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service
Date: 2 Jun 89 19:13:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(William Mihalo) writes:
> The number to call for Telecom USA is 1 800-476-9000

> BTW, when I called Telecom USA I could barely hear the person at the
> other end. It was a very poor connection. I don't know if they are using
> their own 800 numbers for business purposes.

According to the TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes dated
Jan 19, 1989 800-476 is "owned" (if that's the proper term) by Teleconnect.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs


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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Carlson)
Subject: Re: Area code data for Autovon number
Date: 2 Jun 89 19:33:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bruce Carlson)
Organization: The Mitre Corporation

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 184, message 10 of 11

>/* Written  2:20 am  May 27, 1989 by [e-mail] in S41:
comp.dcom.telecom */
>/* ---------- ""area code" data for Autovon number" ---------- */
>>I'd like to mash a copy of the area code program to return locations
>>for Autovon prefixes (and vice-versa).  Does anyone have an online
>>copy of Autovon prefixes+locations I could grab for this purpose?

>>--Frank
>/* End of text from S41:comp.dcom.telecom */

I have a copy of the Department of Defense Telepone Directory for the
National Capital Region [Washington, DC for the nonmilitary types].
This directory provides the numbers for all DoD offices in Washington, DC
and also includes the AUTOVON prefixes and information numbers for almost
all DoD installations.  There is a statement on page one
that says this directory is "For sale by the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402".

If they will sell you a copy I assume it is legal to do so and it should
solve your problem with determining location of AUTOVON numbers.

Bruce Carlson
MITRE Corp

Disclaimer:  My comments do not necessarily reflect the views of MITRE
Corp or any government agency MITRE supports.

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

Date: 2-JUN-1989 19:22:05.26
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: Call-Waiting

Not to spoil that amusing article a few Telecoms back about the
loud "clicks" you hear on old ESS Call-Waiting, but...

I've noticed that on newer exchanges, mainly DMS-100 (-200?) and 5ESS
niether party hears a click.

The called party hears only a beep, while the person talking to the
called party hears nothing. Only if the person who gets the Call
Wait is talking or if there is a lot of noise in the background
will you hear a small gap of silence while he receives the Call-Wait
tone.

This is pretty nice, but it also means that you can't tell if the
person who is Call-Waiting you has hung up or not (ie, you don't
answer the Call-Wait.) On the an older ESS, you would hear a final
"click" after the person calling you would hang up. On a DMS (and
I presume 5ESS, although I never tried it), you only hear the
two Call-Wait tones, and that's it. The person Call-Waiting you
could stay on the line and keep ringing for hours, and as long
as you were still talking, you'd never know, and may miss
other Call-Waits. (Silly, but it can happen...)

(DMS's do other weird things, like not let you make a 3-way call
until you connect to your other party, even if it's long distance.
Most older ESS's only do this locally (or only to 'tandem' exchanges?)
so if you call someone in Toronto (assuming you don't live there) and
he is busy, you can 3-way that call with someone else. (Again, silly,
but you may want to for some reason...) On a DMS, it *knows* you
didn't complete the call, and won't give you the three-way tone,
and will just drop the Toronto/busy call and give you a dial
tone. I guess it all depends on how much info the switch is given...
If has a way to test for call completion, I guess it uses that
info when processing 3-way calls... )

Anyhow, have fun with Call-Waiting!

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals! :-)  )
(I hear the local count reading these is up to 3!!! wow!)

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

Subject: The Term "Touchtone" -- No Longer Protected?
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 89 17:48:32 EDT
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>

At one time, the term "touchtone" (wiht possible capitalization) was
protected as a trademark by The Phone Co.  Has TPC given up the
rights to the name?  I have close at hand an advert from a candy
seller offering cheap "touchtone" phones marked with the name of the
candy.

There is no trademark ACK in the fine print, either.  If the term is
no longer protected, then I should be interested to know.  No one
knows what I mean when I say "DTMF".

Repies via e-mail; I'll post a summary unless there is a moderator
note with this message indicating that I shall e-mail results to
interested parties.  Thanks.

                    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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #186
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 6 Jun 89 1:01:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #187
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Jun 89 00:39:41 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular phones in Beijing? (Will Martin)
    New area code (John Higdon)
    Maine fiber optics plan approved (Brendan Kehoe)
    Help on Prestel protocol (Hariram Ramachandran)
    Saturday business with the Business Office (John Higdon)
    Sci.commtech: Call For Votes on News.groups (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Info please... (Mike Morris)
    Re: How Much Do Cellular Phones Cost To Use? (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Re: Cellular Phone and E911 (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Re: NPA - NXX databases (Lang Zerner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 5 Jun 89 13:54:42 CDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cellular phones in Beijing?

A telecom-related point came up in the news coverage of the recent troubles in
Beijing over this past weekend. When describing and playing back the tape of
the incident where the troops took the CBS correspondents into custody during
the clearing of the square, Dan Rather referred to the audio feed as
coming from "a cellular telephone" on at least two separate newscasts.

This sort of surprised me. Does Beijing have cellular telephone service?
I would have expected them to have some form of mobile telephones, but
maybe only for official government use, not available to foreign
correspondents or even ordinary citizens. I certainly may be wrong in
that supposition, though. Having cellular phone service readily
available just doesn't seem to me to be that likely. Also, that it was
still working during that period is surprising; I would have thought the
telephone service would have been shut down by the Army.

Just how worldwide IS cellular telephone service implemented? I didn't
think it even was available all over Europe yet. Where in the Third
World can one use a cellular phone, and are all the systems
interchangeable and compatible?

Or would what the CBS correspondents had been using have been some
system that they took with them and installed themselves to support
their newsgathering activities? I recall seeing a military-oriented
portable cellular system advertised in one of the magazines, maybe
Defense Electronics. Are such things available for private purchase?
(I would think the red tape and paperwork involved in getting official
approval for bringing such a system into a foreign country, especially
a Communist country, would be monumental and prohibitive.)

Maybe all this technology has run on far faster than I realized, and it
is not unusual to have a cellular phone in Nairobi or Quito. Any
comments on this situation?

Regards, Will Martin

PS: I have gotten some messages from people asking about getting access
to the "Dave-Barry" mailing list, because I mentioned that when
forwarding his piece on call waiting. Unfortunately, "reply" has
generated some failed mail and I can't get back to those people. So, if
you sent me a message and didn't get any answer, it isn't because I
didn't try! Send mail to "[e-mail]" to be added to that
list. -WM)

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: new area code
Date: 6 Jun 89 01:56:01 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


Heard it on the Channel 7 news: the new area code for the east bay
(east side of 415) will be 510. Must be true. Puts to bed all those
speculations about it being 9XN something or other.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Maine fiber optics plan approved
Date: 3 Jun 89 00:54:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Jolnet Public Access Unix


 This is from the Kennebec Journal, the newspaper that serves the Augusta, ME
area..

 AUGUSTA(AP) -- A state plan to permit telecommunications companies to lay
fiber optic cable within interstate highway rights-of-way has been approved
by the Federal Highway Administration, Gov. John R. McKernan's office
announced Thursday.
 Maine is the first state to obtain the federal approval, the governor's
office said.
 Officials said the plan is designed to ensure motorist safety while promoting
the modernization of the state's telecommunications network.
 McKernan, in a prepared statement, said that "in today's economy, the ability
to 'move' information is becoming as important as the ability to transport
commodities. It is appropriate that our highways of the future should lay
alongside our highways of the present."

--
Brendan Kehoe
[e-mail]    | GEnie: B.KEHOE  | Oh no! I forgot to say goodbye
[e-mail]  | CI$: 71750,2501 |  to my mind!
[e-mail] | Galaxy: Brendan |                - Abby Normal

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

From: Hariram RAMACHANDRAN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help on Prestel protocol
Date: 4 Jun 89 09:21:33 GMT
Organization: HP Computational Products Singapore


Prestel Viewdata Protocol
-------------------------

Does anyone have information on the BT Prestel format? I have an
application that requires a PC to communicate to a vewdata terminal
(thru a modem/phone connection).  There seems to be a plethora of
information on broadcast videotex, but I can't seem to track down
the basic data format.  Any help will be most appreciated.
Thanks.



Hari Ramachandran
APCD R&D
Hewlett Packard Singapore
hari@hpsgrt1



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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Saturday business with the Business Office
Date: 3 Jun 89 18:52:20 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


Last Thursday I placed a residential order with Pac*Bell and was given
a Monday due date (my tenth line). She said if I had any questions to
give her a call *even on Saturday*. So today I tried it out. The
business office is really open!

Do you suppose they are following the banks' example? Imagine, the
phone company open on Saturday! Never thought I'd see it.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell Business Offices have been open on Saturday
for about a year now. Of course, there is but one walk-in business office
these days, at the downtown HQ building. But the telephone reps are available
on Saturday. And AT&T reps are available 24 hours per day, as are Sprint
and MCI reps.  PT]
------------------------------

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: sci.commtech: Call 4 votes on news.groups
Date: 5 Jun 89 03:19:12 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


Please see news.groups for the sci.commtech call for votes.

Thanks.

--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818

[Moderator's Note: All comp.dcom.telcom readers are invited, and urged to
vote regarding the creation of this news group. I recommend a vote of
yes. PT]
------------------------------

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info please...
Date: 4 Jun 89 01:24:43 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


I hear that in a few years, we'll be able to know the number of the
calling party before we pick up the phone.  How exactly will that work?

Will it be a squirt of modem tones between rings?
Or will it be when ISDN ("Innovations Subscribers Don't Need") comes
into the house, requiring me to junk the 1A2 system inthe basement (and
all the stuff I've got wired into it, like 4 amateur radio base stations,
intercom to all 9 rooms, plus 4 outside talkback speakers, and much more).

Can any body elaborate on what the plans are for the local loop?
I'm not asking for anybody to spill any beans on stuff not already announced,
just to let us know what to expect in the next few years.

Lastly, can anybody explain why the local BOC is charging MONTHLY for
a number assignment?   Background:  Several years ago I had 818-445-6453
as a second line in my parents house.  After about a year, I lost my job,
and to cut expenses had the number disconnected.  Several years later,
I inherited my parents house, and the number that we'd had since 1965.
When I moved in, I decide to put a 2nd number in the house for the computer
and the modem.  When I tried to get my old number back, I was told it was
available, but it would be an extra charge PER MONTH.  Knowing computer
systems, I know that assigning a specific phone number is no more work than
assigning a random one, but still I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 or so,
when placing the order.  BUT NOT EVERY MONTH!

   CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN?    Or is it just seen as another cash cow to be milked?

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

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

Date: Sun Jun  4 10:20:22 1989
From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How much do cellular phones cost to use?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jun 89 17:20:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Organization?  You've got to be kidding!
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> chipcom.chipcom.com!eli
writes:
| could any cellular phone users out there tell me how expensive it is
| to use a cellular phone?  what are the different minimum rates, charges
| per call, local calling areas??  (as you can tell, i have no concept
| of the cost of using cellular phones -- the phone prices have gotten
| low enough to attract my attention, though!)

Smirk.  Up here in the Pacific NorthWest, GTE Mobilnet sells me phone
service at the following rates:

$0.31/minute prime (7am-7pm weekdays)
$0.13/minute non-prime (all others)
$0.07/minute forwarded

and I only pay for actual connected time.

I hear the boys in that sunny state to the south don't have it quite
as cheaply or easily.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
quality software, documentation, and training at affordable rates
<[e-mail]>  ...!uunet!agora.hf.intel.com!merlyn


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

Date: Sun Jun  4 10:16:22 1989
From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & E911
Organization: Organization?  You've got to be kidding!

In article <[e-mail]> westmark![e-mail]
(Dave Levenson) writes:

| The mobile number is probably less useful than the approximate
| current location of a mobile telephone.  If I see an emergency
| situation while driving, I'd like to be able to report it to the
| local authorities, not the PSAP who handles the home address
| associated with the mobile number (which may be hudreds of miles
| away!)

I differ.  I have called 911 roughly once a week since I received my
cell phone.  I have learned that all calls go to the Portland 911
office, no matter where I am, so it is a simple matter to ask for the
appropriate agency (State Police, XXXX County Sheriff, etc.).  If the
Portland 911 office doesn't handle dispatch for that agency, they just
push a button.

Now, they've always asked for my phone number, so I presume my number
is not showing on their boards.  (I know they can get the phone number
of a call from a landline phone, because they call people back, and the
local 911 operators did some stupid things with that info...).  Just
two days ago, I called to report a deer on the road (yes, this is Rural
America :-), and gave them a bad vector.  The 911 operator called me
back to resolve the inconsistant information.  But, suppose it had been
an emergency, and I didn't have time to give them the number, and then
got one of the infamous "cutoffs" that happen only when you don't want
them to. Yeah, I'd much rather have them have the cell phone number
than the cell antenna number.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
quality software, documentation, and training at affordable rates
<[e-mail]>  ...!uunet!agora.hf.intel.com!merlyn


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

Date: Sun Jun  4 11:40:41 1989
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA-NXX databases
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA

There is a New Jersey, USA number (probably at Bell Labs) which reads area
codes from your touchtone pads, then uses a DECtalk speech synthesizer to speak
the name of the city as it appears in their database.  This seems to be the
database that AT&T uses in itemizing its long-distance calling charges.

The reader is pretty smart, but has problems in cases where vowels are removed
from the city name because it would otherwise be too long.  Then it just reads
the letters in the name.  Also, it tries to read out as words the two-letter
postal codes for state names.  So you get interesting results with something
like SNCRLS-BLMNT, CA (which is close to the text representation of San
Carlos/Belmont NPA-NXXs).  Still, the system is fast and correct.

I don't have the number handy, but I will be happy to look it up for you if you
*MAIL* a request (remember to try the addresses below if you get a bounce, or
call me at 415/327-9232).

--
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
ARPA:[e-mail]  MX:[e-mail]  UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"



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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #187
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 7 Jun 89 0:09:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #188
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Jun 89 00:01:42 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular around the world (John R. Covert)
    Access Code for Mercury (UK) (Kevin Hopkins)
    Number of devices on 1 line? (David Milun)
    Touch Tone Question (Robert M. Hamer)
    International Country Codes Required (Kevin Hopkins)
    Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's (Mike Morris)
    Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service (Brian Jay Gould)
    Re: sci.commtech: Call 4 votes on news.groups (Chip Rosenthal)

[Moderator's Note: My greetings to nswc.navy.mil, a new local distributor of
the Digest, effective with this issue; also to the several new Bitnet sites
which have begun receiving the Digest in the past few days!  In this issue of
the Digest, John Covert responds to yesterday's question 'Cellular in Beijing?'
with a complete list of cellular services around the world. And Usenet gateway
coordinator Chip Rosenthal urges a NO vote in the sci.commtech vote now going
on. Enjoy this issue!  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 89 19:10
Subject: Cellular around the world

>Does Beijing have cellular telephone service?

Most certainly.  And not just available to the government -- it really is there
for the use of the foreign business community.  Beijing was really trying very
hard to be a modern city.  I agree that it is amazing that the phone service
was not shut off, but it's equally amazing that essentially all international
long distance service is still working normally.

>Just how worldwide IS cellular telephone service implemented? I didn't
>think it even was available all over Europe yet.

We Americans tend to think we've got the best of everything, but we're often
wrong.  Cellular phones are much more common in some European countries (Sweden
in particular) than here.  And in many cases the systems are much more fully
developed and quite sophisticated.  The NMT-900 system operating in the Nordic
countries works automatically in all four countries.  Even for incoming calls,
with no nonsense with "roamer ports."  Germany's C-Netz (which I used during a
recent trip) operates almost all over the country, even in some fairly rural
areas.  No matter where I was in Germany, I could be called from all over the
world on the same number.  Incoming calls were at no cost to me.  The system
in the U.K., which uses the same hardware as the U.S. system, but different
software in the phones, is likewise a nationwide integrated system.

In the 1990s, Europe is supposed to introduce a new pan-Europe system which
will work no matter where you are in Europe.  Cellular users in the U.S. can
hope that our regulators will get their heads out of the sand and allow our
systems to connect together by then.  (We just got Follow-Me-Roaming here in
Boston, and I refuse to use it, because NYNEX Mobile has decided to charge
local airtime in addition to the long distance call and roamer airtime.
Fortunately, I have a computer at home that can transfer callers to the roamer
port.)

The following table lists countries with cellular systems.  The protocol used
in the U.S. is "AMPS."  Theoretically, a U.S. cellular user would be able to
use his phone in any of those countries.  In fact, local regulations often do
not permit you to even bring your own phone into many countries.

I do know that American visitors can sign up to use their own phones in the
following countries:  Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong,
Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Zaire.

American Samoa        AMPS        American Samoa Government (PTT)
Argentina        AMPS        Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM)
Australia        AMPS        Telecom Australia (PTT)
Austria            NMT-450        PTV
Bahamas            AMPS        Bahamas Telecomms Corp.
Belgium            NMT-450        PTT
Bermuda            AMPS        Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd.
Brazil            AMPS
British Virgin Islands    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
Canada            AMPS        Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B)
Cayman Islands        AMPS        Cable & Wireless
China (PRC)        TACS/NMT    PTT
Denmark            NMT-450/900    PTT
Dominican Republic    AMPS        Codetel
Finland            NMT-450/900    PTT
France            Radiocom 2000    PTT
            NMT-450
Hong Kong        AMPS & TACS    Hutchison Radio
            TACS        Hong Kong Telephone
            AMPS-type    Chinatel
Iceland            NMT-450        PTT
Indonesia        NMT        PTT
Ireland            TACS-900    PTT
Israel            AMPS        Motorola Tadiran
Italy            RTMS        SIP
Jamaica            AMPS        JTC
Japan            NAMTS        NTT & others
Kenya            AMPS        Kenya PTC
Kuwait            NAMTS        PTT
Luxembourg        NMT-450        PTT
Malaysia        NMT-450        JTM
Mexico            AMPS        DGT
Netherlands        NMT-450        PTT
Netherlands Antilles    AMPS        East Carribean Cellular, N.V.
New Zealand        AMPS        PTT
Norway            NMT-450/900    PTT
Oman            NMT        PTT
Panama            AMPS
Philippines        AMPS        1) PLDT 2) Express
St. Kitts & Nevis    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
Saudi Arabia        NMT        PTT
Singapore        AMPS        The Telecommunications Authority
South Korea        AMPS        Korea Telecomms Authority
Spain            NMT-450        La Co. Telefonica Nacional de Espana
Sweden            NMT-450/900    PTT
Switzerland        NMT-900        PTT
Taiwan            AMPS
Thailand        AMPS        CATS
            NMT-450        TOT
Tunisia            NMT-450        PTT
Turkey            NMT-450        PTT
United Arab Emirates    TACS        PTT
United Kingdom        TACS-900    1) Cellnet 2) Vodaphone
Venezuela        AMPS        CANTV
West Germany        C-Netz        PTT
Zaire            AMPS        Telecel

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

Subject: Access Code for Mercury (UK)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 89 15:30:04 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In  the UK the  only company  allowed  to provide an  alternative telephone
service  to British Telecom  (BT) is Mercury  (part  of Cable  & Wireless).
Access to Mercury is gained over the ordinary  BT exchange line by pressing
the Mercury button before dialling a phone number.  This Mercury  button is
really just a  memory button which  zaps  an   access code  down the  line,
causing the switch from the BT system  to Mercury  system, and follows this
with the subscribers authorisation code.  Could someone please tell me what
form the  *ACCESS* code to Mercury is?  Is it of the  form  of an area code
0NXX or of a special operator-like code 1XX? It's just one of those things
that have been bugging me recently.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

[Moderator's Note: Any problem with simply asking Mercury, if you wish
to sign up for the service or use it occassionally?  PT]
------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Number of devices on 1 line?
Date: 6 Jun 89 04:11:03 GMT
Reply-To: Davin Milun <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science


How many devices can a single residential line support? At the moment I have 4
telephones, 1 answering machine, and 1 modem on the line. I am about to
add a second modem and another phone. Is this "safe", and will it work?

Thanx.
Davin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davin Milun    Internet:  [e-mail]
               uucp:      ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!milun
               BITNET:    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 08:28 EDT
From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch Tone

This question has probably been asked before, but as I have been subscribing
for only a short period, I haven't heard the answer.

I am going to move into a new house soon.  Currently, I have two touch-tone
lines.  I use non-AT&T phones (a $10 jobbie, a $20 wall phone, a Pannasonic
(spelling?) cordless, etc...).  Do I need to order touch-tone service and
pay the extra monthly fee to use my touch-tone phones in touch-tone mode?
Does this have something to do with polarity of the lines (I wired the
lines all myself; the new house has 27-year-old wiring; the phones are
HARD-WIRED into the walls; when the phone people come out they are obviously
going to need to install a new network interface box)?

Etc.

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

Subject: International Country Codes Required.
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 89 18:49:31 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


I believe a list of the International Country  Codes  was made available on
this list, or  announced in this  list, about 4-6  months ago.  Can someone
point me in the right direction so that I can get hold of them? Ftp is out,
being on the wrong  side  of the water,  but mail response servers would be
ok.

            Kev.

P.S.    Patrick, does the TELECOM Digest have a mail response archive server?

[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, no mail response archive server right now.
It might be a valuable addition. I shall consult soon with jsol on this.
Regards the international country codes list, I shall fetch it from the
archives and mail it to you tonight; but please, don't tell anyone I sent
it to you, or I will get a lot of requests from people who want me to send
archives stuff they don't feel like going after themselves.  PT]

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Enhancements From the BOC's
Date: 4 Jun 89 00:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


>>SOUTHWESTERN BELL has begun a telemetry trial that allows utilities to read
>>home utility meters over a single telephone line. The test is being conducted
>>at about fifty homes in Kansas City, MO.

>A similar trial was conducted in Toronto, Ont., over ten years ago.  I
>presume it involved Bell Canada and whatever Toronto utilities were
>interested.  Anyone know what came of it? As a repairman at the time, we
>were only told about it so we wouldn't accidentally disconnect the
>telemetry device.  I never heard any more about it.

I'd like to know where they get the sensors.  A couple of years ago, a friend
of mine who owns property in Northern Calif asked me if we could come up with
any way to sense the use of water, gas and AC power by his tenant.  While
the tenant was paying the bills, my friend was suspicious that the tenant
was doing some nefarious things.  The solution,a t that time, was to ask the
local cop and the neighbors to keep an eye on the place.  Later on, I heard
that the guy had been busted for something.
I'd still like to know where to get some sensors for AC current, water
flow, and natural gas flow.


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

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service
Date: 6 Jun 89 13:48:57 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (K.
BLATTER) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (William Mihalo) writes:
> > The number to call for Telecom USA is 1 800-476-9000
>
> > BTW, when I called Telecom USA I could barely hear the person at the
> > other end. It was a very poor connection. I don't know if they are using
> > their own 800 numbers for business purposes.
>
> According to the TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes dated
> Jan 19, 1989 800-476 is "owned" (if that's the proper term) by Teleconnect.
>
> Kevin L. Blatter
> AT&T - Bell Labs

Yes Kevin, Telecom*USA is the parent company to Teleconnect (as well as a half
dozen or more other carriers.  In fact, I believe that Telecom*USA is the
fourth largest long distance carrier in the country.  If your guide is more
than three weeks old, it is out of date.

As for the problems with the 800 number, I called and had no problem.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]                       -
-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould   Telephone  [phone] -
-                     BITNET gould@jvncc        Facsimile  [phone] -
- Vice President, Systems Integration    ---   Network Design Corporation -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------s

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: sci.commtech: Call 4 votes on news.groups
Date: 6 Jun 89 21:38:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


bgsuvax![e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein) writes:
>Please see news.groups for the sci.commtech call for votes.
>
>[Moderator's Note: All comp.dcom.telcom readers are invited, and urged to
>vote regarding the creation of this news group. I recommend a vote of
>yes. PT]

I strongly urge all comp.dcom.telecom readers to vote "no".

The sci.commtech newsgroup is supposed to talk about new communications
technology.  The proposer lists "telecommunications technologies (including
fiber optics and ISDN [...])" as examples in his referenced message.

Well, what are we here, chopped liver?  I don't know about you, but I'd
much rather read about new telecommunication technology here in
comp.dcom.telecom rather than seeing it interspersed among postings on
interactive videodisks and other such things in a sci.commtech.

Not only would the success of a sci.commtech mean the fragmentation of
comp.dcom.telecom, but we would also lose the contributions of our [TELECOM
Digest] mailing list readers.

I don't believe that sci.commtech brings anything new to USENET, and its
success will be at the expense of other groups such as comp.dcom.telecom.
I urge you to submit a "no" vote to [e-mail].  (He has
requested that votes contain either "vote yes" or "vote no" in the subject.)

(Followups might best be directed to news.groups.)
--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337
"I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #188
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 8 Jun 89 0:02:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #189
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Jun 89 00:01:44 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections (Fred E.J. Linton)
    Details on new area code 510 (Michael C. Berch)
    Re: The High Cost of Telco Features (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Info please (Julian Macassey)
    NXX, N1X, N0X (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Mercury (Kevin Hopkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7-JUN-1989 01:23:45.92
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections

Here, for what it's worth, is AT&T's recent announcement of X.400 interconnects
between their AT&T Mail service and other similar services.

Contact phones for voice inquiry on the other services follow.
======================================
** !atthelp:news.5:
Message-Version: 2
>To: !atthelp:news/NODELIVERY/FORMAT=BUSINESS/NORECEIPT/ELECTRONIC/STANDARD/
From: !atthelp (AT&T Customer Assistance )
Date: Mon May  8 15:03:19 EDT 1989
Phone: [phone]
Subject: X.400 Interconnections


AT&T is announcing six new X.400 interconnections between AT&T Mail and
electronic mail services in the U.S., Korea, Sweden, Australia, and
Finland.

In the U.S., AT&T Mail is now interconnected with Telenet Communications
Corporation's service, Telemail, allowing users of both services to exchange
messages easily.

With the addition of these interconnections, the AT&T Mail Gateway400
Service allows AT&T Mail subscribers to exchange messages with users of the
following electronic messaging systems:

Company         E-Mail Name*            Country           Available
-------         ------------            -------           ---------

TeleDelta       TeDe 400                Sweden            May 1, 1989
OTC             MPS400                  Australia         May 15, 1989
Telecom-Canada  Envoy100                Canada              NOW
DACOM           DACOM MHS               Korea             June 1, 1989
P&T-Tele        MailNet 400             Finland           June 1, 1989
Helsinki        ELISA                   Finland           June 1, 1989
  Telephone Co.
Dialcom          Dialcom                  USA                 NOW
Telenet          Telemail                 USA              May 1, 1989
KDD              Messavia               Japan                  NOW
Transpac         ATLAS400               France                 NOW

The interconnections are based on the X.400 standard, a set of guidelines for
the format, delivery and receipt of electronic messages recommended by an
international standards committee the CCITT.

This announcement is another example of how AT&T's support of the X.400
standard to link e-mail systems will benefit our customers.

International X.400 messages incur a surcharge.  They are:

                To Canada:
                   Per note:            $.05
                   Per message unit:    $.10

                To other international locations:
                   Per note:            $.20
                   Per message unit:    $.50

There is no surcharge for X.400 messages within the U.S.

TeDe 400 is a registered trademark of Teledelta
MPS400 is a registered trademark of OTC
DACOM MHS is a registered trademark of DACOM
MailNet 400 is a registered trademark of P&T-Tele
ELISA is a registered trademark of Helsinki Telephone Co.
Telemail is a registered trademark of Telenet Communications Corp.
Messavia is a registered trademark of KDD
ATLAS400 is a registered trademark of Transpac

        MHS Gateway: mhs!atlas
        Administrator: Bernard  Tardieu
        Transpac
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!dacom
        Administrator: Bob  Nicholson
        AT&T
        Morristown, NJ 07960
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!dialcom
        Administrator: Mr  Laraman
        Dialcom
        South Plainfield, NJ 07080
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!elisa
        Administrator: Ulla  Karajalainen
        Nokia Data
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!envoy
        Administrator: Kin C Ma
        Telecom Canada
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!kdd
        Administrator: Shigeo  Lwase
        Kokusai Denshin Denwa CO.
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!mailnet
        Administrator: Kari  Aakala
        Gen Directorate Of Post &
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!otc
        Administrator: Gary W Krumbine
        AT&T Information Systems
        Lincroft, NJ 07738
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs!telemail
        Administrator: Jim  Kelsay
        GTE Telenet Comm Corp
        Reston, VA 22096
        Phone: [phone]

        MHS Gateway: mhs
        Administrator: AT&T Mail MHS Gateway
        AT&T
        Lincroft, NJ 08838
        Phone: [phone]

====================================

BTW, connections with MCI Mail, CompuServe, Source (etc.) subscribers are
probably best made via <telex!> (both ways).


                                    -- Fred

ARPA/Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:         FLINTON%eagle@WESLEYAN[.bitnet]
 from uucp:      ...!{research, mtune!arpa, uunet}!eagle.Wesleyan.EDU!FLinton
on ATT-Mail:    !fejlinton
Tel.:           + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  OR  + 1 203 347 9411 xt 2249 (work)
Telex:          <USA> + 15 122 3413   FEJLINTON
CompuServe ID:  72037,1054
F-Net (guest):  [e-mail]    OR    ...!inria.inria.fr!linton

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 22:26:10 -0800
From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Details on new area code 510

The press release from Pacific Bell, quoted in the San Francisco
Chronicle, gives the phase-in dates for the new NPA 510.  (By the way,
is this the first "real" [i.e., geographical] N10 NPA?)

Inception is scheduled for 7 October 1991, with a four-month grace
period when NPA 415 will still work for the affected numbers.  Final
cutover is scheduled for 27 January 1992.

NPA 510 will encompass Alameda and Contra Costa counties, which
currently have 842,388 customers out of the current 2,005,687
customers in NPA 415.

--
Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb

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

Date: 6 Jun 89 16:41:43 GMT
From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The High Cost of Telco Features

In article <[e-mail]>
                 [e-mail] writes:
>                                        In Wayne County, NY New York Tel
> [pulse-only private-line service is over $35/month]
> [tone dialing offered as a new service for $2.21/month, $9.20 hook-up]
>furturistic features of call waiting, call blocking, speed dialing (max of
>8 numbers) and who knows what all else as a package deal.  Buy now to avoid
>the $15.50 hook-up charge and you can then begin to pay $13+ per month.

>Is NYT for real, do real people in the rest of the world get charged rates
>like this?  It's not like NYT has to get out of their chair or anything to
>enable these services, is it?  I thought it was bad when I paid a base rate
>of just over $30 to get a lousy connection that might let me carry on a
>short 300 bps modem conversation to my office just 30 miles away, long
>distance at that.

These rates are certainly much higher than what the much-maligned GTE is
charging me; for $22.50/month I get two private lines, one tone and one
pulse. For another $6.50/month I could get a feature pack; I am not
taking any of those, though; I think this is grossly overpriced. One new
offering has me intrigued, though: They have just announced a new
expanded feature pack which includes camp-on !!! I think it was
$11/month for *all* optional features.

Is that a true camp-on, or is it just "busy number redialing" (which is
the official name) ? I'd expect camp-on for local calls, redialing for
toll calls. It always seems to be toll calls that get the frustrating
permanent busy. And for a couple of hundred dollars, I could buy a very
fine demon dialer of my own :-).

/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>     [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
  ACC Customer Service                Affiliation stated for identification only
                  My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

From: julian macassey <anes.ucla.edu!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info please...
Date: 6 Jun 89 20:28:08 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mike Morris) writes:
> Stuff asking how calling party ID CLASS stuff will work deleted.

> Lastly, can anybody explain why the local BOC is charging MONTHLY for
> a number assignment?   Background:  Several years ago I had 818-445-6453
> as a second line in my parents house.  After about a year, I lost my job,
> and to cut expenses had the number disconnected.  Several years later,
> I inherited my parents house, and the number that we'd had since 1965.
> When I moved in, I decide to put a 2nd number in the house for the computer
> and the modem.  When I tried to get my old number back, I was told it was
> available, but it would be an extra charge PER MONTH.  Knowing computer
> systems, I know that assigning a specific phone number is no more work than
> assigning a random one, but still I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 or so,
> when placing the order.  BUT NOT EVERY MONTH!

> CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN?    Or is it just seen as another cash cow to be milked?

    Back in the "old" days, you could come up with a cutsey number,
especially one that spelt something when you used the numbers on the tone
pad and get the telco to assign it to you. So if you had a whore-house you
could ask to be assigned 438-5243 which spells out GET-LAID. If the number
was already assigned, you would have to do a deal with the owner of the
number and get them to relinguish it - or to be high tech, call forward it
to your old boring number.

    Well about 4 years ago Pacific Bell - Mike Morris's telco - figured out
that they could rent these nifty numbers to people rather than giving them
away. So if you request an unassigned number the cash registers clang at
Pac-Bell. If you are a business, what's another $10.00 per month so your
customers can dial (213) BAD FOOD and make a reservation at your restaurant?

Yours



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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 21:35:26 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: NXX, N1X, N0X, ...

I'm curious anout this terminology. Why two symbols for unspecified
digits, here? Why N1X rather than N1N or X1X? And why NXX rather than
any other combination on Ns and Xes? Does this mean anything, or is it
just traditional?
---
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, [e-mail], [phone].
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, [e-mail].


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

Subject: Re: Mercury
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 89 12:43:42 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In reply to your  comment, Patrick,  companies of Mercury's  ilk don't like
you asking for their  access  codes. They think you are  trying to find the
full format  of  the  codes  (including the   authorisation  codes used for
billing)  in order to  crack their system, which  I am not  of course.  The
code is in fact 133,  an operator-like  code.   Thanks  to Peter Morgan  at
Brighton for supplying the information.

I know of the following operator-like codes in the UK, anyone care to add
to these:

100    Operator Services
133    Mercury Access Number
142    London Directory Enquiries (from London numbers only)
150    Phone Hardware Enquiries (maybe only locally defined)
151    Fault reports
153    International Directory Enquiries
155    International Operator
191    Other Enquiries
192    Directory Enquiries

            Kev.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #189
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 8 Jun 89 1:17:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #190
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Jun 89 01:00:27 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Denmark has changed all area codes! (Kim F. Storm)
    Touch-tone charges going away? (Lang Zerner)
    Guerilla FAX (Scot E Wilcoxon)
    Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Re: MCI fraud (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Cellular Phone & 911 - two replies (Richard Childers)
    Re: Strange Phone Problem (Dell Ellison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Denmark has changed all area codes!
Date: 7 Jun 89 18:57:09 MET (Wed)
From: "Kim F. Storm" <[e-mail]>

Starting May 16th, all area codes in Denmark were changed from the old
01 to 09 (where the 0 was left out on international calls) to area codes
in the range 31 to 99, while the last 6 digits are the same for MOST
subscribers.

This has effectively expanded the numbers from 7 digit (+ leading 0) to
8 digit.  The change was very well prepared, and everything has worked
very well from day one.

The reason for the change was that the old number scheme ran out of
numbers in the Copenhagen area (which were split into two areas a couple
of years ago).

The old 7 digit numbers (+ 0) will work until January 1st 1990, and so
will international calls using the old numbers (a time out is used to
distinguish old 7 digit numbers from the new 8 digit numbers).

The problem with the approach is that the assignment of new area codes is
almost arbitrary in large areas.  For example, 01 becomes any of 31, 32,
through 39, 02 becomes 42, 43, ... 49, 03 becomes 52, 53, ...., etc.

The only way you can know the new number is to lookup the old 7 digit number
in a conversion table.

The really funny thing about this number change is that except for the
numbers in the central of Copenhagen, all area codes will change again
sometime within the next 15 years as the centrals are replaced by digital
exchanges, i.e. about 50000 numbers will change each year!

So be prepared for problems dialing into Denmark for the next 15 years :-)

The market has been flooded with programs (mainly for the PCs) which can
go through files and replace phone numbers correctly.  However, many
companies use the phone number as account numbers for their customers,
so I can imagine all sorts of problems if these programs are used by
the average non-expert PC user.

I think this example puts some perspective on the "oh no, now we have to
use the 404 area code inside the 404 area" and similar debates.  We went
through the same excercise one year ago when the tel.co. prepared the
transition to 8 digit numbers: We had to learn to use the 0N area code
inside all 0N areas!

I also think this demonstrates that Danes are very tolerant people.

---
Kim F. Storm        [e-mail]        Tel [phone]
Texas Instruments, Marielundvej 46E, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
      No news is good news, but nn is better!

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

Date: Tue Jun  6 23:15:10 1989
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch-tone charges going away?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.

When I got my basic service installed here in Palo Alto, CA, the guy on the
other end asked if I wanted the touch-tone "option".  I asked him what the
additional cost was, and took it.  Then I gave him the old "Did you know..."
about how when the phone-using public was paying for the research that led to
touch-tone, it was told (correctly) that touch-tone would bring down the cost
of running the phone system and (incorrectly) that the savings would trickle
down to the consumers.

He was surprisingly knowledgeable for a sales rep, and we had a nice
conversation about the current state of digital systems implementation and
arbitrary restrictions on ISDN services.  He also said that "PacBell is
lobbying (some regulating body (the PUC?)) to kill the extra charge for
touch-tone".

PacBell is a business.  It wouldn't try to kill the touch-tone charge unless
(a) they believe that the cost of supporting pulse dialing will soon exceed the
revenue of touch-tone charges, or (b) they have been overcome by an irrational
urge to charge for a service proportionally to its cost.  If PacBell is
anything like other BOCs I've done business with, I find (b) to be exceedingly
unlikely.  Anyone have any evidence suggesting (a)?  Any other reasons PacBell
would be lobbying for such a move?  Any evidence that the sales rep was
mistaken (i.e. that PacBell is making no such lobbying effort)?

I have always felt that tone "service" charges were one of the most irrational
BOC charges.  There is no extra cost to the BOC, and in some cases it results
in *lower* operating costs.  I am very interested to learn if there is any
truth to the rumor that the charge may be removed.

--
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
ARPA:[e-mail]  MX:[e-mail]  UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"



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

From: Scot E Wilcoxon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guerilla FAX
Date: 7 Jun 89 13:10:50 GMT
Reply-To: Scot E Wilcoxon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN


A group of Chinese students at the University of Minnesota are gathering
news of the Chinese upheaval, translating them into Chinese ideographs,
and FAXing the news into China.  They're sending to any FAX they can
find, although their favorites are machines at universities.

They do have problems with phone line quality and a temperamental FAX
machine, but continue sending.
--
Scot E. Wilcoxon  [e-mail]    {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress      UNIX masts & rigging  [phone]    uunet!datapg!sewilco
    I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service
Date: 7 Jun 89 16:00:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: John W. Bridges & Associates, Inc., Lewisville, Tx.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Brian Jay Gould) writes:
- In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (K.
- BLATTER) writes:
->> BTW, when I called Telecom USA I could barely hear the person at the
->> other end. It was a very poor connection. I don't know if they are using
->> their own 800 numbers for business purposes.

-> According to the TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes dated
-> Jan 19, 1989 800-476 is "owned" (if that's the proper term) by Teleconnect.

- Yes Kevin, Telecom*USA is the parent company to Teleconnect (as well as
- a half dozen or more other carriers.  In fact, I believe that
- Telecom*USA is the fourth largest long distance carrier in the country.
- If your guide is more than three weeks old, it is out of date.

    Actually, according to my information, Telecom*USA was formed
by the merger of Teleconnect ( of Cedar Rapids, Iowa ) and SouthernNet
( of Atlanta, Ga. ) early this year ( I seem to remember hearing about
it in January. )

        Telecom*USA is the fourth largest carrier in the United States,
but still quite a distance behind number three, US Sprint.

        The Telecom*USA network is basically divided into two portions,
the old Teleconnect network in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Missouri, and the old SouthernNet network in the southeast.

--
Eric Schnoebelen,            JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
[e-mail]                ...!killer!u-word!egs
    Real Programmers:   Real Programmers have trouble suppressing
        homicidal tendencies when asked, "Are you sure?"

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

From: Dell Ellison <gtephx!gtephx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI fraud
Date: 7 Jun 89 16:13:11 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona


In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!
zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Jonathan Alan Solomon) writes:
> > Apparently there is no place within the MCI structure to resolve complaints
> > ... I guess they think they are perfect.

> I had considered signing up for MCI's reach-out-america-type service
> but was faced with not only the above, but the fact that MCI is still
> analog to most of the country. After sitting on hold for 30 minutes
> ...
> interested in sales than service). I'll stay with AT&T. They are the
> provider of my statewide 800 number and I am very happy with them.

I use US Sprint and EVERY time I call someone long distance (even across the
country), the person on the other end of the line ALWAYS says, 'Oh!  Are you
here in town!'  Never fails!

Of course if you don't like crystal clear conversations,

then stick with

A.T. & T.

or

M.C.I.

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

From: Richard Childers <avsd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911 - two replies
Date: 7 Jun 89 20:13:35 GMT
Reply-To: Richard Childers <avsd![e-mail]>
Organization: Metaprogrammers International


decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>When I got back onto the roadway, I approached him again (he was poking
>along at around 40 MPH) and he sped up again. This time I backed off
>and watched as another motorist tried to pass him and got the same
>response that I had earlier. That did it. I picked up the phone and
>dialed 911. It was the Bakersfield system that responded and I was
>connected to the CHP, the initial call handling agency.

Yup, a real emergency there.

>I described the car and its actions and location. Not five minutes
>later, two CHP cruisers zipped onto the highway, and off in the
>distance I could see the gentleman being forced to the side of the
>road. You talk about instant gratification!

Talk about juvenile power trips. You could have waited a few minutes to
get past him. This sounds like an infantile power trip.

Instant gratification, indeed.

-- richard

 *    "We must hang together, gentlemen ... else, we shall most assuredly     *
 *     hang separately."         Benjamin Franklin, 1776                      *
 *                                                                            *
 *      ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho     *

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

From: Dell Ellison <gtephx!gtephx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Problem
Date: 7 Jun 89 15:53:29 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <[e-mail]>, ginosko![e-mail]
(Andrew Duane) writes:
-> OK, all you telecommers. Here's a bizarre little problem that happened
-> at a friends house last night. Anyone got any clues?

-> BACKGROUND: a single line house, in Newton, MA (617-244-XXXX),
->         with 4 phones: 2 AT&T desk pushbuttons,
->         1 IT&T desk pushbutton, 1 Radio Shack cordless.

-> PROBLEM: the 2 AT&T phones suddenly and simulatenously lost their
->         ability to dial. They work fine for incoming calls,
->         get dial tone, etc. Both other phones (and a spare
->         IT&T from the car) worked fine the whole time.
->         When you pushed a button, the dial tone went away
->         while the button was down.

My guess is that your local phone company, for some reason, disconnected your
'touch tone' ability.  Of course I am assuming that the other two phones that
work are set on sending 'dial pulse' even though they're 'pushbutton phones'.
If this was the case then the 'dial pulse' phones would 'break' dial tone and
the 'touch tone' phones would not.


Dell Ellison

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #190
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 9 Jun 89 0:02:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #191
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Jun 89 00:01:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Sci.commtech is NOT comp.dcom.telecom (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Sextile (Erik T. Mueller)
    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (John Higdon)
    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Access Code For Mercury (UK) (Lang Zerner)
    Re: Touch-tone charges going away? (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: NXX, N1X, N0X (Carl Moore)
    Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service (Brian Jay Gould)
    Re: AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections (Carl Moore)

[Moderator's Note: Following the original announcement of the call for
votes on the establishment of sci.commtech, Chip Rosenthal wrote the
Digest to urge a no-vote. Today, the founder of sci.commtech responds
with a rebuttal, urging a yes-vote. Both positions have been presented
here FYI only; debate and voting are taking place in news.groups, NOT
here. Also today, Erik Mueller introduces us to sex...the sextile, that
is! Enjoy!   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: sci.commtech is NOT comp.dcom.telecom
Date: 8 Jun 89 16:32:52 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.



A poster has cautioned comp.dcom.telecom readers that the proposed
new newsgroup sci.commtech will threaten comp.dcom.telecom.  Please
rest assured that sci.commtech will include issues other than those
currently discussed in comp.dcom.telecom.  As a comp.dcom.telecom
reader myself, I *know* that this is the case.  I proposed sci.commtech
partially inspired by comp.dcom.telecom.  I am not a telephony or
computer telecommunications person.  My background is in broadcasting.
Sci.commtech is intended for those of us who do not share your impressive
expertise in the technical details of telecommunciations and uses of
telephony.  Sci.commtech, if you followed the discussion, is intended
as a more "soft" newsgroup.  It is also intended to discuss new "media"
technologies which may, of course, include those related to telephony.
As I read the latest postings in comp.dcom.telecom today, I did not see
one which I felt was appropriate for sci.commtech as proposed.

Please, if you have questions about sci.commtech...email and I will reply.
I (and others) are *very* enthused about sci.commtech, and it would be
more than a shame if we cannot establish this new newsgroup due to mis-
understandings about its intent.

Thanks very much.

Bruce

P.S.  Please note that the moderator recommended a yes vote.  I appreciate this
and hope it will further make the point that sci.commtech is not comp.dcom.
telecom.

--
Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein      |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green $tate University |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  [phone]; 352-4818

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

From: "Erik T. Mueller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sextile
Date: 8 Jun 89 13:04:28 GMT
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co. NY, NY


There has been much discussion (on comp.dcom.telecom and comp.lang.c) about the
term "octothorpe" for the "#" symbol on a touchtone pad. As I had mentioned in
an earlier posting, I first heard this term in the mid 1970's in the Bell
Northern Research (of Canada) research journal called "Telesis", and have never
seen the term used in AT&T or BOC publications.

What apparently has not yet surfaced in the discussions, is that, along with
octothorpe, Telesis also used the term "sextile" for the "*" symbol on the pad.

-Erik
([e-mail])

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?
Date: 8 Jun 89 06:52:45 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:
> How many devices can a single residential line support? At the moment I have
> 4  telephones, 1 answering machine, and 1 modem on the line. I am about to
> add a second modem and another phone. Is this "safe", and will it work?

The limiting factor involved when adding devices to a telephone line is
simply the number of ringers (or more precisely, ringer equivalence) on
the line. When a device is "on hook", it presents no load to the line
other than its ringer. If the device has no ringer (or its ringer
equivalence is "0.0") it is totally invisible unless you take it off
hook.

If memory serves, I believe the maximum REN (Ringer Equivalence Number)
allowed on a 1/1A ESS is 8. Higher than this, the CO will withhold ring
current and you will never know anyone is calling you. This has
actually happened to me and it was very embarassing when I turned in
the trouble call. They told me I had too much stuff on the line.

Add up all the RENs on your devices on any one line and if it's less
than 8, you are probably OK.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?
Date: 9 Jun 89 02:26:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:
> How many devices can a single residential line support? At the moment I have
> 4  telephones, 1 answering machine, and 1 modem on the line. I am about to
> add a second modem and another phone. Is this "safe", and will it work?

What you must do is add up the ringer equivalence numbers of the various
devices you wish to connect.  The maximum total REN for a given subscriber line
depends upon the serving central office, and on the length of the loop.  Your
telco probably has the information, but it may be difficult to speak with the
right person.  Bellcore publication PUB61100 "Description of Analog Voiceband
Interface Between the Bell System Local Exchange Lines and Terminal Equipment"
is the definitive technical reference for this sort of thing.

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.               [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA              {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]      N5848Q


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

Date: Wed Jun  7 23:42:22 1989
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Access Code for Mercury (UK)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.

I do not recall the access code (it has been several months since I left the
UK), but they will give it to you if you ask.  I bought Mercury service without
one of the expensive feature phones they sell.  The person I spoke with didn't
know the code, but called me back once he found it.

By the way, the access code can differ from one STD area to the next.  Also, I
found that, even where the access code was the same I couldn't use my secret
code outside of the STD of the home phone for which I bought the service.  I
called Mercury about that and the service person looked into it for me.
Apparently, they are not authorized to provide "traveling service codes".
Service is ostensibly tied to your phone, really to your STD.  They were
working on getting equal access-type service when I left In February.

By the way, as I understand it, they aren't the only company *allowed* to
provide an alternative to BT, but the only company that *does* provide it.
Other companies are working on it.  (Remember when MCI was the only viable
alternative to ATT? :-)

--
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
ARPA:[e-mail]  MX:[e-mail]  UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"

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

Date: Thu,  8 Jun 89 10:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone charges going away?

One possible reason for eliminating touch-tone charges would be if you
believe they act as a barrier to selling more of other kinds of services.
Remember the elementary economics concept of elasticity of demand.


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

Date:     Thu, 8 Jun 89 10:30:56 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  NXX, N1X, N0X, ...

N means any single digit EXCEPT 0 and 1.
X means any single digit, to INCLUDE 0 and 1.
Until 1973, area code-prefix combinations were of the N[01]X-NNX form.
In July 1973, area 213, which includes Los Angeles and which has since
split to form area 818, went over to NXX prefixes (in other words, it
allowed for new prefixes of the form N0X and N1X), so that for the first
time some 3-digit numbers could serve both as a prefix and as an areacode.

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Company Offers Residential 800 service
Date: 8 Jun 89 15:27:48 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


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

>     Actually, according to my information, Telecom*USA was formed
> by the merger of Teleconnect ( of Cedar Rapids, Iowa ) and SouthernNet
> ( of Atlanta, Ga. ) early this year ( I seem to remember hearing about
> it in January. )

>         Telecom*USA is the fourth largest carrier in the United States,
> but still quite a distance behind number three, US Sprint.

>         The Telecom*USA network is basically divided into two portions,
> the old Teleconnect network in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
> Missouri, and the old SouthernNet network in the southeast.

Yes, there was a merger.  However, Telecom*USA is the parent company and both
entities (Teleconnect and SouthernNet) still exist.  This is temporary.  I
expect to see one carrier in the near future.  You may have seen that
Telecom*USA is buying up everything in sight.  They could be a major player
very quickly.

By the way...  My source is Clark McLeod, president of Telecom*USA.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Brian Jay Gould  :: INTERNET [e-mail]                       -
-                     UUCP rutgers!njin!gould   Telephone  [phone] -
-                     BITNET gould@jvncc        Facsimile  [phone] -
- Vice President, Systems Integration    ---   Network Design Corporation -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------s

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

Date:     Thu, 8 Jun 89 14:04:08 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections

I am also notifying telecom-request in case the archives need to be corrected.
You mentioned Lincroft, NJ in 2 places in your message.  The 2nd occurrence
had zipcode 08838, which should be 07738.

And where is the phone number shown here:
        MHS Gateway: mhs!dialcom
        Administrator: Mr  Laraman
        Dialcom
        South Plainfield, NJ 07080
        Phone: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #191
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 10 Jun 89 0:02:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #192
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Jun 89 00:01:01 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Mercury Communications / TouchTone (Nigel Whitfield)
    Re: Access Code for Mercury (UK) (Adrian Pell)
    Cellular Road-Side Phone Sighted (A. R. White)
    Establishing a hunt group between private lines (Fred Blonder)
    Phone-in-use indicator (Steven V. Christensen)
    Re: Touch-tone charges going away? (Sam Ho)
    Re: Touch-tone charges going away? (John Higdon)
    Re: Touch-tone charges going away? (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
    Re: sci.commtech: Call 4 votes on news.groups (Robert Virzi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 89 17:46:55 BST
From: Mad Nige <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mercury Communications / TouchTone

The access code for the Mercury network is a simple 131. Hit this, and
if you're in an area where the service is available, you'll get a high
pitched noise like a modem carrier. To use the service, you have to
enter a ten digit identification code, and then the number that you
want to be connected to, always including the STD code. You can connect
to almost every number via Mercury that you can via British Telecom.

Notes:
1) All the signals you send after dialling the 131 must be using
DTMF signalling.
2) Your id code is validated for a particular number. In practice, it
will also work from other phones in the same area, though this is not
guaranteed, and I suspect the areas will get smaller as the network
expands. At the moment, it seems that I can use my code anywhere in the
01 (London) area.
3) Most modern BT call boxes (including some card phones) will switch
to DTMF after you have dialled the initial 131. This means I don't have
to give BT much money at all anymore.
4) Making local calls via Mercury is about 3 times the price of making
them _from_your_own_phone via BT. Mercury is after all designed for
long distance calling. However, if you're using a call box, BT is about
6 times the usual price for local, cheap rate calls.
5) I have had very few problems with Mercury. I have had lots of
problems with BT, and even phoning the chairman's office doesn't help
much these days. (Dial 01-356 5000 and ask for the chairman's office)
6) Occassionally I get bad lines from Mercury. As far as I can tell,
this is caused by BT. The phone in my office always gives very good
connections to Mercury, but the other line, off an older BT switch
tends to be a bit faint.

Hope this is of some help.

A slightly related topic; some of the phones now on sale in this
country have "TouchTone" which it is claimed is a trademark of British
Telecom.

I have no connection with either of the phone companies, except as a
satisfied customer of Mercury, and an extremely dissatisfied customer
of British Telecom.

Nigel Whitfield.

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

From: hp-sdd!apell.hpl.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Access Code for Mercury (UK)
Date: 9 Jun 89 14:30:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK


I seem to recall that the Mercury access code is area-specific.  I believe that
it's 131 here in Bristol, and 163 in London.

Confusing eh?

Adrian Pell

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

Subject: Cellular Road-Side Phone Sighted
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 89 14:35:29 PDT
From: [e-mail]


   This morning on my way to work (in Southern California) I saw a cellular
CalTrans emergency road-side telephone surmounted by a panel of solar cells.
The site is less than 0.25 mile from a PacTel cellular antenna.  Today I
finally verified that the telephone was cellular; I first noticed it about
mid May.  Possibly I've glimpsed others; mostly I concentrate on traffic and
driving, but I'll keep an eye out.

   For those others whose past-life sins condemn them to commuting on the
San-Diego freeway, this particular phone is on the south-bound side in the
Sepulveda-pass area, less than 0.25 mile north of the Moraga on ramp; its
ID is SD 423 or 425.


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

ARPA:  nomdenet @ ISI.edu

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

Subject: Establishing a hunt group between private lines
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 89 17:47:54 EDT
From: Fred Blonder <[e-mail]>

I'm hoping that someone can provide some useful advice regarding
the following situation: I'm planning on getting my own phone line
run in a house which I share with roommates. I've been told by the
local phone company (Chesapeake & Potomac) that they will not allow
the new line to hunt to the old "communal" line which I already
share with my roommates, because it's listed under a different name.

While they may have sound reasons for this policy, I don't see how
they apply in this case.

My question is: Does anyone have an idea of how high up the chain-
of-command I'll need to go in order to get an exception granted?
Has anyone done this, or something similar? Is this hopeless?
-----
                    Fred Blonder <[e-mail]>
                    David Taylor Research Center
                    [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Why not order C&P's version of 'Starline', a residential
centrex package which allows what you are asking plus a lot more, including
intercom between your phones; pick up an incoming call from either line;
transfer a call to any other line, etc. One feature in that package is
'forward on busy/no answer', which would seem to meet your request. All
the phone lines get billed on one account, but you get directory listings
as desired, and you do get separate breakdowns of long distance charges,
etc.  Illinois Bell calls it 'Starline'. I don't know C&P's name.  PT]

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

From: steven v christensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone-in-use indicator
Date: 9 Jun 89 20:52:55 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.


A while ago someone posted a question for some kind of indicator
to tell that another extention is in use. Someone suggested a
battery and light on the other 2 wires of a phone line.

Does anyone have a circuit which senses the voltage drop when someone
picks up the phone? It would seem to me to be easier to do.

Steven
[e-mail]


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

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 89 12:30:15 PDT
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone charges going away?

As far as dropping charges for tone service goes, here in Washington (State)
Pacific Northwest Bell dropped them about a year ago.  (It had been 50 cents
monthly.)  All the various packages also dropped by 50 cents.  Apparently,
any "discount" for the packages was kept without change.  Of course, we all
know that these features are essentially free to the telco anway, but...

Sam Ho
[e-mail]

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone charges going away?
Date: 9 Jun 89 18:52:32 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lang Zerner) writes:
> He also said that "PacBell is lobbying (some regulating body (the PUC?)) to
> kill the extra charge for touch-tone".

> PacBell is a business.  It wouldn't try to kill the touch-tone charge unless
> (a) they believe that the cost of supporting pulse dialing will soon exceed
> the revenue of touch-tone charges, or (b) they have been overcome by an
> irrational urge to charge for a service proportionally to its cost.

The answer is (c), it is part of a package of general deregulation that
Pac*Bell is trying to get past the PUC and getting flack on all sides
for doing so. Pac*Bell would like to be able to set its pricing in the
competitive business market without the giant hand of the PUC getting
in the way. As part of the inducement, they have promised a freeze in
residential rates through 1991 (or 92, I can't remember and someone
threw out the newspaper), elimination of the touch-tone charge and
other goodies.

The opposition, in the persona of other telecom services and consumer
groups are vehemantly opposed. The other service providers are afraid
that Pac*Bell will have great unfair advantage in a non-regulated
environment with its control of the local wire plant. Consumer groups
feel that residential service should come down, not be frozen at the
current level.

IMHO, the business may have a point, but it's hard to get behind the
consumer groups. They are steadfastly against the plant upgrading that
Pac*Bell is proposing, saying that it is too costly and that rate
payers shouldn't be stuck with it. Most of the consumer advocates that
I have spoken with, however, seem to feel that adequate telephone
service consists of a black rotary-dial wall phone in the kitchen and
the fact that there is a hell of a lot of electro-mechanical equipment
that needs replacing is of no concern to them.

I haven't made up my mind about their proposal, yet. On the one hand,
it seems logical and reasonable. And I certainly wouldn't mind some
plant upgrading. On the other, I tend to distrust any proposal by the
utility because I know whose interests they are really trying to
serve.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone charges going away?
Date: 9 Jun 89 16:04:21 GMT
Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA


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

> I have always felt that tone "service" charges were one of the most
> irrational BOC charges.  There is no extra cost to the BOC, and in some
> cases it results in *lower* operating costs.  I am very interested to learn
> if there is any truth to the rumor that the charge may be removed.

Absolutely NO chance that the charge may be removed.  What they will do
is simply add the same charge to pulse-dialed lines, and tell you that
they have removed the surcharge. [ 1/2 :-) ]

--
Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc [phone]
gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin


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

From: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: sci.commtech: Call 4 votes on news.groups
Date: 9 Jun 89 12:53:03 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA


Chip Rosenthal writes this concerning the call for votes on sci.commtech:

> I strongly urge all comp.dcom.telecom readers to vote "no".
> The sci.commtech newsgroup is supposed to talk about new communications
> technology.  The proposer lists "telecommunications technologies (including
> fiber optics and ISDN [...])" as examples in his referenced message.

No offense to Chip, but this is wrong!  The group is forming to discuss
the *social implications* of new technologies, not the technologies
themselves.  I anticipate debates related to topics such as:  How will
ISDN affect the way businesses deal with customers?, What new services
will fill BISDN bandwidth and how will they affect us?, Is there new
educational potential in HDTV? etc.  The purpose of the group is to
segregate discussions of "what" new technologies are from "why" they
may affect us or the society.

I urge you to vote YES for sci.commtech as it provides a unique forum
for discussions relating to technology and how it affect us!


--

-Bob Virzi                    | Innuendo ...
 [e-mail]                 |
 ...!harvard!bunny!rv01       | ... and out the other.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #192
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 11 Jun 89 0:04:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #193
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Jun 89 00:00:40 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Pacific Bell plans access to computers (Brad Allen)
    Consumer Opts For POTS (Bennett Todd)
    Is it possible to trace international calls? (Ed Han)
    Re: International Reach Out Plans (Andy Fyfe)
    Canada - U.S. communications (Carl Moore)
    Re: Cellular phones in Beijing? (Tim Dawson)
    Re: Cellular around the world (Sten Peeters)
    Re: Cellular phones and 911 - two replies (John Deters)
    Re: AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections (Fred E.J. Linton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 10 Jun 89 18:23:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you!

For a few days now at least, calls from Chicago to 415-976-anything have
been getting intercepted at a switch in Chicago and rejected. I was unable
to find a single routing which would work.

10288 (1 plus on my lines) immediatly cuts in after 1-415-976 without waiting
for the final four digits --
  "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and
   dial again, or ask the operator for assistance.  Three One Two, One Tee"

   However the operator was also unable to complete the call, or explain
   why not.

10222 waited for the complete eleven digits, then said,
   "We're sorry. MCI does not complete calls to 976 at this time." (click)

10333 accepted all eleven digits, then intercepted saying,
   "Forty Four! Five Oh Three! Your call cannot be completed as entered.
   Please call Customer Service for assistance."  (and it kept repeating)

10444 accepted all eleven digits, paused, then gave a spurt of dial tone from
somewhere for a couple seconds, followed by two rings, and a report,
   (one voice saying) "Forty seven dash three" followed by a different
   voice saying "We're sorry, but your call cannot be completed. Please
   check the number and redial, or call Customer Service."

10888 accepted all eleven digits, then *Illinois Bell* responded,
   "The long distance company you have selected cannot complete your call
   at this time. Please try your call again later."

Growing frustrated at my inability to call a service which I enjoy using
sometimes, I tried a different tactic. The firm which employs me has a
WATS extender which I am authorized to use when working from home. A local
Chicago seven digit number connects me. Calling into the diverter and
entering my password, I then dialed the three digits for the tie-line to
our branch in New York. Getting their dial tone, I dialed their access
code for WATS, and again tried to dial 415-976-my thing.

This time, a *very funky* recording from somewhere -- I know not where --
cut in after the 415-976 part, without waiting for the final four digits,
and told me,
   "again. The number you have dialed is not in service. Please check the
   number and dial"  (pause) (repeat, beginning with 'again')

Attempting to make the call from the nine-level trunks off the New York
PBX got me a New York Telephone intercept similar to the one in Chicago.
Although we have an office in Canoga Park, CA, I know for a fact that all
976 numbers are blocked at the PBX level there, just as we have all 1-900
and 976 numbers in area 312 blocked in our PBX here in Chicago. But I
figured I would try it anyway. As expected, calling through the nine level
local trunks out of Canoga Park blocked all 213-976 and 415-976 numbers.
Forcing the call through 9-10288 + 1-415-976 out of Canoga Park got me
through. Finally!

As to be expected, the transmission was lousy, and I don't intend to bother
dialing all those numbers in the future just to make the call. So I guess
its goodbye 415-976 from outside the State of California!

Patrick Townson


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

From: Brad Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pacific Bell plans access to computers
Date: 10 Jun 89 07:11:08 GMT
Organization: no affiliation with UCSC


[copied without permission from Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 9, 1989, Section B]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pacific Bell said Thursday it hopes to compete with
the popularity of television by offering people easy access to computerized
libraries, bulletin boards and the use of electronic mail.
  PacBell's California Online -- which will be available to anybody with a
personal computer, telephone and calling card -- will be among the first in
the nation to use a graphic-based system that simplifies procedures so only
a rudimentary familiarity with computers is needed.
  "It's going to offer our customers a supplement to their current leisure
activities ... and among other things we've seen (in trials) a lot of
people who got away from the TV," said Roger P. Conrad, director of
Videotex Gateway Services.
  "We feel this is a more productive way for people to spend their lives
and we think a lot of users are going to agree," he added.
  Users will pay "info-entrepreneurs" fees based on the time they use
various services and will be billed on their monthly telephone statements.
Unlike some online information services, users do not have to subscribe
ahead of time.
  Conrad said the types of services are limited only by vendors'
imaginations.  PacBell will make money by selling telecommunication line
use to the companies.

======================================

I would like to know the point of contact for more information,
since this is precisely my current field of interest (even though it
has been my major pastime for the last five years already).

Also on the same page right next to it is an article titled
"Digital Revolution promises social, financial upheavals"
By Michael W. Miller, The Wall Street Journal [12 paragraphs]
(which I know from the title must be correct in gist).


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

From: bet@bent (Bennett Todd)
Subject: Consumer Opts For POTS
Date: 10 Jun 89 22:41:17 GMT
Reply-To: bet@bent (Bennett Todd)
Organization: Diagnostic Physics, Raddiology, DUMC

In-reply-to: decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)

In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!
zygot!john@ucbvax (John Higdon) writes:
>[...]
>Most of the consumer advocates that I have spoken with, however, seem to
>feel that adequate telephone service consists of a black rotary-dial wall
>phone in the kitchen and the fact that there is a hell of a lot of
>electro-mechanical equipment that needs replacing is of no concern to them.

Count me as a consumer that feels the same way. Touch Tone (tm?) is nice
but by no means necessary, and none of the other features interest me at
all. However, I can see for myself that I am severely outvoted on this
preference; the phone feature fiends are making sure that my service
gets more and more expensive, and less and less reliable. I've seen it
at work, and I've seen it at home. In fact, I've discontinued having any
service at all at home, and have started using email more and more to
carry on important communications, since, unreliable though it is, it
works more reliably than our new super spiffy digital AT&T PBX with LEDs
and whatnot. Our old electromechanical system worked vastly better.
Unfortunately, we reached its limits, and it is no longer supported, and
cannot be expanded. So we get a lot more exercise now, which is good; it
is easier and faster to walk down the hall, or indeed across campus,
than to try to get out using the spiffy new digital phones (with LEDs).

-Bennett
[e-mail]

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

From: Ed_Han <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is it possible to trace international calls?
Date: 10 Jun 89 20:21 GMT
Reply-To: Ed_Han <[e-mail]>
Organization: caen

Regarding the situation in Beijing, I know of some telephone numbers
in China for reporting "counter-revolutionary people". Many of my Chinese
friends here have called these numbers in an attempt to jam the number and
frustrate the operators. They would like to know if it's possible for the
Chinese side operators to trace down their calling numbers? Thanks and please
reply through E-mail.

-Ed Han

[Moderator's Note: Due to a transmission error of some sort (jamming by
the Chinese government perhaps? :) Mr. Han's message arrived here somewhat
botched up, with the first line missing. I reconstructed his message the
way I am sure he meant it to be. What I received began 'numbers in China
for reporting'.

Certainly international calls can be traced; it just takes more cooperation
between authorities internationally than would a call, say, from one place
to another in town. Remind me to post the account of the harrassing and
threatening calls made to Queen Elizabeth over a period of a week which
were finally traced to a room phone at the Lawson YMCA in Chicago. Please
copy replies to the Digest as well as to Mr. Han. Thanks.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 14:35:09 PDT
From: Andy Fyfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Reach Out Plans
Organization: California Institute of Technology

Reach Out Canada doesn't count as an international plan?!?!

[Moderator's Note: Yes and no. Some brochures from AT&T call it such; other
references just refer to it as one of the Reach Out Plans. Good point. PT]

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

Date:     Fri, 9 Jun 89 16:27:09 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Canada - U.S. communications

When I was recently in Minnesota, someone from Canada told me that
Canada has daylight time just like U.S., and changed it along with
U.S.'s change to first (not last) Sunday in April.
(This isn't directly phone-related, but it backs up the idea that
Canada should NOT get a separate country code.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
Subject: Re: Cellular phones in Beijing?
Date: 6 Jun 89 21:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tim Dawson)
Organization: Motorola FSD, NTSC     Dallas, Texas


As an FYI, while I was working as a systems Engineer at Motorola Cellular,
one of the major projects that we had in house was the design/implementation
of a large scale Celular system for Beijing.  This system is real!
--
================================================================================
Tim Dawson (...!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim)  Motorola Computer Systems, Dallas, TX.
"The opinions expressed above do not relect those of my employer - often even I
cannot figure out what I am talking about."


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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 89 18:08:44 EST
From: Sten Peeters <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular around the world

I know that several counries in Europe have full Cellular phone service.
I get some magazines from there and they have add's for cellular phones.
                                        Sten
 _____________
|    Info     \__________________________________________________________
|                                                                        |
|                       Sten Peeters(sp@pro-palace)                      |
|         Co-Sysop@The Psychedelic Deli 215\678-5741 2400/1200/300       |
|                                                                        |
|   "A smart person believes only half he hears,                         |
|    A smarter person knows which half to believe!"-Unknown              |
|________________________________________________________________________|

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

Date: 9 Jun 89 11:14:10 CDT (Fri)
From: "J. Deters" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone & 911 - two replies
Reply-To: [e-mail] (J. Deters)
Organization: Terrapin Transit Authority

In article <[e-mail]> Richard Childers
<avsd![e-mail]> writes:

>>(story about a reckless driver and a call to the CHP deleted)
>Yup, a real emergency there.
>>(more story deleted)
>Talk about juvenile power trips. You could have waited a few minutes to
>get past him. This sounds like an infantile power trip.
>Instant gratification, indeed.
>-- richard

Around here, the state patrol advertises 911 as the number to dial
to report drunk and/or dangerous drivers.  They have appeared on the
local news saying how cellular phones have helped catch drunk drivers.
(Our state is in the middle of a 'drunk-driver crackdown').

I think that malicious drivers should be reported, and there is no
way to do anything about it once you are off the road.  Cellular
phones are great for just this sort of thing.  If you want to drive
like a jerk, cellular phones give you more incentive not to.  Of
course, now everyone is going to start calling in speeders, too.  :-(

-john

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

Date: 9-JUN-1989 16:18:07.72
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections

You point out, quite correctly, some problems with zip and area codes in
the AT&T Mail X.400 connection data I recently forwarded to TELECOM:

>>I am also notifying telecom-request in case the archives need to be corrected

>>You mentioned Lincroft, NJ in 2 places in your message.  The 2nd occurrence
>>had zipcode 08838, which should be 07738.

>>And where is the phone number shown here:
>>        MHS Gateway: mhs!dialcom
>>        Administrator: Mr  Laraman
>>        Dialcom
>>        South Plainfield, NJ 07080
>>        Phone: [phone]

What I forwarded to TELECOM came straight out of the ATT-Mail "shared file"
!atthelp:news.5 and the ATT-Mail lookup facility DIR[ectory] -- that 441
area code is so obviously wrong that I called ATT-Mail's Customer Assistance
folks several times to get it straight (at 1 800 624 5672, voice line), but
no one I spoke with could help.  Sorry about that.  The zip code disparity
you observed and corrected I never noticed at all -- mea culpa; and thanks.

                        -- Fred

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #193
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 12 Jun 89 0:05:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #194
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Jun 89 00:00:44 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (Leonard P. Levine)
    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (Don Peaslee)
    Re: Is Touchtone Still a Protected Trademark (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Re: The Term "Touchtone" -- No Longer Protected? (Ross D. Snyder)
    Re: NNX, N1X, N0X etc. (Steve Pozgaj)
    Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers (Eric Green)
    Rampant bogosity (Gregg R. Siegfried)
    Re: The High Cost of Telco Features (Dean Riddlebarger)
    What Is TELECOM Digest, Anyway? (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?
Date: 9 Jun 89 19:24:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,
by decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:

> If memory serves, I believe the maximum REN (Ringer Equivalence Number)
> allowed on a 1/1A ESS is 8. Higher than this, the CO will withhold ring
> current and you will never know anyone is calling you.

Does this mean that I can surpress the ringing of my home phones when I
want to just by increasing the number of equivalent ringers?

If so, that would be very useful at times.

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


[Moderator's Note: I think this would be an *awful* way to go about what
you want to accomplish. It's like saying can I turn out the lights before
I go to bed at night by short-circuiting the fuse box in the basement? Yes,
of course you can. Why not regular off/on switches instead?  PT]
------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 16:38:34 CST
From: Don Peaslee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:
> How many devices can a single residential line support? At the moment I have
> 4  telephones, 1 answering machine, and 1 modem on the line. I am about to
> add a second modem and another phone. Is this "safe", and will it work?

I can give you an admittedly non-technical answer.  I have 6 phones, 2 modems,
and an answering machine all on one line and have no problem whatsoever.  I'd
bet that several more devices could be installed prior to my having any
problems.  You should be fine for the next couple of additions.

Don

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

Subject: Re: Is Touchtone Still a Protected Trademark
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 89 18:15:51 EDT
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>

Here's the promised summary:
No, it is not a protected trade-mark.  The reason is that, at the
time of Judge Green, both AT&T and the local BOCs wanted the rights
to it.  They agreed, instead, to allow the term to pass into the
public domain, so that both could use it.

Thanks to the mailer for losing the names of the respondants about 5
minutes ago.  I suppose that means that it's time to install the new
version...
--
 ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner


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

From: "Ross D. Snyder" <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Term "Touchtone" -- No Longer Protected?
Date: 11 Jun 89 03:38:19 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA


My understanding is that AT&T registered "touchtone" as a trademark when
they invented DTMF, but surrendered it at divestiture (midnight 01 Jan 84).
Most of the Bell System intellectual property rights were divided up
between AT&T, the RBOCs, and Bellcore, but "touchtone" was instead released
to the public domain.  The reason was that AT&T wanted to keep "touchtone"
to describe the DTMF capablities of its common carrier operations,
CO switches, computers, and CPE, while RBOCs wanted to be able to sell
"touchtone"-compatible dial-tone.  Because of this decision, anyone can
now sell "touchtone" products or services.

Someone said BT claims "touchtone" as trademark in the UK, which is probably
OK under international intellectual property law.

The story is different for the Bell System symbol. (There's a good article
in a 1971 issue of Telephony magazine on the design of the Bell System
symbol and the color scheme of Bell System vehicles.)  The Bell System
symbol was given to the RBOCs and Bellcore.  AT&T had to come up with its
new non-concentric circle-within-a-circle-all-made-of-horizontal-lines
symbol.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer (yet).  Correct me if I'm wrong.
-Ross

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

Date:     Fri, 9 Jun 89 08:56:15 EDT
From: Steve Pozgaj <dmntor![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NNX, N1X, N0X etc.
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Pozgaj)
Organization: Digital Media Networks Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The reason for NNX vs. XXX or NNN is that the N's designate one of a set
of specific digits, while the X's designate *any* digit.  Thus, a phone
number is stated as NPA-NNX, with no care to the last 4 digits, since they
can be anything.  The N's just mean "more important to watch how these are
selected", while the X's mean "pick whatever you want".  The NPA (Number
Plan Area code) is *real* special, so has its own name.  Of course, N1X
and N0X do convey the spirit of "pick the first one carefully; the middle
one must be 0 or 1, and the last one's no big deal. (At least that's
what I was told in a telephony course when I worked at Northern Telecom
some 12 years ago.)

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

From: Eric Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers
Date: 11 Jun 89 16:08:53 GMT
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad
Allen) says:
>   PacBell's California Online -- which will be available to anybody with a
> personal computer, telephone and calling card -- will be among the first in
> the nation to use a graphic-based system that simplifies procedures so only
> a rudimentary familiarity with computers is needed.

Hmmm. I wonder if PacBell will do what SW Bell did when they signed a
contract with some company for introducing a teletext service using
modified MiniTel equipment. It's interesting that in both Texas and
Oklahoma, they subsequently re-classified all "free" public access
BBS's as "businesses" (though it is being fought in the PUC of both
states). And a telephone installer here noted that South Central Bell
has ordered them to report any computer equipment they see while
installing new lines... signs of future BBS pogroms?

And some people want to deregulate the "Baby Bells" even further?
Sheesh.

--
    Eric Lee Green              P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509
     ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg     [phone]
"I have seen or heard 'designer of the 68000' attached to so many names that
 I can only guess that the 68000 was produced by Cecil B. DeMille." -- Bcase

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

Subject: Rampant bogosity
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: 10 Jun 89 13:46:24 EDT (Sat)
From: "gregg.r.siegfried" <[e-mail]>

In a recent posting gtephx!gtephx![e-mail] (Dell Ellison) writes
 :
>Of course if you don't like crystal clear conversations,
>then stick with
>A.T. & T.
>or
>M.C.I.

Not that this has a whole lot to do with telecommunications, but where
does this pinhead get off making such rediculous assertions and advertising
his company in this newsgroup?  Yes, I know, it happens all the time,
but in the spirit of Usenet, I think he deserves a good flame.

I'm very excited that you are so pleased with and enthusiastic about
the quality of your chosen LD carrier.  Your description of the reaction
this quality provokes in the people you call is fascinating.  However,
even with what little of yourself you reveal in your posting, I might
suggest that they are actually saying "Oh no!  You're not in town, are you???"

It's unfortunate that your conversations don't sound like they're as riveting
as your account of them.  I can see it now.  "Listen now, I'm going to drop
that pin again.  Tell me if you hear it."  "Let's just sit here in silence
and enjoy the clarity of the connection."

Personalty issues aside, I think your remarks implying "Our network is better
than yours!  Nyah Nyah!"  were gratuitous nonsense and completely uncalled
for.  This is supposed to be a technical forum, not a place for vendors to
reiterate their advertising campaigns.

Please refrain from this in the future.

Gregg Siegfried
This is Saturday.  No disclaimers necessary. ;-)

[Moderator's Note: See last message in the digest today. PT]
------------------------------

From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The High Cost of Telco Features
Date: 6 Jun 89 13:49:55 GMT
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas

[ Large paragraph questioning the high cost of local service and
  features deleted........]
[ Basic question: Is this cost rational, and why don't we talk about
   it more?]

Well, you probably don't see a lot of discussion about this because
talk in this group tends to be towards features and other technical
material.  The fact that local service, from the RBOCs as well as
independent telcos, is quickly stripping away any possible cost
benefits from LD competition, has been duly noted.  But, since the
realistic [pragmatic?] solution is to band together and petition
or pester various state and federal agencies, there's not much more
we can do in this group.  So, while it would be nice to see a serious
surge in telco activism sparked within the net, I think you will find
that most people would rather just deal with the tech side.

FYI, you are not alone out there on the coast.  Both here in Cleveland
and back in Chicago I found that my local service costs far outstripped
my LD in terms of price/performance.  Feel any better....?  :-)

Dean Riddlebarger
Systems Consultant - AT&T
216-348-6863 [work]
uucp: att!crfax!crnsnwbt!rdr

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

Date:     Sat, 10 Jun 89 19:38:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  What Is TELECOM Digest, Anyway?

In two messages in the Digest today, Dean Riddlebarg and Gregg R. Siegfried
discuss what they expect from [Telecom Digest], and what it has come to
represent to them when they receive each issue.

They both speak of the Digest as a *technical* publication, and while that
was true in the beginning years, and remains true to some extent
today, the Digest is, to me, more than just a dry recitation of technical
data relating to telephony.

When Jon Solomon founded the Digest, in August, 1981, it was an off-shoot
of HUMAN NETS, and intended as a place where technical discussions not
suitable for the entire HUMAN NETS audience could be conducted. And the
Digest served its purpose very well, as anyone reading through the old
issues in the archives will attest. A few of the original participants from
those days are still on the mailing list today, as we near the end of eight
years of e-publishing.

But 1981 was a different time: While some folks had limited experience with
alternate long distance carriers, and some were served by ESS offices, most
Digest readers were being served by *THE* TELEPHONE COMPANY via those nice
old reliable crossbar offices. New technology meant having touch tone and
the ability to dial international calls direct for most users.

The divestiture of *THE* TELEPHONE COMPANY a few years ago brought many
changes to the scene, including politics and judge-bashing, to name just
two. The technology began improving expotentially. Everyone began doing
their own thing. Ma Bell, in her old age, was euthanized, or 'put to sleep'
although it was not much of a mercy-killing to hear some people tell it.
For better or worse, the telephone industry in America primarily, but
around the world as well began changing dramatically.

While [Telecom Digest]/comp.dcom.telecom still functions as a place on the
net for technical discussions relating to telephony, the discussions can't
stop there. For many, many decy, some commentary is presented in better taste than
others. If it is too far afield, I decline the message; and you should see
-- just *see* -- some of the stuff I return to senders almost daily. Digest
readership and participation has grown substantially since Jon Solomon
was operating it. This is not a negative comment about jsol at all; the
increased participation and message traffic would have come whether he was
here or not. It had to, with the increasing awareness people have about
their phone service, and the growing myriad of options and features now
available. I think the best here in the Digest is yet to come, so please
stick around, won't you, and share it with me.

Patrick Townson
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #194
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 13 Jun 89 0:31:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #195
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Jun 89 00:03:44 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you! (John Higdon)
    Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you! (Richard Edell)
    Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you! (Harry Goodman)
    Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers (J. Eric Townsend)
    Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers (Richard Edell)
    Hunt groups vs. Starline (Steve Elias)
    Re: Establishing a hunt group between private lines (Mike Morris)
    DMS-100 wierd tones (phantom)
    Query on ISDN (Simpson L. Garfinkle)

[Moderator's Note: Heavy mail over the weekend. Two issues of the Digest
going out today. Another issue will follow in about an hour!  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you!
Date: 12 Jun 89 06:00:02 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> For a few days now at least, calls from Chicago to 415-976-anything have
> been getting intercepted at a switch in Chicago and rejected. I was unable
> to find a single routing which would work.

California Information Access Providers have been clamoring for years
to get this accomplished. They have found it very discouraging to have
their call-counters registering impressive numbers, only to find at the
end of the month that the check from Pac*Bell was for pennies.

> Growing frustrated at my inability to call a service which I enjoy using
> sometimes,

and not paying for, since providers are only paid for in-state calls,

> Forcing the call through 9-10288 + 1-415-976 out of Canoga Park got me
> through. Finally!

And finally, someone will be charged for the calls you make.

It seems that California has been the only state to allow out-of-state
calls to 976 due to the generally inept manner that Pac*Bell has
handled the service all along. That there is even a 976 industry in
California remaining is a miracle.

> As to be expected, the transmission was lousy, and I don't intend to bother
> dialing all those numbers in the future just to make the call. So I guess
> its goodbye 415-976 from outside the State of California!

And goodbye to all those jammed lines that are not making any money for
the service provider.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Well, la-dee-dah! I am tempted to say something obscene,
something 976-like. (Sticking out tongue and making ugly face.)   PT]

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

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you!
Date: 12 Jun 89 21:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley (Student)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>For a few days now at least, calls from Chicago to 415-976-anything have
>been getting intercepted at a switch in Chicago and rejected. I was unable
>to find a single routing which would work.

The following is an excerpt from a letter from Pacific Bell to 976 Information
Providers dated May 4, 1989:

  "On February 22, 1989, Pacific Bell requested that the local telephone
  companies and the IECs block the California 976 prefix outside the state.
  This action was taken to help eliminate unbillable interstate calls from
  reaching California programs.

Apparently Pacific Bell's 976 serving central offices are unable to reject
976 calls carried by IECs (long distance carriers) from outside of
California (and still accept calls originated within California.)  Therefore
Pacific Bell is asking all other phone companies to implement blocking.

-Richard Edell
 ([e-mail])
 (UCB EECS student and 976 Information Provider)

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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 13:38:56 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you!

The audiotext information providers have been losing a $bundle$ on calls
placed outside the local billing area.  They've been literally going
batsh*t over the issue and are pressuring ALL carriers to block access
to 976 #s outside the local billing area.

AT&T has it's own reasons to comply with such requests: they've got a
900 service that would be happy to host information providers on a national
basis.

--Harry Goodman hplabs!cdp!goodman

Disclaimer?  Oh.  "I mean what I say and say what I mean but CdP/IGC
refuse to be responsible for my debts much less my words."


[Moderator's Note: But can I get it billed on my Reach Out at twelve cents
a minute? The one thing about 415-976 for us Chicagoans: it was *cheap*
thrills. (Making obscene, Bronx-cheer like noises.)    PT]

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

From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers
Date: 12 Jun 89 04:50:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Fusion-Chem-Info-Med-Data-Bio-Net-Tech-Quik, Inc. (Ltd.)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Brad Allen) writes:
[about PacBell's new data info service]

Here in Houston, SWB and U.S. Videotel have been importing Minitel terminals
and software to set up a service that sounds exactly like the one
that PacBell is offering.

A word of warning: at the same time, SWB is trying to charge all BBS
operators business rates regardless of whether the BBS operator charges
for the service.  Whether it was an ill-timed move, or a diabolical
plot is unknown.  BBS operators have filed suit.  People in PacBell's
area should keep an eye out, just in case.

If you're interested, there is a FIDO echo (called "fightbell", I think)
and a usenet newsgroup for Texas (tx.cosuard, named after the coalition
that has filed suit against SWB).

--
Grep sed "awk! man cut grep, edit banner false!  get help!"  Man disable
grep, split banner, join prof admin.  Grep mount eqn, find path.  Grep
echo spell.  False cat kill admin, man.  Grep find banner, make true message.
J. Eric Townsend-flatline!erict   EastEnders Maillist: [e-mail]

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

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers
Date: 12 Jun 89 21:22:09 GMT
Reply-To: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley (student)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Brad Allen) writes:
>[copied without permission from Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 9, 1989, Section B]

>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pacific Bell said Thursday it hopes to compete with
>the popularity of television by offering people easy access to computerized
>libraries, bulletin boards and the use of electronic mail.
>  PacBell's California Online -- which will be available to anybody with a
>personal computer, telephone and calling card -- will be among the first in
>the nation to use a graphic-based system that simplifies procedures so only
>a rudimentary familiarity with computers is needed.
>  "It's going to offer our customers a supplement to their current leisure
>activities ... and among other things we've seen (in trials) a lot of
>people who got away from the TV," said Roger P. Conrad, director of
>Videotex Gateway Services.
>  "We feel this is a more productive way for people to spend their lives
>and we think a lot of users are going to agree," he added.
>  Users will pay "info-entrepreneurs" fees based on the time they use
>various services and will be billed on their monthly telephone statements.
>Unlike some online information services, users do not have to subscribe
>ahead of time.
>  Conrad said the types of services are limited only by vendors'
>imaginations.  PacBell will make money by selling telecommunication line
>use to the companies.

I believe Pacific Bell is talking about their recently approved 900 ICS
(Information Calling Services).  Pacific Bell 900 ICS is an intra-LATA
service only (i.e. to cover all of California would require telephone
lines (and equipment) in all 10 California LATAs, furthermore calls from
outside of California would not be permitted).

If I were thinking about becoming a Videotex Information Provider I
would seriously consider the 900 services available through the long
distance companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telesphere, et. al.).  The per
minute charges for 900 via IEC (long distance company) are greater but
the simplicity of ONE set of phone lines in ONE location outweigh the
increased per minute costs.

If you were interested in Pacific Bell's Videotex services I would call
the Mr. Conrad mentioned in the AP story you lifted -- a starting point
would be to call 811-4976 (CA only, otherwise [phone]).

-Richard Edell
 ([e-mail])
 (UCB EECS student and 976 Information Provider)

The above opinions are my own (but not exclusively mine).

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

Subject: hunt groups vs. starline
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 07:19:23 -0400
From: chipcom.chipcom.com![e-mail]


Fred Blonder asked about hunt groups and the grief his local CO is giving
him since he wants to hunt between lines billed to different people...
Patrick suggested 'starline' service.  hunt groups are free -- starline
costs big dough (about $20 per month in my area).  so a hunt group would
be preferable, even if it is less functional than starline.


-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail], [e-mail]   [mail to chipcom.chipcom.com bounces!]
-- voice mail: 617 859 1389
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Establishing a hunt group between private lines
Date: 13 Jun 89 03:57:19 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred
Blonder) writes:
>I'm hoping that someone can provide some useful advice regarding
>the following situation: I'm planning on getting my own phone line
>run in a house which I share with roommates. I've been told by the
>local phone company (Chesapeake & Potomac) that they will not allow
>the new line to hunt to the old "communal" line which I already
>share with my roommates, because it's listed under a different name.

>While they may have sound reasons for this policy, I don't see how
>they apply in this case.

>My question is: Does anyone have an idea of how high up the chain-
>of-command I'll need to go in order to get an exception granted?
>Has anyone done this, or something similar? Is this hopeless?

Pacific Bell offers (or at least used to - a friend had it about '82)
but it's expensive, and all lines must be in the same name.  Why not
get call forwarding, or call forwarding-no-answer?

Another alternative is used by some friends of mine: there is one
listed line, and each person has their own unlisted line.  The answering
machine on "pub" can be dumped remotely.  The answering machine on the
private line(s) are the individual's own responsibility.  It is a
large house (5 bedrooms) and a multi-line (1A2) key system services the
house (complete with "head" phones).  "Pub" rings everywhere, the private
lines ring in the individual bedrooms and buzzes everywhere.


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

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

Subject: DMS-100 wierd tones
Date: Sat Jun 10 18:51:31 1989
From: phantom <csense![e-mail]>

While excercising the local DMS-100 switch, we encountered
a neat happenstance.

Occasionally, the switch will refuse to allow us to release and re-request
dial tone, no matter what we try, including the 'ABCD' trick.

If we hang on the line, when it finally resets, we hear
a quick sequence of about 5 tones starting at around 800Hz
and stepping up to around 2500Hz.

What are these things? Also, curious how common this occurence
is. We have noticed this a few times before in the last year.

TNX


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

Date:     Mon, 12 Jun 89 8:07:04 CDT
From: "Simson L. Garfinkel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query on ISDN
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: This was kindly forwarded to us by Will Martin.]

I am doing an article on ISDN for The Boston Globe.  The artice would like
to write about all of the problems with ISDN, all of the advantages, what
people's experience have been (both positive and negative), and where things
are going.

If anybody would like to give me a call or email, and flame, this is your
chance!!!

        Simson L. Garfinkel
        409 Washington Street
        Cambridge, MA 02139
        617-876-6111

        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #195
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 13 Jun 89 1:25:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #196
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Jun 89 00:50:37 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    More on Cellular Overseas (Will Martin)
    Cellular Telephones around the World (Peter Thurston)
    Re: Cellular Road-Side Phone Sighted (Mike Morris)
    (Non) Ringing phones (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: NXX, N1X, N0X (David Lewis)

[Moderator's Note: This is part 2 of the Digest for June 13. Advance
notice for Wednesday: torches at the ready please; in issue 197, more
of the 'nyah! mine is better than yours' letters, with some comparisons
of long distance calls for quality. While flaming, don't burn down the
Digest computer room by accident. Also in 197 on Wednesday morning, Will
Martin will discuss sci.commtech; negatively, I might add.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 12 Jun 89 12:52:32 CDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  More on Cellular Overseas

Here's a mail exchange on the subject which I thought should be in the Digest
since there is good info about the Scandinavian implementation therein:

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 17:13:02 +0200
From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular phones in Beijing?
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden

>Just how worldwide IS cellular telephone service implemented? I didn't
>think it even was available all over Europe yet.

Just for your info, and trying not to sound too vitriolic, I'd like to point
out that the cellular phone system you use is largely based upon the
Scaninavian one. The Scandinavian NMT-450 (Nordic Mobile Telephony) network
covers all of Scandinavia and Swedish telecom-manufacturer Ericsson is in
fact world-leading in sales of exchanges for cellular systems. Ericsson
actually had something like 50% of the American market when I last heard any
sales figures (a couple of years ago so this may have changed) and this should
be weighted against the fact that so far, North America has been one of the
SMALLER markets as cellular goes. A couple of years ago, there were more
cellular phones in Sweden alone than in all of North America! This may seem
amazing, but for once we've been favoured by our state-monopoly telecom
administrations.

The cellular networks have been integrated with the national radio networks
so that the transmitters didn't need their own housing etc. This meant a quick
build-up phase. Also, the build-up wasn't dependant on sales. A decision was
made to cover all the area, and then they simply did it. What surprised
everybody was the very rapid success of the system. Up until this time, mobile
telephony was considered a luxury commodity. Suddenly every plumber and
workman with a small enterprise of his own moved his office to his car with
no need even for a receptionist. Swedish tax-laws make such expenses
tax-deductible which meant that the cost for the phone, while high compared to
a regular land-line subscription, was negligible in running a business.

As a matter of fact, traffic outgrew the NMT-450 system years ago and the
second generation, NMT-900 was introduced. This runs on 900 MHz as opposed to
450 and thus covers less area per transmitter. The smaller cell size
effectively yields higher capacity but at the cost of more transmitters. Thus,
the NMT-900 system only covers the major urban regions and main national
roads. However, the phones need less power and shorter antennas, so they
have become very popular where they can be used. Customers have a choice of
450 or 900 MHz when opening a subscription, with a warning that 450-traffic
may be congested in urban areas and 900 may be unavailable in the country.

Other countries have followed, but so far Scandinavia has been the only major
multi-national cellular system. Different European countries have jumped on
the bandwagon at different times and thus have opted for either the 450 or the
900 systems. Most of them, though, buying the stations from Ericsson. Motorola
tried to move in on this huge market and have in fact managed to grab a small
slice (20%, I think) here in Sweden, but NMT dominates completely.

Of course, what the user sees is only the phone, not the exchange, and
Ericsson have never been able to compete with cheap Far-East mass-produced
subscriber equipment. Nor has this ever been their intent. They specialize in
switching equipment (quite successfully so).

At the present, work is going on throughout Europe to standardize a third
generation system with digital transmission and a true pan-european standard.
This means that a subscriber will be able to travel anywhere from Lisboa to
Ankara to North Cape and still use his own car phone with the same number. All
routing and charging will be fully automated.

As far as I can see, the split of Ma Bell in the U.S. messed up the situation
for you. IF Bell had been able to keep their hold on the market, and IF they
had branched out into cellular early enough, they MIGHT have been able to offer
you a continent-wide system without the routing hassles you seem to be
suffering now. I'm not generally a big fan of state monopolies, but it's
strange that Sweden should be among the cheapest countries for phone users
consistently year after year with the high costs of net maintenance we have
(sparse population/large area) for both cellular and regular phones. They must
be doing something fairly well.

BTW: As you can see from my return-path, I work at a subsidiary of Ericsson.
I am not, however, in any way involved in their marketing nor do I have
anything to do with the NMT-systems professionally. What I've said here is
just my own personal compilation of general knowledge about this market.

Torsten Dahlkvist
ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
Stockholm, Sweden

=========================

Date:     Mon, 12 Jun 89 12:45:12 CDT
From:     Will Martin  <wmartin@st-louis-emh2>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Cellular phones in Beijing?

Thanks for the info. I was NOT trying to imply that the American cellular
situation was superior to everywhere else (after all, what I mostly read
about it are complaints! :-); what I was getting at when I used the
"all over Europe" phrase was that I was surprised that this technology
was available in China when I was under the impression that it had not
been implemented in *every* European country yet. I've seen several
responses citing Scandinavia as a place where it is completely (or nearly
so) installed. But what about places like Portugal, Yugoslavia, etc.? That's
what I meant -- I thought that cellular did not yet completely cover Europe,
and it appears from the chart Mr. Covert posted that this is true.

I realize cellular is not available "all over" the US yet, and I
suppose never will be, given the presence of large areas of
sparsely-populated countryside, like in Nevada and similar places. I
suppose I should not have thought it at all remarkable that a major city
like Beijing would have installed cellular in that metropolitan area,
but it came as a bit of a surprise, since I was not aware of the
international extent of cellular, to hear that it was available in a
Communist country usually classified as "third world".

Regards, Will Martin

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

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 89 15:28:29 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Telephones around the World


>developed and quite sophisticated.  The NMT-900 system operating in the Nordic
>countries works automatically in all four countries.  Even for incoming calls,

In what way are other non-nordic cellphone systems not automatic on incoming
calls. Surely noone setting up a modern mobile telephone system would consider
making part of it operator controlled .. or would they?

Peter Thurston.


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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Road-Side Phone Sighted
Date: 13 Jun 89 03:49:41 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


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

>   This morning on my way to work (in Southern California) I saw a cellular
>CalTrans emergency road-side telephone surmounted by a panel of solar cells.
>The site is less than 0.25 mile from a PacTel cellular antenna.  Today I
>finally verified that the telephone was cellular; I first noticed it about
>mid May.  Possibly I've glimpsed others; mostly I concentrate on traffic and
>driving, but I'll keep an eye out.

>   For those others whose past-life sins condemn them to commuting on the
>San-Diego freeway, this particular phone is on the south-bound side in the
>Sepulveda-pass area, less than 0.25 mile north of the Moraga on ramp; its
>ID is SD 423 or 425.

The entire Orange County callbox system is cellular based.  LA County ones
are cellular only where the cost of running phone lines would be excessive.

These are interesting devices: the solar panel charges lead-acid batteries,
and a tilt switch or a vibration switch triggers a electronic version of
a scream for help.  Even though, I've seen a couple knocked over and the
panel cable cut, and the panel missing.

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

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

Date: Mon 12 Jun 89 05:22:43-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (Non) Ringing phones


Phones depend on AC for ringing. If you place a rectifier in front of
the phone (connect the ~ to the line and + and - to the phone), the
phone will not ring, but function in every other respect.

You can buy "ringing switches" with modular cords from places like
Radio Shack. These are nothing more than a rectifier and a switch
which lets you bypass the rectifier (ringing on) or activate it
(ringing off).

If you want to tinker with this yourself, be sure to select a rectifier
which won't fry on your first call, remember that ringing is something
like 90V AC.

Ole

"Make it as ubiquitous as dialtone!"

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jun 89 13:45
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?

If I recall my Part 68 correctly, the rule on Ringer Equivalence
Numbers is that all devices must not have a combined REN greater
than 5.  Not 6 or 8 as previously reported.

This is the standard that all CO switches are built to.  Some may
actually support more, but the telco is obligated normally to allow
up to 5 REN total, and that's what they're now built for.

REN of 1 comes from the traditional electromechanical ringer, but
not even all of them are equal to 1.  I have a Northern Telecom
deskset (1986 Link model) with a real bell (not a fire alarm chirper)
with an REN of 0.8A, which is typical of modern equipment.  Some modems
and answering machines, which don't need to really ring, have RENs
in the 0.1 range.

A friend had trouble in her apartment, with phones not being audible,
and it turned out to be an REN violation.  The answering machine
was something like 1.2, and there were four other phones...  Unplugging
any one device made them all ring, but with the REN overload, the
ring voltage fell too low for them all to ring.  SOme devices rang,
but were anemic, while others didn't ring at all.  Yes, it's a violation
of telco rules to overload your line.  If you really need to have more
bells, you should get an external bell relay.
        fred

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX, N1X, N0X, ...
Date: 12 Jun 89 14:35:13 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research

In article <[e-mail]>, ficc![e-mail]
writes:
> I'm curious anout this terminology. Why two symbols for unspecified
> digits, here? Why N1X rather than N1N or X1X? And why NXX rather than
> any other combination on Ns and Xes? Does this mean anything, or is it
> just traditional?

In telco shorthand, N = any digit from 2 through 9; X = any digit from 0
through 9.  Before the advent of common control switches (where a single
controller, either electronic or electromechanical, reads the whole
number and then sets up a path through the switch fabric), the first
three digits of a phone number were used to determine what sort of
treatment to give a call.  Special treatment was recognized by a 0 or 1
for the first digit.  An "N" -- 2 through 9 -- in the first digit
therefore meant "handle normally".  A long-distance (out of area code)
call was recognized by a 0 or 1 in the second digit, so an "N" in the
second digit meant "inside this area code -- expect only 5 more digits".

I don't know why 0/1 were chosen as the special numbers; it may have
been tradition or it may have been some operations research whiz at Bell
Labs doing some T&M studies...

Anyway, the result of this is that, to date, office codes are generally
of the pattern NNX and area codes (or Numbering Plan Area codes, NPA
codes for short) are of the pattern N0/1X.  If you've been following the
discussion here lately, this all becomes moot over the next five or six
years as the lack of codes leads to interchangeable CO/NPA codes.  Both
CO codes and NPA codes will be of the format NXX.


--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

[Moderator's Note: I think 0/1 were chosen probably because at the
time this first came up for consideration, telephone companies were just
beginning to move away from Pennypacker, Pennsylvania, Sheldrake and
Buckingham style exchange names into ANC (All number calling). And which
two numbers on the rotary dial did NOT have letters associated? Zero and
one. I have seen exactly *one* very old, circa 1920's instrument which had
the letter 'Z' on the zero-operator hole. '1' was always held out as a
special sort of digit.    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #196
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 14 Jun 89 0:16:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #197
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:00:51 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Long Distance Carrier Sound Comparisons (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Long Distance Connection Quality (Steve Elias)
    Long Distance Carrier Span Comparisons (cblph![e-mail])
    Network Management Software (Bob Hanlon)
    Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you! (John Pettitt)
    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (John Cowan)
    Re: Canada - U.S. communications (Wolf Paul)
    Re: AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections (Sten Peeters)
    Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers (Peter da Silva)
    The "sci.commtech" discussion (Will Martin)

[Moderator's Note: Just as this issue was set to leave Evanston, I got
word of a malicious attack on Southern Bell in Delray Beach, FL which
involved the reprogramming of the switch there. A second part to the
Digest today will be issued a little later with available details. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 12 Jun 89 05:22:43-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Carrier Sound Comparisons

Which LD carrier is the best?  I have found that calling the East Coast
from the West Coast almost universially gives you a clear digital circuit
when the call is placed via SPRINT, and almost universally gives you a
cruddy circuit when placed via AT&T. I believe this has to do with capacity,
since John Covert almost always gets great circuits when he calls me via
AT&T in the other direction. At the moment, the improvement in quality is
good enough reason for me to stick with SPRINT for our company lines, but as
soon as AT&T expands their capacity I am willing to reconsider. I think it
is perfectly reasonable for someone to express their opinion on any LD
carrier on this forum, and I wish the people who represent such companies
and read this list would be a little less sensitive and patriotic to their
company whenever anything negative comes up.

Ole

"Make it as ubiquitous as dialtone!"

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

Subject: long distance connection quality
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 07:51:17 -0400
From: chipcom.chipcom.com![e-mail]


Gregg Siegfried posts an obligatory flame at Dell Ellison because Dell
pointed out that he and his friends perceive that US Sprint's long
distance connections are the best in the business.  "Oh no!  You're
not in town, are you?"

I don't think people have to "refrain from this in the future".  Instead,
it would be useful if people posted the cities between which they notice
excellent (or bad) service with different carriers.  I often try different
carriers when I call friends in NYC and the West Coast.  Sprint always
has the best connections to my (admittedly damaged) ears.  ATT always
seems to have more static and less overall volume.  MCI and ITT are so
poor that I usually redial the call through US Sprint.

Ellison's friends' reactions fit well with what I learned in my years
working in the voice messaging industry.  Perceived quality is largely
dependent on VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME!!!  US Sprint is the loudest long
distance carrier (double entendre?).  A recent (Byte?) magazine article
rated long distance carriers for modem connections.  ATT won, but Sprint
ran a close second, with Sprint being given the highest marks for loudness.


-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail], [e-mail]   [mail to chipcom.chipcom.com bounces!]
-- voice mail: 617 859 1389
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: cblph![e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 16:45 EDT
Subject: LD carrier span comparisons


Steve Elias suggests that we discuss perceived quality on a carrier by
carrier basis for calls between various cities.  This sounds like an
excellent topic.  I would enjoy reading these accounts, I hope people
post some.  This is *not* the sort of thing I flamed Dell Ellison about,
however.  Posting shallow references to his corporation's widely
publicized media advertising campaign was what I thought to be a
bit out of line with the guidelines for technical discussion.

Tell me, would you like to read drek like
**begin example**
If you don't want to make Quality Job 1,
stick with
GM
and
Chrysler
**end example** (no offense to Ford intended :-)
at the end of messages originating within any corporation large enough to
have an advertising campaign?  If I want to read advertising campaigns,
I'll pick up a magazine.

Indeed, accounts such as "Last Monday at about 22:30, I attempted a call
between Philly and Omaha with LD company X, and found it to be unable to
maintain 2400 bps carrier.  I then tried LD company Y.  My call went through
quickly, and I suffered very little line noise during the 45 minute
connection." would be informative and interesting.  If such descriptions get
too numerous or dull, perhaps our esteemed moderator could collect and
summarize them.  Of course, that would be up to Patrick.


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

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 89 17:40:57 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Bob Hanlon)
Subject: Network Management Software
Organization: Tandem Computers, U.S. Federal Operations, Reston, VA


I'm looking for network technical management packages that run within
the UNIX environment. For starters, I could use package name, who
publishes/supports it, and its major features.  Packages must lend them-
selves to porting to a new (Unix/Posix) architecture by either vendor
or integrator/customer.  Due to the time constraints involved, I would
appreciate email responses and I'll summarize with a followup posting.

Bob Hanlon
Advisory Staff Analyst
Tandem Computers, Inc.
Reston, VA  [phone]
tdmfed!hanlon_bob


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

Date: Tue Jun 13 07:52:47 1989
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Goodbye 415-976! It was nice knowing you!

[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator):
> For a few days now at least, calls from Chicago to 415-976-anything have
> been getting intercepted at a switch in Chicago and rejected. I was unable
> to find a single routing which would work.

After reading this I tried it from the UK and got:
    "We're sorry. MCI does not complete calls to 976 at this time." (click)
    or
     NU (Number Unobtainable) tone from British Telecom
    or
     US style busy signal
    or
     Nothing at all - I.E. open line to who knows where.

I then tried 213-976 and got the same set of messages.  It looks like
calls to all CA 976 codes are being blocked to out of state callers.

This is no great suprise other than the fact that British Telecom
seems to use MCI for some, but not all, of its US traffic.

John Pettitt

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?
Date: 12 Jun 89 17:52:16 GMT
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC  New York City


In article <[e-mail]> westmark![e-mail]
(Dave Levenson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>writes:
>> How many devices can a single residential line support? At the moment I have
>> 4  telephones, 1 answering machine, and 1 modem on the line. I am about to
>> add a second modem and another phone. Is this "safe", and will it work?

>What you must do is add up the ringer equivalence numbers of the various
>devices you wish to connect. The maximum total REN for a given subscriber line

The backward compatible maximum REN across the entire old-AT&T (BOC) system
is supposed to be 5.  So a maximum total REN of 5 should work on any
private line anywhere, except perhaps one served by a Very Local Telco
that hasn't upgraded since 1953.  :-)  But don't make assumptions:  the
local telco at my summer home, Taconic Telephone, is now one of the few
all-digital telcos in the country!

Fascist inews!
Fascist inews!
Fascist inews!
Fascist inews!
--
John Cowan <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
UUCP mailers:  ...!uunet!hombre!{marob,magpie}!cowan
Fidonet (last resort): 1:107/711
Aiya elenion ancalima!

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

From: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canada - U.S. communications
Date: 12 Jun 89 22:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx


In TELECOM-Digest Vol.9, No.193, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
>When I was recently in Minnesota, someone from Canada told me that
>Canada has daylight time just like U.S., and changed it along with
>U.S.'s change to first (not last) Sunday in April.
>(This isn't directly phone-related, but it backs up the idea that
>Canada should NOT get a separate country code.)

Excuse me, but time zones and daylight savings time have very little to
do with country codes.

I can see two reasons for separate country codes, one more valid than
the other:

(a) from certain nationalistic perspectives it rankles that Canada
    is the only major country which does not have its own country code
    and has to coordinate its internal telecommunications affairs with
    entities in the U.S. (I don't hold that view, but then I am neither
    Canadian nor very nationalistically inclined); and

(b) Giving Canada a separate country code frees up a few area codes for
    use in the U.S., and **lots of area codes** for use in Canada
    (this one I consider the more valid reason).

But time zones and DST are irrelevant -- in Western Europe, most countries
are in the same time zone but have different country codes, even though
most of them also switch to and from DST on the same dates.
--
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * [phone]
UUCP:   {texbell, killer, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp
DOMAIN: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 89 09:15:29 EST
From: Sten Peeters <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail announces X.400 interconnections

Were those all the countries with services like that? I happen to know that
there are several Telenet services in almost all the western european
countries.
|                       Sten Peeters(sp@pro-palace)                      |
|         Co-Sysop@The Psychedelic Deli 215\678-5741 2400/1200/300       |


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

From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers
Date: Tue Jun 13 11:18:52 1989

Eric Lee Green writes:
> Hmmm. I wonder if PacBell will do what SW Bell did when they signed a
> contract with some company for introducing a teletext service using
> modified MiniTel equipment. It's interesting that in both Texas and
> Oklahoma, they subsequently re-classified all "free" public access
> BBS's as "businesses"...

I suspect that their decision to base their new service on incompatible
V.23 (I think: 1200/75 baud) modems is a fallback position. That is, even if
they lose they can claim they're opening up a new market rather than entering
an old one... so they don't have to provide equal access or anything like
it.
--
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:     Mon, 12 Jun 89 8:36:03 CDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  The "sci.commtech" discussion

Recent issues of the Telecom Digest contained postings about the voting
on sci.commtech and the purpose of Telecom. Here are extracts:

> ... The group is forming to discuss
> the *social implications* of new technologies, not the technologies
> themselves.
> -Bob Virzi

> ... the Digest is, to me, more than just a dry recitation of technical
> data relating to telephony.
> ...
> I think of [Telecom Digest]/comp.dcom.telecom as a forum for people to
> share their knowledge, questions and concerns about *modern telephony in
> the world today*, in all its aspects.
> ...
> [Telecom Digest] tries to accomodate commentary on all aspects of phone
> service.
> ...
> Patrick Townson

As someone on the ARPA/MILNET side of the Internet, who does NOT have
current access to USENET, it seems that it is in my best interests that
sci.commtech never be formed. This would apply to every Telecom Digest
participant who does not have USENET access. sci.commtech would draw
discussion topics which COULD be accomodated on Telecom, but put them
into a forum which I could not see. Thus, it would be best, I would
think, if every Internet reader of Telecom who does not have USENET
access send a message with "vote no" in the Subject: field to
"[e-mail]". Unless sci.commtech is also
gatewayed into the Telecom Digest, I can't see that its creation will
have any positive effects for all the Digest readers on this side of
the networks.

The quotes above seem to clearly indicate that the interests of
sci.commtech's proposed charter can easily be subsumed into Telecom
and that they should be.

Will Martin
US Army Materiel Command Systems Integration & Mgmt Activity

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #197
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 14 Jun 89 1:25:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #198
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Jun 89 00:57:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Phreak Attacks Southern Bell/Delray Beach, FL (TELECOM Moderator)
    TELECOM Digest Calendar For July (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: NNX, N1X, N0X etc. (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Cellular Telephones around the World (Otto J. Makela)
    AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Re: Pacific Bell Plans Access To Computers (Rod Hart)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 14 Jun 89 0:13:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Phreak Attacks Southern Bell/Delray Beach, FL

Persons attempting to call the Probation Office in Delray Beach, FL on Monday
were connected to a phone sex hotline operated by a woman named 'Tina' instead.

Southern Bell Telephone Company officials have acknowledged that a hackerphreak
invaded a central office over the weekend, using a computer and modem, and
reprogrammed their computer in such a way that calls intended for the Probation
Office were instead routed to a New York-based phone sex line.

"People are calling the Department of Corrections and getting some kind
of sex palace," said Thomas Slingluff, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County
Probation Department.

Southern Bell officials said it was the first time their switching equipment
had been maliciously reprogrammed by an outside computer intruder. Southern
Bell provides the local phone service for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina
and South Carolina.

"We are very alarmed," said Southern Bell spokesman Buck Passmore. He
said the intrusion "...obviously required someone with considerable computer
skills and knowledge of the telephone system."

He pointed out the implications of such a computer breach are enormous.
In addition to merely intercepting the communications of others, other serious
problems include finding out unlisted phone numbers, and tampering with
billing records and/or the billing software.

Passmore admitted hackerphreaks have invaded Southern Bell 'lots of times
in the past', but he denied they had ever before been successful in altering
the the software in the switch itself.

It is believed that the intrusive calls were made on Sunday, June 11 via
AT&T long distance lines to Delray Beach, and security representatives from
Southern Bell and AT&T are working jointly to trace the breach. But Passmore
admitted, "We really have no idea at this time who it was or how it was
done."

Personally, I would look for someone who was on (had recently gotten
off of) probation for some sort of computer crime, wouldn't you?

Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Wed, 14 Jun 89 0:54:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Calendar For July

Here are some events of interest relating to telecommunications going
on during July.
                      ======================
July 6-7  Liberalization of European Telecommuications
This conference is being held in London. For more information, contact
IBC Services, Ltd. Phone [phone]
                      ======================
July 12-14  Introduction to ISDN
This seminar is being presented by Integrated Computer Systems, 8000
Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 300, Vienna, VA 22180.  The seminar itself
is being presented in Los Angeles. The fee is $1,195 per person, with
a $100 discount given on multiple registrations. Information at 800-421-8166.
                      ======================
July 13-14  First Annual Report on International Telecom Ventures
This two day presentation will be given at the Hotel Nikko in San Fransisco.
Registration fee is $745. Contact the Conference Registrar at 800-327-7205,
or in Virginia at 703-683-4100.

Featured speakers will include Fred Landman, President of Pan American
Satellite, and Bill Burgess, Vice President, US Sprint. In addition, more
than 15 other top industry representatives and government officials will
be present. Subjects discussed will include international satellite ventures,
undersea cable projects, video services and cellular systems.
                      =======================
July 16-20  Future View: The 1990's and Beyond
This interesting conference and exposition is being presented by the World
Future Society, 4916 Saint Elmo Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.
It will be held at the Sheraton Washington Hotel, Washington, DC. Registration
for the week long event is $305. Information at 301-656-8274.
                      =======================
July 17-20  OPASTCO Summer Meeting
OPASTCO is the Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
Telephone Companies, 2000 K Street NW, Suite 205, Washington, DC 20006.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel, Hilton Head, SC. For information
and reservation, call 202-659-5990.
                      ========================
July 17-21  Application of T-Carrier To Private Networking
This week-long summer seminar is sponsored by The George Washington University
Continuing Education Program, School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Tuition for the seminar is $1070. For more information, and to register,
call Shirley Forlenzo at GWU, 202-994-8530  or 800-424-9773. Within Canada,
call 800-535-4567.
                      ========================
July 23-27  NARUC Summer Committee Meetings
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners will meet at
the Westin-St. Francis Hotel in San Fransisco. For specific information
about the agenda and schedule of meetings, call their office in
Washington, DC  202-898-2200.


This Calendar of telecom-related conferences, expositions and seminars is
published from time to time in the Digest. Send news of telecom events you
wish to publicize *as far in advance as possible (at least six weeks)* to
Telecom Digest/Post Office Box 1570/Chicago, IL 60690. Or email them here.

Patrick Townson


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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NNX, N1X, N0X etc.
Date: 13 Jun 89 14:38:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


The numbering plan as found in Bell's Engineering and Operation
in the Bell System book explicitly lists N as { 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 }
rather than "pick this number carefully."  The description of the
plan shows the transition from the N{0,1}X-NNX numbering plan to
the (then) future generic XXX-XXX numbering.

-Ron

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 01:53:48 +0300
From: "Otto J. Makela" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones around the World
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Otto J. Makela)
Organization: Grand Hall of Justice, Mega-City One

In article <[e-mail]>, pwt1%ukc.ac.uk@nsfnet-
relay.ac.uk says:
>    developed and quite sophisticated.  The NMT-900 system operating in the
>    Nordic countries works automatically in all four countries.  Even for
>    incoming calls,
>In what way are other non-nordic cellphone systems not automatic on incoming
>calls. Surely noone setting up a modern mobile telephone system would consider
>making part of it operator controlled .. or would they?
>
>Peter Thurston.

No, what this means is that when travelling in Sweden, I can set a normally
Finnish phone to use the local network.  No re-wiring, no paperwork, no legal
hassles, no nothing.  I just have to flip a small switch to mark that I'm
using the Swedish network (if you are wandering why a switch, it's there so
that I don't get my phone calls routed through Sweden every time I go near
the border).

Otto J. Makela, 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

"In the week before their departure to Arrakis, when all the final scurrying
about had reached a nearly unbelievable frenzy, an old crone came to visit the
mother of the boy, Paul." - Frank Herbert, Dune


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

Date: Mon 12 Jun 89 05:22:43-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market


A while back, there was some discussion about AT&T PBX equipment (Merlin and
the like). I'd like to point out that while Merlin offers great features
(we have one at work), it is probably the most expensive system you can buy.
(The cheapest Merlin phone is over $200, a "reasonable" one, the kind most
employees would want (BIS-22) is $395). For larger businesses this is probably
OK, but I am really surprised that AT&T hasn't entered the "simple PBX"
market. Panasonic has a 6 CO line, 16 extension system for about $700,
it requires only one "wizard's console" and supports *standard
telephones* (my rotary phones from the 30's and 40's work just fine).
Again, you cannot fault AT&T for quality, but I really wonder about
their pricing (look at what they charge for a FAX machine these days!!).


Ole

"Make it as ubiquitous as dialtone!"

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

From: Rod Hart - Director Minicomputer Tech. Support <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Jun 89 01:28:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell plans access to computers
Organization: Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., Baltimore, Md.
Lines: 7

Gateway Services are not that earth shattering around here. Bell
Atlantic Companies have been trialing them for quite some time. The
key is how to provide it and cover cost within Judge Greene's rules.
--
Signed by: Rod Hart (WA3MEZ)
       Minicomputer Technical Support District
       Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. -  A Bell Atlantic Company

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #198
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 15 Jun 89 0:54:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #199
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Jun 89 00:34:41 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Dean Riddlebarger)
    Re: Phreak Attacks Southern Bell/Delray Beach (David Gast)
    Ericsson Transceivers (Bob Duckworth)
    Re: The "sci.commtech" discussion (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market - Defense of Merlin (John L. Shelton)
    Re: Number of devices on 1 line? (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: The Term "Touchtone" -- No Longer Protected? (John Cowan)
    Re: Cellular Road-Side Phone Sighted (Gerry Wheeler)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 08:00 CDT
From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Divestiture, Business and the General Public


Patrick and I have just had a small discussion about the overall direction
and tone of the messages in the telecom newsgroup.  Some of you may have
seen some of the newsgroup messages about this [i.e. a reader asked whether
or not the newsgroup/digest could deal with technical *and* subjective
matter, I noted that most of the talk leans towards the technical, some
other corporate flame wars flared up, etc. etc.].  Well, whatever our
views on the theme of the messages, we did decide that it might be fun
to throw some subjective topics into the fray.  So.......

I would argue that, since divestiture, the general public has been
increasingly alienated by the telecom situation in this country.  Many
analyses of the telecom market suggest that, while LD competition has
brought some degree of cost savings and service flexibility to the
average resident, this has been offset and perhaps overridden by cost
increases on the local side.  It would seem that only large businesses
have been able to gain true functional benefits while reducing all
average costs for service.  The debate questions, then, become:

[1]  Do readers on the net agree with this assessment?  If so, why?
If not, why?

[2]  Is this assessment generally true today, but likely to be nullified
as more time passes?  Has five years simply been too short a time to
see all of the benefits?

[3]  Could we have done it better and/or differently right from the
start?

[4]  Could we modify the process now in order to once again favor the
average resident?  Would we want to?

I trust that this topic is somewhat relevant, and further that it is
structured so flame-oriented opinions on various companies can be
avoided.

Have fun!  I look forward to seeing responses......

Dean "There will be a quiz Friday" Riddlebarger
Systems Consultant - AT&T
[216] 348-6863
uucp: att!crfax!crnsnwbt!rdr

Disclaimer: When pressed, my employer's Business Plan is Gospel.....:-)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 15:19:19 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreak Attacks Southern Bell/Delray Beach, FL


> Southern Bell Telephone Company officials have acknowledged that a hacker-
> phreak invaded a central office over the weekend, using a computer
> and modem, and reprogrammed their computer in such a way that calls
> intended for the Probation Office were instead routed to a New
> York-based phone sex line.

Of course, after Caller ID is here, it will be possible for these people
to change the number that they are calling from.  I would suggest that
detecting this type of hacking would be much more difficult particularly
because the person could change it repeatedly.

I can just imagine trying to convince a judge that you really did not
make that call; that it was due to a hacker.

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


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

From: ANTON DAINTY <[e-mail]>
Subject: ERICSSON TRANSCEIVERS
Date: 14 Jun 89 21:22:21 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I have two Ericsson cellular transceivers. I would like some info on a
controller for these. Either a third party or enough so I can Hack one.
They are late '87 manufacture and are single channel.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Also, I have some excess T1, T2, and T3 test gear if anyone is interested.
Tau-tron.5104 and 5250(?)
bob 404-874-5051
Thanks

--
Bob Duckworth
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!gp310ad
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "sci.commtech" discussion
Date: 14 Jun 89 23:35:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


Will Martin makes a good point that any discussion on sci.commtech
will be invisible to Internet readers without access to UseNet.

Why not contact [e-mail] and ask him to create a mailing
list gatewayed with the group.  This is already done in moderated form
for TELECOM/comp.dcom.telecom, and unmoderated for
INFO-HAMS/rec.ham-radio.

Mark
--
Mark Smith     |  "Be careful when looking into the distance,       |All Rights
61 Tenafly Road|that you do not miss what is right under your nose."| Reserved
Tenafly,NJ 07670-2643|rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith,[e-mail]
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.

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

From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market
Date: 14 Jun 89 22:29:39 GMT
Reply-To: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 198, message 5 of 6

>A while back, there was some discussion about AT&T PBX equipment (Merlin and
>the like). I'd like to point out that while Merlin offers great features
>(we have one at work), it is probably the most expensive system you can buy.
>(The cheapest Merlin phone is over $200, a "reasonable" one, the kind most
>employees would want (BIS-22) is $395). For larger businesses this is probably
>OK, but I am really surprised that AT&T hasn't entered the "simple PBX"
>market. Panasonic has a 6 CO line, 16 extension system for about $700,
>it requires only one "wizard's console" and supports *standard
>telephones* (my rotary phones from the 30's and 40's work just fine).
>Again, you cannot fault AT&T for quality, but I really wonder about
>their pricing (look at what they charge for a FAX machine these days!!).

*  merlin isn't a PBX; it's an electronic Key system.  Admittedly, the
boundary between PBX and EKTS is fading, but generally, in a PBX,
routine calls are placed to other extensions, and outside calls are
dialed with an access code (like 9).  PBX users generally don't have
access to a specific line, and can't tell when a line is in use.  PBXs
are geared for lots of single-line phones.  An EKTS generally has
multi-line phones, and users compete for the outgoing lines.  Users
either shout at each other (because the office is small) or use one of
several intercom lines.

*  I like my Merlin system.  I compared it with many others, and found
it unbeatable, except for price.  I was interested in top-quality
performance, lots of features, flexibility, expansion.  (8 phones at
home is NOT enough.)

* I agree that prices are a bit high.  The cheapest phone (5
programmable buttons, plus a number of feature buttons) is around
$200, but is widely available used, and there are discounters offering
25% off Merlin systems and components.

*  Merlin phones can be used on larger systems, like AT&T System 75
and System 85 PBXs.

*  Merlin will support single-line phones, but it costs around $300 to
support these.  (Of course, you could have multiple phones on each
adapter.)  With this arrangement, you have access to all the features
that a multibutton phone has.

*  After writing to AT&T to complain about prices, marketing strategy,
etc, I was reminded that they do have two lower priced products:
Spirit, a system with 80% of Merlin's features, but only two styles of
phone.  Pricing is about 20 - 30% less than comparable Merlin systems.
The other one escapes me, but is a simple 2-line system that works
over standard inside wiring.  (would work well at home.)  I had
suggested to AT&T that they market Merlin for home use, but they
countered that most people don't have 4 pair wires running from each
room to a central location.


*  I'll repeat a request from the past:  Does anyone know the protocol
Merlin phones use to transmit button-press information back to the
central unit?

=John Shelton=

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line?
Date: 14 Jun 89 08:02:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 196, message 5 of 6

>If I recall my Part 68 correctly, the rule on Ringer Equivalence
>Numbers is that all devices must not have a combined REN greater than 5.

Bingo!  It's in subpart D.  My Part 68 compilation says:

    "All registered terminal equipment and registered protective circuitry
    which can affect on-hook impedance shall be assigned a Ringer
    Equivalence.  The sum of all such ringer equivalences on a given
    telephone line or loop shall not exceed 5 [...]"

The rules and conditions for determining REN look pretty hairy.  But
you can say that about Part 68 in general.

I remember way-back-when the story that the telco would sometimes check
the impedance of the line through the house, calculate the ringer
equivalence, and determine if you had illegal phones.  I don't know if
this was true, but just the same we had several phones with disconnected
ringers in our house.  (Omigosh.  I hope the statute of limitations has
run out :-)
--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337
"I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Term "Touchtone" -- No Longer Protected?
Date: 13 Jun 89 19:25:20 GMT
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC  New York City


In article <[e-mail]> mit-amt!rdsnyder%mit-amt.
[e-mail] (Ross D. Snyder) writes:
>The story is different for the Bell System symbol. (There's a good article
>in a 1971 issue of Telephony magazine on the design of the Bell System
>symbol and the color scheme of Bell System vehicles.)  The Bell System
>symbol was given to the RBOCs and Bellcore.  AT&T had to come up with its
>new non-concentric circle-within-a-circle-all-made-of-horizontal-lines
>symbol.

The current AT&T logo was originally the ABI (American Bell, Inc.) logo.
ABI was the "non-regulated subsidiary" that the old AT&T set up to market
computers and such things around 1982.  After divestiture, AT&T as a whole
adopted this new logo.  American Bell as such no longer exists, although
there are still AT&T machines whose uucp-name is ab*, like abflx, that
were once ABI machines.

Media watchers may remember ABI as "Baby Bell".
--
John Cowan <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
UUCP mailers:  ...!uunet!hombre!{marob,magpie}!cowan
Fidonet (last resort): 1:107/711
Aiya elenion ancalima!

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 89 01:46:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Cellular Road-Side Phone Sighted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gerry Wheeler)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
>   This morning on my way to work (in Southern California) I saw a cellular
>CalTrans emergency road-side telephone surmounted by a panel of solar cells.

Hmmm. I have seen solar-powered roadside phones in Florida, on I-75 I think.
Anybody know how they are connected? They have a long stick above, which I
assume is an antenna, but I've no idea who or what they speak to.
--
Gerry Wheeler                        Pulaski: "Data has a special way
[phone]                                  with computers."
 ...!watmath!mks!wheels                  Data: just smirks

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #199
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 16 Jun 89 6:38:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #200
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Jun 89 06:25:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Getting credit for a wrong number - post divestiture (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market (Edwin G. Green)
    Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market (Kevin L. Blatter)
    Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Lars J. Poulsen)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Will Martin)
    PBX or EKTS (Peter Dibble)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting credit for a wrong number - post divestiture
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 89 02:51:10 GMT

Tonight I had the need to call Sydney Australia, and as a US Sprint
customer (they give me free accounting codes), I dialed the call
myself but I had a digit wrong so I got the US Sprint operator who
redialed the call for me.  It got connected wrong, so I hung up
after a few minutes of trying to find the person I wanted and finding I
had a wrong number.  I called their operator and they told me to
call customer service, and they would redial the call for me.
Again, I got the same wrong number.  I called customer service,
listened to their tape of advertisements for about ten to fifteen
minutes while 'all reps were busy' and then got a rep who would credit
my account, and told me I had a 0 in the phone number that shouldnt
be there, and to dial it again.  By the way, it would take about
37 days for the credit to make it to my bill.  (They cannot cancel a
billing, just issue a credit, still...).  Total time on hold and
working with the rep: about 20 minutes.

Ok, I redialed the call and it went through fine.

Ok, I wanted to see how AT&T would handle this problem, in the pre
divestiture days, I would have called 0 and the Operator would have
given me an immediate cancelling of the call.  Now:

First I called the 800 number in the phone book for AT&T Business Long
distance, after all, I was calling from a business number.  I got a
voice intercept on the first ring, press 1 if calling about residence
service and 2 if calling about business service.  Neat, I call a
business only number and I hit a redirect.  Ok, I hit 2 and I get a
ring and an answer.  I ask my question, and totally flabergast the
person on the line.  They wanted to give me a credit, not just ask
about one.  I asked how to do it, they replied: I don't know, you have
to call xxxx (a different 800 #), but its only answered from 8:30 to
5:00.

I hung up and then tried the 800 number from my phone book for the
residence users.  I got a live person immediately, asked the question
and was told to call them and they can issue a credit, or immediately,
dial 00 (102880 if not primary) and the operator can still intercept
it, sometimes.

Total time to get the info from AT&T about 5 minutes.

My overall feeling, I liked it better before, when all I did was call 0
and it worked, however, although AT&T answers faster, their people are
often no better trained than the others (I have run into this AT&T
problem before).  US Sprint just needs better billing controls, as they
have needed for several years, and more reps to answer the phones.
(Perhaps I should start billing them for my time on hold...... :-)).

=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd            FAX:   [phone]

[Moderator's Note: For credit from AT&T for a wrong number, you need merely
to dial the operator. She will put through a credit then, and it will cancel
the call just dialed. It helps to call the operator *immediatly* following
dialing a wrong number. PT]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
From: ihlpl![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 89 08:00:00 GMT

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

>. . . I am really surprised that AT&T hasn't entered the "simple PBX"
>market. Panasonic has a 6 CO line, 16 extension system for about $700,
>it requires only one "wizard's console" and supports *standard
>telephones* (my rotary phones from the 30's and 40's work just fine).

You might look at AT&T's Spirit and (if it is still around) EKTS.

---
Edwin G. Green
AT&T Bell Laboratories        Naperville, Illinois, USA
IHP 1F-550            312-416-7187
UUCP: att!ihlpl!egg

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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market
Date: 15 Jun 89 19:55:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John L.
Shelton) writes:
> *  After writing to AT&T to complain about prices, marketing strategy,
> etc, I was reminded that they do have two lower priced products:
> Spirit, a system with 80% of Merlin's features, but only two styles of
> phone.  Pricing is about 20 - 30% less than comparable Merlin systems.
> The other one escapes me, but is a simple 2-line system that works
> over standard inside wiring.  (would work well at home.)  I had
> suggested to AT&T that they market Merlin for home use, but they
> countered that most people don't have 4 pair wires running from each
> room to a central location.

I think that he is referring to a System 2000 which sells at the
local AT&T phone center for $349.95 for a master unit (which one is
required) and $219.95 for each extension phone.  You can only have
a maximum of 2 lines, but I don't know what the maximum number of
stations is.

I would love to buy a Merlin system for my house, but I can't afford
it.  (No employee discounts on Merlins :-( )  I guess that I'll have
to settle for AT&T 412's.

> *  I'll repeat a request from the past:  Does anyone know the protocol
> Merlin phones use to transmit button-press information back to the
> central unit?

Merlin phones (the digital phones, anyway) use a proprietary protocol
called DCP (Digital Communications Protocol).  I'm sure (although I
have no first-hand knowledge) that the button-press information is
passed via DCP.  Because DCP is proprietary, you won't find the
internals discussed anywhere.  Sorry.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs

Disclaimer:  My employer has never asked me to speak for it and therefore
I only speak for myself.


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and the 'Simple PBX' Market
Date: 16 Jun 89 03:49:58 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John L.
Shelton) writes:
 ...
> *  Merlin phones can be used on larger systems, like AT&T System 75
> and System 85 PBXs.
 ...

No, the multi-button sets which work with Merlin are analog sets
with a digital signaling system for sending button stimuli, and
receiving lamp updates.

The similar-looking multi-button sets sold with System 75 and 85 are
digital sets that encode the voice as well as the signaling
information into an ISDN-like bit-stream.

The Merlin sets do, however, work with System 25 -- a true PBX with
some key-system features.  On this switch, the voice gets digitized
by the port circuit in the switch, not in the telephone set.

--
Dave Levenson                Voice: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.               Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA              UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]      AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 89 14:29:02 PDT
From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California

There is a general perception that the net effect of the ATT breakup has
been to shift rates from long distance service to local service, and
that only large businesses have gained overall reductions is the cost of
thier phone service.

I believe that the restructuring of rates has been a good thing. The
long distance telephone business today is competitive and in almost
every way superior to the conditions of 5 years ago. At the same time,
the technolgy of the network has been brought up to date; the last few
crossbar exchanges are being replaced by new all-digital exchanges as
we discuss this. On the other hand, the Reagan era deregulation has
created a bad situation in the local service area, not unlike the cable
TV business: A monopoly provider has been allowed to raise rates and
restructure rates with inadequate supervision.

At the outset, pessimists claimed that without the motherly guidance of
AT&T, the nation's telephone network would fall apart as
ultra-short-term profit hunting discouraged capital investment. This has
not happened at all. The breakup has largely achieved the goals that
drove it.  The ripple effects of changes has been such that it would
have been impossible to predict the consequences of minor changes to the
plan at the outset.

Brought up in "socialist" Europe, I believe that all regulation of the
business market should favor "the little guy", i.e. residential
customers as well as family businesses. The IBMs of this world can look
after them selves quite well.

I would like to see more regulation of the local telephone service, to
include the following:

(1) More readable phone bills. All mandatory charges, taxes etc included
    in the basic monthly price of service, and all optional components
    identified on separate line items.

(2) Elimination of the "federally mandated LD access charges". Since
    this charge goes straight to the local service provider as part of
    the general revenue stream, there is no need to list it separately,
    nor to mandate a particular amount. This is sheer obfuscation.

(3) Equitable charges for all customers. Includes elimination of CENTREX
    service. If your subscription includes 20 instruments, each with its
    own wire pair into a switch at CO premises, this is really 20 lines.
    The pricing of Centrex service to pretend that this is a virtual PBX
    is sheer obfuscation.

(4) Least call call routing. If you do not specifically request a
    specific long distance carrier, the local operating company should
    route the call on the carrier with the lowest list price for the
    given origin and destination. With stored program control exchanges,
    this would be fairly simple to implement, and would spawn a new
    level of competition between the long distance companies.

--
 Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>     [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
 ACC Customer Service                Affiliation stated for identification only
                 My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

Date:     Thu, 15 Jun 89 8:40:51 CDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Divestiture, Business and the General Public

>[1]  Do readers on the net agree with this assessment?  If so, why?
>If not, why?

I wholeheartedly agree that the ordinary residential customer has been a
total loser from this fiasco. Many of the people on this list may
respond and say "not so", because they have personally benefitted. Often
this is because they make many long-distance calls. I want to point out
that this is NOT "ordinary" -- in fact, it is quite the exception.

I define the "ordinary" customer as people with POTS, no fancy special
services, probably not even touchtone, who have had plain flat-rate local
service for many years, and who have seen their bills escalate far more
than inflation would justify, because of asinine things like the "access
charge" and the forcing of measured service in many areas.

The only benefit that has come to these people has been the elimination
of the telco restrictions on hooking up your own phone equipment, and
this has largely been negated by the idiotic changes in the repair service
situation. It could have been achieved by a simple mandate that the local
telco couldn't bitch at you for hooking up extra telephones, answering
machines, etc., unless you actually caused demonstrable harm to the
network. Nothing else needed to change!

>[2]  Is this assessment generally true today, but likely to be nullified
>as more time passes?  Has five years simply been too short a time to
>see all of the benefits?

No. Things always get worse. This is a general principle of life, and is
no different in this aspect than any other. Technology may improve, but
other things always come along to make the end total result worse.

>[3]  Could we have done it better and/or differently right from the start?

Certainly. We should have left the existing network as-is. Allow
competing LD companies to fight with AT&T but under strict regulation.
AT&T could have competed on price BY REDUCING EXPENSES, keeping the
existing "Bell System" intact. For example, Southestern Bell here in St.
Louis spent millions of dollars on new office buildings with fancy
furnishings, plush executive offices, and lots of perks. They could have
reduced expenses by having offices just like the one I work in myself,
with plain grey-metal institutional furniture and minimal fanciness. No
money spent on political and charitable contricutions, and no inflated
executive salaries. (No reason why anyone should be paid more than the
government GS schedule, in any industry anywhere.:-)

>[4]  Could we modify the process now in order to once again favor the
>average resident?  Would we want to?

Yes. We can roll back things to pre-divestiture days. Sure it won't be
easy. It will be simpler if we first kill all the lawyers...

The whole damn thing started out with people making too many LD calls
and complaining about how much they cost. The point is that it is just
flat WRONG to make most LD calls that are made (and, for that matter,
most local calls). WRITE LETTERS! LEAVE THE DAMN TELEPHONE ON THE HOOK!

Grump!
Will Martin

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 89 11:59:22 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PBX or EKTS

I've been reading the messages about PBX/Key systems with interest.

I called AT&T to get information about their systems, and got a good dose
of discouragement.  They only sound usable if you have no existing equipment
like modems, fax machines, and telephones.

Was the sales person right?  The only way to put a modem/fax/phone on
an AT&T key system is through a dedicated port that passes straight through
to an outside line?

Are there systems comparable with AT&T's but able to support my existing
stuff?  Why did AT&T fail to support the conventional telephone interface?

What do these systems do in case of a power failure or a hardware/software
failure?

Will any of them let me backspace in a number I'm dialing?

Peter

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #200
*****************************